Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/94 -" -"- "~.~ --- .-.. -~ - = = - -,- - .. 0 , I " ~t( ~ . I ' - I' rr- !~ B A K E R 5 FIE L D ~ MEMORANDUM I II 'I May 6, 1994 I -. : TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL I FR~: ALAN ~DY, CITI ~~ER I SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. A memo is enclosed from the state showing that the City of Bakersfield1s population is officially over 201,000. 2. We are going to be extending drug testing to all employees including seasonals. It is prudent as a liability control measure. In the past we / have done all but some seasonals. 3. The lobbyist has been working and calling on the transportation bill and making efforts to get Hwy. 178 project as an authorization action out of Congress. We don It yet know the result of those efforts. 4. There is yet another letter to Kern County on the issue of tax splits and their policy on that enclosed for your information. 5. Please be aware that the Budget is presented at the next pre-meeting Council workshop. It is important that you try to attend and be on time. 6. A status report on a variety of projects from the Planning Department is II enclosed for your information. 1 7. There are two memos enclosed from the Pol ice Department. One discusses their space needs. The other discusses the disposition of a recurring request to allow handicapped people to enforce handicapped parking regulations. 8. If you know of any people willing to donate time and effort to the acquisition of the Fox please bring the names forward. It needs a core support group right away or the window of opportunity to acquire will go away. GENINFO.506 , I I .. I - , I ,I .. .---...." ---~.. ~,. ". , I ' ,. '" ;..';;; SLATE OF'tALlFORNIA PETE WILSON. Governor - . - " Ii ~ I DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ~ 915 L STREET SACRAMENTO. CA 95814-4998 I May 2, 1994 PRICE ANØ-P-OIWLAIION-/ÒATA FOR LOCAL JURISDICTIONS Appropriations Limit Article XIII B of the California Constitution specifies that appropriations made by State and local governments may increase annually by a factor comprised of the change in population combined with either the chang~ in California per capita personal income or the change in the 1 oca 1 assessment roll due to 1 oca 1 nonresidential construction. The Department of Finance is mandated to provide the population and California per capita personal income change data for local jurisdictions to calculate their appropriation limits. The change in the 1 oca 1 assessment roll due to 1 oca 1 nonresidential construction may be obtained from your county Assessor. The enclosures contain price and population factors for setting your 1994-95 appropriation limit. ¡" Enclosure I provides the change in California's per capita personal income price factor. An example of how to ut i 1 i ze thi s pri ce factor and the popu 1 at i on percentage change factor in calculating ~our 1994-95 limit is included. Enclosure II provi des the popul at i on percentage change factors for cit i es and counties. Enclosure IIA provides the population percentage change factor for counties' and for the total incorporated population of each county. These population percentage changes were prepared pursuant to Sections 2227 and 2228 of the Revenue and Taxation Cede and are calculated as of January 1, 1994. Section 2227 specifies that state mental institutions, federal mil itary bases and state and federal prisons be excluded from the percentage change calculations. Population Factors for Cities and Counti.s Cities and counties should consult Section 7901 of the Government Code for the various population factors that may be used for purposes of change in population. Population Factors for Special Districts Special districts should consult Section 7901 of the Government Code and Section 2228 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for the various population factors that may be used for purposes of change in population. . '?~f.(;" <I "" -. ~", - May 2, 1994 .-~ Page 2 Article XIII B, Section 9(c) states that speci al districts in exi stence on January 1, 1978, which levied a tax of 12-1/2 cents or less per $100 assessed value on property within their boundaries as of the 1977-78 fiscal year are permanently exempt from establishing appropriation limits. In addition, any special districts in existence or created thereafter whose sole funding source is from nonproceeds of taxes are also exempt. Therefore, special districts which meet either of these two tests do not need to establish appropriation limits. This 1 etter may be received by special districts, which were exempt from establishing appropriation limits by Article XIII B, Section 9(c). Receipt of this letter should not be construed as a requirement by the Department of Finance to establish an appropriation limit. Certification The certification program applies to cities and counties only and does not apply to special districts. Sections 11005.6 and 30462.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 21022 Streets and Highways Code, and Section 38421 Vehicle Code specify that if a Department of Finance population estimate is greater than the current certified population the Department shall automatically file a certified copy with the Controller not less than 25 days nor more than 30 days after completion of the estimate. The Department will certify the higher estimate unless a written request not to certify is received by the Department from the city or county within 25 days of the completion of the estimate. A city or county requesting that their higher estimate not be certified will remain at the current certified population. The Department of Fj nance wi 11 not certify a popul at i on est i mate that is lower than the current certified population unless requested to do so by a city or a county. The request for certification must be received by the Department on or before June 1, 1994. Further Information Questions regarding per capita income data should be referred to the Economic Research Unit at (916) 322-2263. Questions concerning population should be directed to the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 322-4651. Sincerely, ~ l.~ RUSSELL S. GOULD Director Enclosures I 1 ,---'---' . /~.. ~ö:' '.' ,~ Enclosure I A. Pri ce Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost-of-living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. Local jurisdictions may select either the percentage change in Ca 1 iforn i a per capita personal income or the percentage change in the local assessment roll due to the addition of local nonresidential new construction. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage changes to be used in setting 1994-95 appropriation limit are: Per Capita Personal Income , Fiscal Pe:centa~e change Year (FY) over pn or year 1994-95 0.71 B. Following is an example using sample population changes and the I changes in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 1994-95 appropriations limit.* 1994-95: Per Capita Change = 0.71 percent Population Change = 1.43 percent Per Capita converted to a ratio: 0.71 + 100 = 1. 0071 100 Population converted to a ratio: 1. 43 + 100 = 1. 0143 100 Calculation of factor for FY 94-95: 1.0071 x 1.0143 = 1.0215 II * Conversion of the factor to a ratio eliminates minus numbers. II il II 1:1 'c- --" -,z.~ ~ -~ ,~ ',- ,,-- ..~ I ENCLOSURE II Ilil ANNUAL PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN POPULATION MINUS EXCLUSIONS* JANUARY I, 1993 DATE PRINTED II TO JANUARY 1, 1994 AND TOTAL POPULATION JANUARY 1, 1994. 04/28/94 I I I POPULATION MINUS EXCLUSIONS I I I I I I I I POPULATION I I ANNUAL I I G TOTAL L COUNTY I PERCENT CHANGE I I I ~PJ:JLATJ.QN_",/ CITY I 1993 TO 1994 I 1-1~93 I 1-1-94 I ~1~1~9~J I I I I I KERN , ARVIN I 4.62 I 10,106 I 10,573 I 10,573 (BAKERSFIELD? I 3.37 I 194,955 I 201,520 I L 201,~- CALIFORNIA CITY I 2.03 I 8,567 I 8,741 I 8,741 DELANO I 3.24 I 25,287 I 26,107 I 29,944 MARICOPA I 0.80 I 1,256 I 1,266 I 1,266 MCFARLAND I 1.13 I 7,338 I 7,421 I 7,633 RIDGECREST I 0.82 I 27,206 I 27,428 I 29,895 SHAFTER I 1.96 I 10,508 I 10,714 I 11,139 TAFT I 0.21 I 6,169 I 6,182 I 6,662 TEHACHAPI I 1.79 I 6,666 I 6,785 I 6,785 WASCO I 2.28 I 13,263 I 13,566 I 17,776 UNINCORPORATED I 0.72 I 268,852 I 270,778 I 284,821 KERN COUNTY 1.88 580,173 591,081 617,004 . ,~REceiVED' L 2~] CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ~I , * EXCLUSIONS INCLUDE STATE MENTAL INSTITUTIONS, FEDERAL MILITARY BASES AND STATE AND FEDERAL PRISONS. PAGE 1 I ,-~- "j ~ ,\ 1:,<" 4. ': - BAKERSFIELD II Alan Tandy. City Manager II May 4, 1994 Mr. Joe Drew, County Administrative Officer County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Ii Dear Mr. Drew: II At a meeting in your office on Wednesday, April 27, we discussed the County's new tax II split proposal and the respective positions of the City and the County in regard to that II matter. In my opinion, further discussion and an exchange of information is still II warranted. II " I~I My sense of the County's basic view related to the historic tax split is that the County I has fallen on hard times, and is seeking a change in the tax split that would yield the County more revenue. You have indicated to the City that the 1978 division of taxes is not based on any consistency or logic and, therefore, should not continue to be considered as a way of doing business. In addition, you have provided a financial model alleging that the County does not recover enough money from property taxes to pay for the costs of services you are providing. What troubles me, is the arbitrary change in procedure at a time when the County may be in financial straits, yet there appears to be no recognition that cities are also realizing those same financial difficulties. The County and City of Bakersfield have a tax split structure which has been in place and adhered to by both parties since 1978. The City has also seen revenues generated from property taxation reduced to the point that they are not adequate to cover service delivery costs. We find it difficult now, to all of a sudden relinquish something that was cooperatively accepted, and for which we have worked through to find additional creative methods to maintain financial solvency. Rather than the County suggest an alternative that would essentially throw the City into a worse financial position, we have offered and II will continue to offer other alternatives we believe would have some mutual gain and/or II benefit to both entities. 1 II Discussions from prior meetings, telephone calls and written communications with the County have highlighted the City's willingness to bring this matter to an amicable II conclusion. It is important to again express to you at this time, what the City believes II are some of the significant factors surrounding the tax split issue: City of Bakersfield. City Manager's Office. 1501 Truxtun Avenue 'I Bakersfield. California. 93301 Ii ------------ - ----'-, ,\, ---- ,., " "'", Mr. Joe Drew, County Administrative Officer May 4, 1994 Page -2- 1. Because of our extraordinarily irregular boundaries, taxpayers are experiencing a duplication of services in some instances and poor or no services in other instances. Public health, safety and street maintenance are just a few of the areas in which we have an opportunity to raise the level of service to our citizens if the inefficiencies inherent in having irregular boundaries were alleviated. The City of Bakersfield is poised to conduct a proactive campaign to en~ourage residents within the islands and peninsulas to annex to the City so that they may experience an appropriate and effective level of public service. We need the cooperation and support of the County to accomplish this goal. One of our greatest challenges is in the area of public safety. Take, for example, the proposed annexation of Union #10. The City currently provide services on the west side of Union and the County provides services on the east. Our records indicate that last year; there were: 5 murders 6 rapes 41 robberies 70 aggravated assaults II 220 burglaries Ii 103 larcenies :1 39 motor vehicle th'eft II Ii There were a total of 2,348 police calls for service in the Union #10 area. In " Ii II order for the County Sheriff to get officers into the area, he has to take either II a direct route from the south, or drive considerable time through the existing City of Bakersfield boundaries. The City on the other hand, regularly patrols II all four sides of the Union #10 area. II Simply based on proximity and efficiency, the City can provide quicker II II response in Union #10, which would reduce the travel time for both public II safety departments. Our Police Department estimates that the number of II serious crimes and police calls in that area require at least three officers to II respond. In effect, Kern County would realize a benefit equivalent to three full-time police officers in reduced response requirements which could II be reallocated to law enforcement functions elsewhere in the County, or I I' II which could be allocated to other priorities as the Board of Supervisors " Ii sees fit. This is but one of many ways both entities could realize savings " through boundary corrections. Our problem has been that the County is I; I determined to deal with the revenue side of the equation. Why isn't the I expenditure side also open for discussion when the dollar value is significant? 'We again ask for approval of our proposal on Union #10. ,¡ -------, i" <:- - Mr. Joe Drew, County Administrative Officer May 4, 1994 Page -3- : ,II The City has asked for the County's help in building a positive working Ii relationship with LAFCO. We believe our experiences and the decisions made in regard to proposed annexations to date have been less that objective, and we would like to see what we consider "discriminatory" tactics by LAFCO ceased. It is our hope that with the City and County working through its differences, LAFCO can begin to provide us With the kind of assistance and advice necessary to move forward with proposed annexations in a timely and effective manner. 2. It has been said that the City is predatory in looking at annexations. In other words, because of the annexation of a shopping center, and certain other proposals, some County officials believe the City has merely looked only toward revenue generators for our annexation program. . !i We have previously offered, and herein renew our offer, to go through a planning process with the County that would identify Ilhigh cost to serve areas" as well as revenue generators, and bring through both such annexations during the same time frame. This concept makes balancing the types of annexations involved an issue of mutual negotiation. It also assures the County that, if you are losing a revenue generator, you will be losing a high cost to serve area also, such as Union #10, at the same time. Thus, your ledger sheet has offsetting revenues and expenditures. . II 3. Specifically for the Rosedale #5 annexation, the City offered the County i ! exactly what it asked for on current taxes with the City receiving a future ;¡ split based on historic levels. We view this annexation as being a special ii circumstance. This has, once again, the position of holding you harmless , from losses. We offer this option as it pertains to Rosedale #5 only. The thirty (30) day negotiating period is now well underway. We fail to understand, on this one, why we continue to get resistance when, on current taxes, we are offering exactly what you requested. . 4. The City has previously agreed to work with the County on metropolitan- wide revenue issues which might help provide a support basis for certain services being provided by the County. Establishing a metropolitan-wide parks district and library assessments are two such areas of interest. These kinds of opportunities represent additional ways in which the two , entities can work together to help alleviate the potential hardships we are II experiencing. I I " I, -' ;- -, Mr. Joe Drew, County Administrative Officer May 4, 1994 Page -4- 5. On raw land annexations, we have proposed keeping the historic tax split in effect. This was an effort to start to address the components of the issue piece-meal. For instance, if in 1993/94 the County received $1,000 (with the 55 percent/historic percentage of property tax) on a piece of agricultural land, three years later, it would receive $10,000 due to enhanced valuation because of development. No doubt the County would recognize this as an enhancement to its tax base, particularly since it would not be directly providing police, street and related services. The County's rejection of this offer essentially inhibits growth in the City that could enhance the County's tax receipts as well as the City's. 6. As an additional note, the Kern County City Manager's group has offered to work on behalf of all cities on a broader based area of eliminating service duplication, clarifying boundaries and elimination of additional and !I unnecessary layers of government. This, too, has cost saving opportunities I' II County-wide. ,I 7. We have agreed to look at issues such as assumption of responsibility for certain County parks and/or looking at library services. In our view, another way that savings from correcting current boundary inefficiencies could be reinvested by the City would be in these areas. We are awaiting data on the library system from your office in order to be more able ~o fully evaluate this subject. Any substantive action in this area, however, would be based upon II making significant progress in the boundary/inefficiencies areas as a ;1 condition of the City assuming responsibilities~ II Ii ~ In summary, since negotiations began, the City of Bakersfield has put forward several " proposed concepts in an attempt to bring this issue to resolve with the County, yet none of these alternatives have proved satisfactory to you. The message we continually receive is the same, II the County has fallen on hard times and is seeking a change in the tax split that would yield it more revenue.1I The City believes it has gone to great lengths to negotiate a mutually-beneficial agreement, and is once again renewing its offer to work on the above concepts or other areas of mutual interest you might identify. If the dispute, however, simply comes down to whether the County now takes 80 percent of all revenue on all annexations, or the City is prevented from future annexations, we would have no choice but to inform our' citizens and business community of the County's unwillingness to work cooperatively for a mutually-beneficial solution. The damage potential to Castle & Cooke and the Kern County Water Agency, II I I J ----,--- -,- '. .- ô Mr. Joe Drew, County Administrative Officer May 4, 1994 Page -5- as discussed in your office on April 20, should serve as a prime example of what could arise should this area of dispute linger without prompt resolution. Sincerely, 12~ 7t Alan Tandy City Manager AT.alb I ; II I,I, I: I II II II II I: II II I' I! I! 'I I, 11 il II I' ,! II il i I ~ 1 ~," . . '" .., NOTES FOR ALAN FROM JACK May 4, 1994 1. General Plan Amendments: The 10 cases we had scheduled for hearing by the Planning Commission on June 16, 1994, have been reduced to 7. The applicants have requested consideration as a part of the next cycle (September). Those deferred cases are: (Segment I) De WaIt's request to change the golf course, etc. in RiverIakes; (Segment II Milazzo's request to change from Office to ommerc oc ae urnt last year); and (Segment VIII) Cuesta's request to relocate commercial at Renfro Road. Those that remain and the anticipated issues with them are: Segment III - Castle & Cooke, 309 acres from Industrial to Low Medium Density Residential and zoning M-2 to R-2. Shifting the general plan from industrial to residential would be fine. It was first pitched to me as an area for a retirement community but that idea has not been reflected in the application. The issue will likely be over adding 309 acres of R-2 along Gosford after having hearing several statements from the same landowners that they have more R-2 zoning along Gosford than they can ever reasonably use. . Segment IV - Castle & Cooke request to reduce the general plan density on 12 acres from High Medium Residential to Low Medium Residential in Silver Creek along Panama Lane will debated as to whether the property should be developed as apartments or made to match the subdivision next door rather than the intermediate LMR requested which would likely lead to a development of substandard lots. , 'I 11 Segment V - Castle & Cooke request to change 16.4 acres at Casa Lorna Drive and I Madison Avenue from Industrial to High Medium Residential. The project is a good one - interim housing with child care managed by an adjacent church and next to a school and park. The down side is that the project is directly in the flight departure path of the airpark subjecting it to low frequent overflight and noise. Segment VI - DeWalt request to change 4.78 acres from General Commercial to High Medium Residential at Hageman Road Jewetta Avenue. This would be done to expand the adjacent small lot subdivision. There is some staff concern over the property's shape and ability to accommodate the development and over the residual size of the I commercial property. I I Segment VII - Cleo Foran has requested a change from LR to LMR for 20 acres along Wible Road between the newly designated commercial center and the canal. It looks like a good apartment site but it could go small lot subdivision. I 'I _n___~----n. "- -- I ~' ---,----- "'" '? Co" -2- II Segment IX - Milazzo (for St. Claire) to change HMR to GC on 15.43 acres at Stine Road and Panama Lane again. There are already two commercial corners at the intersection and no trade offs are proposed. Staff has consistently recommended against this project. Segment X - City of Bakersfield request to change 27-Vz acres at Mt. Vernon and Hwy. 58 from Public to Industrial. It think we have reached an accommodation of the neighboring high school by zoning the property M-1 and limiting eligible conditional uses. , One of our former Planning Commissioners raised the issue of public agency competition with private real estate development. 2; Planning Commission is involved in a hearing of the 26.27 acre rezoning request from commercial to residential at Berkshire Road and Wible. Road. This zone change is related to the Council's decision to adopt commercial zoning at the southwest corner of Panama Lane and Wible Road by the Council's condition ! that the commercial zoning at Panama Lane would be effective upon the rezoning ! from commercial at Berkshire. Well, some of the property owners at Berkshire Ii hav~ told the Planning Commi~sion that they w~ to keep their commercial ~ zomng. P,5; Y:t'- p.c. d,J. ~/~V- ~e.. ~/e- ~u;'Y~ ¿..,... ~ 3. The criteria for permitting exceptions to the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance to approve subdivision of substandard lots are being considered by the Planning Commission in public hearings. I expect they will take comments and make a few themselves tonight but continue deliberations over the next couple of months to thrash out the issues. '. 4. As a follow-up on Councilwoman Brunni's request, staff is preparing a mailing list for an invitation to property owners west of Kern Canyon No.1 Annexation to meet with us and discuss the annexation process. 5. Last week Katherine Stone and Judy Skousen conducted a fine workshop on Brown Act, Conflict of Interest and the legal trends in planning. Unfortunately, we ran out of time and did not get into the role and responsibility of the Planning Commission. II Related to that, we are finalizing our outline of the Planning Commission II Orientation Workshops with the Planning Commission tonight. Councilwoman Brunni has made some positive suggestions on items to be covered. :1 II " .,-----, I .... d-' .' , ~ £> '" -3- 6. The West Rosedale Specific Plan comment period has been set to end on May 13, 1994. Staff will be attending another public meeting tonight covering this plan. We are preparing a letter critical of the plan even as reduced because it still does not resolve the issues of water supply and traffic. Even more fundamentally, we don't see the rationale for it. 7. Habitat Conservation Plans - I must not put my thoughts in writing. Glaciers move faster! But one of the latest mind boggles happened at a meeting to discuss the Valley HCP. The Fish and Wildlife Service sent two delegations to the meeting. One group of them spoke in support of a free market approach to its implementation while the other group of them argued against it. 8. On a good note, I am very proud of my building inspection plan checkers for their hard work on the Convention Center Hotel plans. They concentrated on them all day and most of the night to get them checked and back to the architect within 24 hours. That is Service! No other projects were adversely affected because we had a second group dedicated to keeping all other plan checks on schedule. 9. We have received a pre-release of the 'official population estimate from the state. It gives our January 1, 1994, population as 201,769. p:jack5.5 . '"" /'- I r I PO 64-2759 , MEMORANDUM May 3, 1994 TO ~AN TMmY, CIIT ~~GER W FROM STEVE BRUMMER, CHIEF OF POLICE SUBJECT POLICE DEPARTMENT SPACE NEEDS The attached memorandums reflect concerns expressed by the department's property manager and records administrator relative to the lack of available space for storage of records and property. The problem is compounded by the fact that purge criteria exists for both records and property. Some records must be kept indefinitely. There is no available space within the police building to store property and we are trying to create additional space for records, however we can only manage short term needs. SEB/vrf II II RECEIVED ~ CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE ¡ I :1 'I I' II I I I /0. , PO 64-2759 " MEMORANDUM APRIL 25, 1994 TO CAPT SORRELL, SUPPORT SERVICES FROM KEN BLINN, PROPERTY ROOM SUBJECT PROPERTY STORAGE I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY MR. LARRY JAMISON, SUPERINTENDANT OF 'I GENERAL SERVICES, THAT THE CITY MAY SELL THE OLD CORPORATION '!I YARD WITHIN THE YEAR. MR. JAMISON MEASURED THE POLICE STORAGE AREA AND FOUND THAT WE ARE NOW USING APPROXIMATELY 4,712 SQ FT OF STORAGE SPACE. THIS INCLUDES 2100 SQ FT FOR BIKES AND RELATED ITEMS, 930 SQ FT FOR REGULAR PROPERTY CASES, 836 SQ FT FOR ASSET FORFEITURE BINS AND AUCTION STORAGE, AND 846 SQ FT FOR LARGE GROUND STACK ITEMS, NOW LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE. IN THE EVENT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT LOSES THIS AREA, IT WILL CREATE AN IMMEDIATE STORAGE CRISIS FOR THE PROPERTY SECTION. FURTHER CONSIDERATION. SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT OUR FOOTAGE NEEDS HAVE INCREASED STEADILY OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WITHOUT ANY SIGNS OF STOPPING. ~~ ~ --- II " , u_----- ,------ ~, .--. .. -, -.. I Ii PO 64.2759 . " MEMORANDUM April 28, 1994 TO Honorable Mayor Price and Council Members steve, Brummer, Chief of Police -~ FROM SUBJECT Handicap Parking Enforcement Proposal A.A.C.E.E. Police department staff completed a study of a proposal by the ""',.',.',- .. American Association of Compliance, Education and Enforcement", .to '.' contract with the City for enforcement services of handicapped parking violations. I have personally met with the association's founder, Dennis Milfield, on a number of occasions concerning the proposal. A memorandum prepared by Lt. Alan Zachary outlining various matters of concern is attached. -- - In addition to issues outlined in Lt. Zachary's report, I have a number of problems with the proposal. First, I think it inappropriate to base operating revenues on the number of citations issued. It would be much like compensating traffic officers for each. citation they write. This approach discourages discretion by issuJn,g?';~:' officers. In addition, anticipated revenues projected in this' '.. )sz.{~i\,.. proposal are much higher than our estimates. . '~:.;[:" In 1989, the issue of enforcement in handicapped parking spaces':' ., ,. ,,~t~¡*-~', addressed. The Police department dev~sed a. form allowing citi~C\?p(~~~;,';,c issue citations for such violations. . These forms have been usêá!','~nly: .}:."!., on rare occasions. (a sample form is attached) " . I have also attached a copy of a similar proposal by A.A.C.E.E.for"" the City of Modesto. Ironically, the anticipated revenues are tPE!~';':'::~~~;::' same as that projected for Bakersfield. I cannot support a prop,:"""': ':-' that creates an enterprise through revenues received from fines..:! . . -- Finally, I am concerned with this propósal with respect to thé'; . "~, , ,', -- ,-"", , ~".' County Sheriff's Department experience with this program. Sheri:~t;;:J:(~ personnel cited liability exposure, and training needs as cri tièãJ,..:::'-"A issues resulting in termination of the program. I recognize that:';.:~,;.... handicapped parking enforcement is a necessary service, however, I, 'do -.. . not support the current A.A.C.E.E. proposal. '~~~:~~ """. .>",'," SEB/vrf u ---.- co: Councilmember Brunni ;--, Councilmember DeMond Councilmember Edwards ,. -- Councilmember McDermott Councilmember Rowles Councilmember Salvaggio Councilmember Smith Attachments (3) -, i' :; . PO 64.2759 MEMORANDUM MARCH 22, 1994 TO S. E. BRUMMER, CHIEF OF POLICE FROM A. L. ZACHARY, LIEUTENANT, OPERATIONS DIVISION SUBJECT ANALYSIS OF THE "AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF COMPLIANCE, EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT" (A. C. E.) HANDICAPPED PARKING ENFORCEMENT PROPOSAL I have been examining the A. C . E. Handicapped Parking Enforcement Proposal submitted to you by its author/founder/ Dennis C. Milfield, P.O. Box 6063, Tehachapi, California 93582, 805-823-8514. The proposal indicates that A. C . E. is a non -profit organization engaged in programs for the development of citizens with disabilities. The goals of the organization are to provide a service to the community and educate citizens for the need and compliance of laws pertaining to citizens with disabilities, and to promote the abilities I and' accomplishments of citizens with disabilities. A. C. E. would like to forma "Special Enforcement Unit" composed of disabled citizens to enforce the compliance of disability laws (i. e., traffic violations, business compliance - with California State Accessibility Standards, and Federal Health and Safety Laws. .' t," ,:c-" Acting in the capacity of a private contractor, A. C . E. would like to fund this projE!ct with a 50-50 percent split of revenues generated from violation of disabilitylawsi' predominately C. V . C. and M. C. violations. Further, A.C.E. goes so far as to recommend that the city's share of the revenues be utilized by public safety (Le., police and fire departments). Revenues retained by A. C . E. will be used to cover operating expenses, salaries, and services. The A.C.E. proposal indicates that due to increased cut-backs and continued city growth, the ever increasing burden on law enforcement agencies has created a "gap" in the enforcement of handicapped parking laws. This statement is clearly assumptive by Mr. Milfield. C . V . C. violations, and in particular handicapped parking violations have always been a priority as far as observed violations by Operations personnel. According to Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, the majority of handicapped parking spaces are in the downtown business area. The staffing level has remained the same in that area for many years with two full time police service technicians assigned to parking enforcement. There are also seven additional P. S. T . 's assigned to Operations with their duties to enforce C. V . C. and M. C. parking violations throughout the city. It appears that driver awareness and the stiff monetary penalties of the handicapped parking violations have greatly reduced the enforcement need and has shown increased compliance from the motoring public. From personal obseJ'Vation as the 1 'I '- 1 . '. ANALYSIS OF A.C.E. HANDICAPPED PARKING ENFORCEMENT PROPOSAL MARCH 22, 1994 Administrative Adjudication Parking Citation Review Officer (pursuant to C. V. C. Article 3, Sections 40200.7 and 40215) I have found that the majority of contesting violators of handicapped parking laws are, in fact, disabled citizens. The majority of these violations have been for a failure to properly display a placard or displaying an expired placard. In his proposal Mr. Milfield optimistically indicates that his organization could issue (20) ticketed violations per 24 hour period. The proposal translates (20) unlawful parking in handicapped zone violations at $282.00 each at a total of $5,640.00 per day. Plus, (2) C. V. C. violations of 4461c (Misuse of placard) at $1,000.00 each per day at $2,000.00 with a total per day of $7,640.00. Mr. Milfield has failed to consider the fact that not all of the fine is returned as city revenue. Of the $282.00 fine the City of Bakersfield receives 81.25% of the fine and County of Kern receives 18.75% of the fine. The proposal also indicates that the fine for violation of CVC 4461c is $1000.00, when in fact, as per the bail schedule it is a $270.00 fine. Mr. Milfield's projections of increased revenue to the city are at best optimistic, if not arbitrary. During calendar year 1993, the city received $419,000.00 in revenue from parking violations. There were 310 citations issued by the B. P. D. for violation of handicapped parking laws, less than (1) citation per day. -. - Statistics indicate that of these (310) citations 95 violators have paid the fine. Twenty-four violators have received court dispositions (prior to July 1, 1993 per A.B. 408) and 94 violators have had D.M. V. holds placed their registration. The remainder fall into the categories of dismissed, registered owner information pending or invalid, or delinquent notice sent. As I am sure you Ire aware effective July 1, 1993, per A.B. 408 parking citations were decriminalized with only civil tort penalties, therefore many of these violation fines will go unpaid with the only penalty of withheld registration or possibly vehicle impoundment. Had all the handicapped parking violations that were issued in 1993, been paid the city would have only received slightly over $71,000.00. The A.C.E. Proposal indicates that with a 50/50 revenue split the city will receive $1,168,920.00 in calendar year 1994, clearly inaccurate at current fine penalty assessments, and percentage of revenue return to the city. Regardless of the true or projected amount of revenue the city will receive from handicapped parking violations, a 50/50 split appears excessive when cve 22507.9 allows local authorities to establish special enforcement units and compensate its personnel on an hourly wage basis. Further, these disabled employees would be paid without the compensatory benefits provided other permanent and temporary employees. (See attachment cve 22507 .9 local authority: Enforcement of disabled persons parking.) Also associated with this proposal are certain liability issues. For example: eve 4461c violations cannot be issued without determining whether the operator is in ¡ I illegal possession and use of a placard. This would require the investigating disabled employee to wait for the driver and! or occupants of the vehicle to return 2 ~ 1 ¡ ANALYSIS OF A.C.E. HANDICAPPED PARKING ENFORCEMENT PROPOSAL MARCH 22, 1994 and identify themselves. Obviously a violation of this section could easily escalate into a verbal or worse, physical confrontation. Certainly any other citizen contacts resulting in punitive action to a violator could result in confrontation, requiring the presence of police officers to interdict and diffuse the contact. Training would also be an important issue in the implementation of the A. C. E. or a s imilar pro gram. eve 22507.9 says in part, "Members of the Special Enforcement Unit shall not be peace officers and shall not make arrests in the course of their official duties, but shall wear distinctive uniforms and badges while on duty. By this definition disabled personnel would not qualify under Penal Code 832 provisions. However, disabled personnel would require extensive training in vehicle code enforcement, departmental policy and procedure, community relations, safety practices, radio procedures, etc.. Although this is a cursory review of the A. C . E. Proposal, I contacted Kern County Sheriff's Commander Stan Moe who was in charge of their now defunct Special Enforcement Unit. Commander Moe stated that several years ago, his agency implemented a "Special Enforcement Unit" which was staffed by disabled citizens in a part-time help capacity. There were many reasons the program was eliminated, mainly due to its cost effectiveness and budgetary constraints. Also cited were liability issues where sworn deputies were called to assist the S. E. U. members during citizen contact confrontations. Also, the lack of discretion of some S. E. U . members resulted in numerous complaints, unfair enforcement and members using their authority to mandate compliance from citizens in non vehicle code related violations. Constant supervision would certainly be necessary to eliminate the above problems. II Speaking to the issue of handicapped parking enforcement by private citizens, there is currently, and has been since 1989, a remedy. The B.P.D. developed a "Handicapped Parking Violation Report". that citizens could utilize to obtain a complaint on a violator. (See attachment.) Clearly, if the handicapped community is incensed by parking violations, this is a vehicle they can utilize for enforcement. At its inception it was rarely utilized, and I have not seen it used during my tenure in the Traffic Section. Although hiring disabled citizens is an admirable concept there are many issues that need to be addressed. Should that be the intent of the city, I would like to do further research into the matter. Again, this is a cursory examination of the A.C.E. Proposal, but it appears that hiring a private contractor to enforc~cap laws at SO/50 rove uesplit would not be cost effective. #. ~ (¡ . tt - ¡j . Å / !J. tu' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ....... . f' A. L. Zachary, Li,eu tena t / Operations Di sidn / ALZ / ik ' - traffic\ace.pkg 3 III " , II 11 " I: II I' 'I Ii ,I 11 Ii Ii II Ii , "1J' Local Authority: Enforcement of Disabled Persons Parking, :.¡ 22507.9. Local authorities may establish a special enforcement unit for' the sole purpose of providing adequate enforcement of Section 22507.8 and , local ordinances ànd resolutions adopted pursuant to Section 22511.7. '0' ) Local authorities may establish recruitment and employment gUidelines which encourage and enable employment of qualified disabled persons in these special enforcement units. ' ' ",,' Members of the special enforcement unit may issue notices of parkfug violation pursuant to Section 41103 for violations of Section 22507.8 and local ordinances adopted pursuant to Section 22511.7. Members of the special enforcement unit shall not be peace officers and shall not make arrests in the course of their official duties, but shall wear distinctive, uniforms and badges while on duty. A two-way radio unit, which may utilize " police frequencies,or citizens' band, may be issued by the local authority to . each member of the special enforcement unit for use while on duty. . -'oJl~':" The local authority may pay the 'cost of uniforms and badges for the special enforcement unit, and may provide daily cleaning of the uniforms. Additionally, the local authority may provide motorized wheelchairs for use by members of the special unit while on duty, including batteries and necessary recharging thereof. Any motorized wheelchair used by a member.. . of the special enforcement unit while on duty shall be equipped with a single headlamp in the front and a single stoplamp in the rear. Members of the special enforcement unit may be paid an hourly wage without the compensatory benefits provided other permanent and temporary employees, but shall be entitled to applicable workers' compensation benefits as provided by law. Insurance provided by the local authority for disability ¡ or liability of a member of the special enforcement unit shall be the same as for other employees performing similar duties. Nothing in this section precludes a local authority from using regular full-time employees to enforce this chapter and ordinances adopted pursuant thereto. This section applies to all counties and cities, including every charter city , and city and county. i Added Ch. 1095, Stats. 1984. Effective January 1. 1985. -, - -- -" "-'--------~-7'-- .' CITY OF BAKERSFIELD :11 POLICE DEPARTMENT ,II HANDICAPPED PARKING VIOLATION REPORT I II I DATE I TIME! OFFICER 1.0. NO. I CASE NUMBER D U \ I I I E S I I 1\ P E CITATION NO. I ' CIRCLE ONE (1) VIOLATION PHOTOS ATTACHED A I ~~O~ , R I VC225D7.8A VC22507.8B YES NO II T! COMPLAINANT RESIDENCE PHONE BUSINESS PHONE MOl I ~ ~ I RESIDENCE ADDRESS BUSINESS ADDRESS IT YI I I I DATE OF VIOLATION I TIME I LOCATION-$TREET AODRESS I C ¡ NAME OF BUSINESS OR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION I I ¡ T . I ~ \ LOCATION OF PARKING SPACE I DIAGRAM E I N N i I I I I R I I E , P I I 0 i VIOLATOR VEHICLE LICENSE NO. STATE MAKE MODEL COLOR R T i I VIOLATOR I RACE SEX APPROXIMATE AGE ¡DESCRIPTION! " i HEIGHT WEIGHT OTHER CIRCLE ONE CIRCLE ONE HANDICAPPED DISTINGUISHING LICENSE I PLACARD DISPLAYED? PLATE DISPLAYED? 1 YES NO YES NO I I ¡ PARKING SPACE CIRCLE THE NUMBER OR NUMBERS THAT ILLUSTRATES THE SIGNS OR 'P MARKING MARKINGS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THIS VIOLATION L . ¡ .1 2 3 I S . \, _I. i : I ! VISIBLE WHEN VEHICLE' : E i IS PROPERLY PARKED I I IN STALL P I R STANDARD II : fI I HANDICAPPED: ! N SYMBOL i ¡ OUTLINING OR MARKING , ì ' " T \1 INBLUEAND:¡ !: i : ! STANDARD SYMBOL J lJ I POSTED SIGN ~ i i See Reverse Side PO 89-0911 =~"~GO"PRINTING 1111" I 'II I I ! CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I Propos~: I ' I I I The Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare and The. California State Department of Rehabilitation report statistics claiming 1 in every 3.5 persons in the U.S. has a, disability that is either educational, mental or physical which amounts td 48.3 million Americans as of the end of the forth quarter of 1993. This figure is expected to increase by an estimated 100.000 persons per month thereafter. In Kern county alone. there is an estimated 192 thousand disabled persons with 72,300 handicapped placards issued according to D.M.V. records. Approximately 50,000 persons in the greater City of Bakersfield fall into this category. II It is estimated by the D.M. V. that every handicapped parking space is violated at least once in every twenty four hour period. , , Ii i! Due to increased cut backs and continued city growth, the ever increasing II burden on law enforcement agencies has created a "gap" in the Ii enforcement of handicapped parking laws. This "gap" has' created a il mounting frustration among the handicapped community caused by numerous violations of their rights which serve to hinder their ability to I find available parking required in their every day needs. A.C.E. feels ¡tis a waste of highly trained law enforcement personnel for the use of enforcing the handicapped parking laws, when handicapped citizens within the community can be 'properly trained in cooperation with law enforcement officials to provide a service to enforce the handicapped parking laws. This process would additionally free up any officers currently spending time enforcing the handicapped parking laws. II ¡II I II I . "m '-'----"---. II i/ . ,I Proposal Continued... - A.C.E. estimates a very conservative 201 twenty ticketed violations per 24 hour period and approximately 2 two 4461 C violations (misuse of placards) per 24 hour period. This translates into: 20 unlawfully parking in handicapped zone @ 282.00 each 5,640.00 2 4461C violations @ 1000.00 each 2,000.00 I . estimated total per day 7,640.00 times 30 days X 30 estimated monthly total 229.200.00 < less> 15% uncollectable factor < 34,380.00 > total estimated adjusted monthlY' total 194.820.00 estimated monthly total for the City of Bakersfield 97.410.00 total estimated yearly total for the City of Bakersfield 1.168.920.00 estimated monthly total for A.C.E. 97.410.00 total estimated yearly total for A.C.E. 1.168.920.00 The total estimated yearly total of i $1,168,920.00 for the City of Bakersfield is equivalent to nearly 20 twenty additional 1a w enforcement ofljcers when using the State average of $59,000.00 per officer per year cost. - '.----._--,-----,___._m- ..,-----_..,- 111\/- ,'; ,-' ~.r- "ACE" TEL: 1-80S-:323-S:S 14' ,- -,. ].3.n 21 94 13:46 No.OOl P.O2 - . ~"':<'~ . ¡: .- t:.. , . -,- I, ' "II I' Ii I! January 21, 1994 . II [I I Gerald L. Casimere Affirmative Action Officer City of Modesto Dear Mr .Casimere: Following up on our meeting of Wednesday, January 19, '1994, I am faxing' you for your review the attached A.C.E. proposal for the enforcement of Handicapped Parking La ws. I believe you will find that A.C.E. otTers something for everyone, i.e. enforced handicapped parking laws to benefit citiZßns with disabilities, additional revenues (without cost) for the city to benefit all citizens and special programs and services to benefit both disa bled persons and businesses within the community. I believe your acceptance of the A.C.E. non-profit program will prove to benefit all citizens alike. should you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free-to contact me by calling 805~g23-8514 or writing to me at P.O. Box 6063 - Tehachapi, CA 93582. ". - Please take this time to join with me in supporting the A.C.E. non- profit program. I look forward to hearing from you. , Sif!£~rely, . 1 ! / v '114f/f . ' ."t~\. I : '.. ' \ " : l Ii! Dennis C. Milfeld !! A. C. E., founder '1' I I II ---- -..----.----, II ii' :::. . H . \: . E ~. E. "ACE" TEL:1-30S-823-8514 ~- Jan 21 .9£1 13:47 No.OOl P.O3 .. . A.A.C.E.E. "ACE" AmeriCßl1 Ñsociadon of Compliance, EdUCßtion and Enforcement ,.", A non-profit organization engaged in multi-facetted programs for the development of citizens with disabilities. III II II - II - II I' ii ., .. . II I' I I I - , ~- __n' - -- --- '----- n n_' --- -- n- - -- , , . -- -0-- ,-- --- II Ii - .', ¡ r~ ~. t:" "ACE" TEL:l-S05-823-8514 --- ]an 21 '94 13:47 No.OOl P.O4 -, ;-r. '- . '- -. '- . '0 . -.., ------ I INTRODUCTION: A non-profit organization engaged ' m ul ti - facetted In programs for the development of citizens with disabilities. . GOALS: To provide a service to the community that educates and promotes an awareness to. all citizens the need for enforcement and compliance of laws mandated for the rights and protection of citizens with disabilities. . To serve as the catalyst for the evolution of citizens with - disabilities by promoting their abilities so that they might ,. be looked upon for their accomplishments 'and not their I' II disadvantag es. To involve and employ citizens with disabilities in the realization of these goals. I i I ....' "" ¡if I.' ..~. E -- "RCE" TEL:1-S0S-S23-BS14 -..-- J a. n 2 1 94 13:48 No.GOl P.GS ~ .-\ . L. .'t. . . ---.-.. .-. PROGRAM OUTLINE: A.C.E. will operate as a Special Enforcement Unit in cooperation with local law enforcement agenci~s to enforce the compliance of disability laws. This enforcement will include the writing of tickets for the violation of handicapped parking laws. Additionally, the presence of the unit on the streets should serve as an additional deterrent to' crime. A.C.E. will offer assistance to businesses to establish compliance with disability laws, i.e. California State AccessibiHty Standards,. Title 24, CCR, Americans with Disabilities Act and Federal Health and Safety Laws. A. C.E. will employ disabled citizens in the compliance,' enforcement and education of disability laws as aforementioned. A.C.E. feels that by directly involving disabled citizens in this manner it will promote better self esteem and self worth, thereby, gecreasing the dependency on social welfare programs and promote a better general uI.1derstanding of these laws by all. A.C.E. will cooperate with Federal, State and Local agencies to offer . - services,. opportunities and the creation of job~ for citizens with disabilities and promote a better acceptance of them within the community. Ii A.C.E. will make a 50 - 50, fifty, fifty percent split of the revenues generated from the violation and non-compliance of disability 1a HIS. The revenues paid to the city are to be used as the city sees fit, however, A.C.E. recommends these funds be used to further public safety, i.e. police and fire departments and the revenues retained by A.C.E. will be " used to cover the necessary operating expenses and. salaries with the " I: balance used to fund the services and programs as outlined here. We at A.C.E. hope you share our optimism in this "Win Win" program we are offering for your acceptance. . ......--,-,..-.-..--..-- IIII ' , ,"') .Ii-'I C r: "RrE" TEL: 1-30S-823-:?C::14--- .],:¡n ")1 q4 1::: :4Q h.,!O 001 P 06 ..n...~.,-.,-. - -_.. ~ ~ -- -. '. - II .. - . . . ,- -----.- -' CITY OF MODESTO Proposal: The Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare and The California State Department of Rehabilitation report statistics claiming 1 in every 3.5 persons in the U.S. has a disability that is either educational, mental or physical which amounts to 48.3 million Americans as of the I end of the forth quarter ;of 1993. This figure is expected to increase ~ I. an estimated 100.000 persons per month thereafter. In Stanislaus coun alone there is an estimated 186 thousand disabled persons with 69,300 handicapped placards issued according to D.M.V. records. Approximately 51,000 persons in the greater City of Modesto fall into this category. It is estimated by the D.M. V. that every handicapped parking space is violated at least once in every twenty: four hour period. Due to increased cut backs and continued ~ity growth, the ever increasing. - burden on law enforcement agencies has created a "gap" in the " enforcement of handicapped parking laws. This "gap" has created a mounting frustration among the handicapped community caused by numerous violations of their rights which serve to hinder their ability to fmd available parking required in their every day needs. A.C.E. feels it is a waste of highly trained law enforcement personnel for the use of enforcing the handicapped parking laws, when handicapJ'ed citizens within-!.he community can be, properly trained in cooperation with law enforcement officials to provide a service to enforce the handicapped parking laws. This process would additionally free up any officers II currently spending time enforcing the handicapped parking laws. I ,I I' , -.----------. .'" --'-------~----,-~- 1111.: A"~- ¡:-,¡:- -"ACE" .- , , '.' '- . '- . .... ., TEL:1-805-823-851~ - - Jan 21 94 13:50 No.OOl P.O? '. .. '--, I' ¡ Proposal ConthlUed... . A.C.E. esiimatesa very conservative 20 twenty ticketed violations per 24 i hour period andapproximateJy 2 two 4461C violations (misuse-of placards) per 24 hour period. This translates into: I I 20 unlawfully parking in handicapped . zone @ 282.00 each 5,640.00 2 4461C violations @ 1000.00 each 2,000.00 I " estimated total per day 7,640.00 times 30 days X 30 estimated monthly total 229 .200.00 < less> 15 % uncollectable factor < 34,380.00 > total estimated adjusted monthly - total 194.820.00 estimáted monthly total - ' for the City of Modesto 97.410.00 total estimated yearly total for the City of Modesto 1.168.920.00 estimated monthly total for A.C.E. 97.410.00 total estimated yearly total for A. C.E. 1.168.920.00 The total estimated yearly total of $1,168,920.00 for the City of Modesto is equivalent to nearly 20 twenty additional 1a w enforcement offlcers when using the State average of $59,000.00 per officer per year cost. --- '~'-------. - , r . '1' "STÀTECAPITOL #t'r 1.L~ . 111 " 1 t COMMITTEES: \ R ' SACRAMENTO.CA94249-OOO1 \U-H twrnUt eon; H ure AGRICULTURE / (916)445-8498 4', RULES," , J, / DISTRICT OFFICES: WATER, PARKS. ,AND WlLDUFE : [1,/ 0 100 W, COLUMBUS STREET '" HEALTH I , SUITE 201 I , BAKERSFIELD. CA 93301 I 1 ~~ ! '] 0 821 WEST MORTON AVENUE, tiC ¡ PORTERVILLE. CA 93257 ; (209) 783-8152 I 'I' TRICE HARVEY ASSEMBLYMAN. THlRTY,-SECOND DISTRICT I March 24, 1994 II II Senator Charles, Calderon, Chairman . Senate Toxics and Public Safety Committee State Capitol~,Roo~ 2193 - I Sacramento, CA 95814 II Dear Chuck: I understand that the funding for .the retrofitting-'ct the Fire éstation 2-in-Bakersfield (Project SPS 3108) through the Earthquake Safety and Public Building Rehabilitation Bond Act of I 1990 is currently included in the grants list. I 'would like to declare my desire ~to seethatthis-project-~is. indeed funded by -the 1990 bond act :moI1.ies thJ;":Q\,lgh.tþi!;; year ,~s-; budget or otþe,r appropriate legislatiQ:Qo:> Bakersfield's 7.7 earthquake in 1952, should certainly warrant the need to prioritize this retrofitting project 'as"this,firestatigp,-. II provides a vit¿;¡l public service in -a del1s;e_ly P9Pulat~çLa:r::ea.) I' 'I I have enclosed some information regarding the station's need for ¡ structural rehabilitation. ,I " 'i Again, I hope you will agree that Project SPS 3108 should be II approved as one of the, proj ects for bond retrofitting funding. ) 'I: Sincerely, -. " l I. ~ b.~ I! ",.---- < - ii ~~ ~ 'a/!~f TRICE HARVEY Assemblyman, Thirty-second District RECEIVED 11 T~::~t:--::::'~."':--':_:"~'-';""'.I..:-_":"-'" .... ;,:(,:,; ¡CT~:~¡~~::'23' ';;00\( :.,,: ""~-' "coo ,,:~~Y 'CI~qA J "r-,-.---"-'_,,~,,',,-, --.-,,---....--' -." ¡-.-,- -- h. .CI~M:-'A'NAGER'SOr-FICE. ,':,---,';,.;'-j.,,!-~'--""'--_I-':" ',,'..-"-':_----;- '.,'" .. -,,-M .', il .. II : ' ~, Printed on Recycled Paper ,-- "!II~..;- I' ~ ..; Ii j '8TATE Of OALIfORNIA PETE WIL8ON, ~ ql II DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE " 1/ OFFIŒ Of THe DIRECTOR STATE CAPITOL. ROOM t145 ~I SACRAMSNTO. CA 05814-48Q8 I ~ RECEIVED 828" ! ! t I April 25. 1994 All8'ci "nn" ! I -4- ! ! I( I, ~ Honorable Tr1ce Harvey II Member of the Assembly State Cap1tol~ Room 4162 Ii Sacramento, CA95814 Dear Assemblyman-Harvey: III ~ I am responding to your March 24, 1994 letter to Robert Straight regarding the retrofitting of fire Station '2 in 8a~ersfield (Project SPS 3108) through the Earthquake Safety and Public Building Rababilitation Bond Act of 1990. Based on staff discussions with the Se1S1tic Safety Commission (sse) and the Oivhion of the State Architect (OSA),' it - is my -understanding that .the--~- rehabHitation of Fire Station 12 is included within a priority list. for Bond Aèt " fUnding created by tt¡e sse and the DSA. 'Although the rehlbilihtion project wfll be eligible for partial State funding, ~cc:oró1n9-to the cr1terh.of the 1990 Bond;, Act,the-DSAand sse do not provide for: state funding until this project--hu> ,-c:ompleted the working drawing phase and ha.s entered the construction bidproçess~-..> ~Once the eligibility criterhþave been met, the 'bondproceec:t.~forthe pr-oject-.- ,must be appropr.1atedby- the legislature.: . - . -. -- _h. If you have any questions or need additional 1nformat1on concerning this matter, please call me'(916) 445-9862. . Sincerely, II ~ A-ò~ " ST£VEN A. OLSEN II Deputy Director 'V Ii ~Ju\; I 'II . ili 'II '11\ I \ .There's rfô a-~fi61~ .,'. .,'"'::;=--, / of city lawYers / H OW~~ . does it take to run a city? This is not a . lawyer joke, but go ahead and come up with a punchy gag. ,- City Council members and the mayor would probably tell you, "That's not funny !" But they'll need a sense of PEGGY humor to get through the budget process they're now involved in. STINNE'IT It seems the city must do something we CaIl "downsizing." Thatmeans.thecity.has.toæuto,',":: 0'- "'--,"-~-'" ,~",'--' ,.,-"--,,,~, èoststhat threaten to exceed thè .,. house legal office.' revenue coming in. We've all had Moving along to the No.3 ob- that problem at some time or an- jective. "To return 50 percent of other. More money going out all telephone calls within two than coming in. business days and 100 percent, of This brings us to Page E-70 of all telephone calls from city offi- the two-pound Oakland City' cials and department heads Budget that tells us quite a bit within 24 hours." about the City Attorney's office. I hope you're not one of the The departinent's budget will 50 percent of the folks who don't i cost approximately $6 million for get their phone calls returned, ' the year 1994"95, an increase of especially if you happen to be a about $370,000 over 1993-94, taxpayer who pays for all this There are 57.5 full time posi- sernce. tions in the city attorney's divi- Controlling'costs sion, They're not all lawyers, but hey, that's a lot of people. Another key objective of the To fully understand the size of city attorney is to "control costS the department, get this: a city associated with outside counsel." study on how the renovated City Example: Contracts will be for a Hall should'be used when it is . spécific service and a fixed fee. completed allocates five floors to Aren't they already doing offices of the that? It City Attorney, makes you I Almost half ,T.l1e- ~epartment wonder. And i the total wouldn't it I number of eats up '""älmost. " be abetter floors in the ,idea to rely building. This 30 percent of the more, nòt" must be one less, on out- I of the lai'gest side counsel? I general govern- ~ law fInnS in By con- town. ment budget. tracting out~ The de- side lawyers partment eats for specific up almost 30 cases and , percent of the fixed fees, general government budget, ex-' the city would not be paying the ceeded only by the mayor's usual employee benefits for budget, , which accounts for 32 health insur3.I)ce and retirement percen~, By contrast, the city plans. manager's office accounts for 18 N t nly that h' Jar Þ t th 'ty il b tOO , avmg a ge ercen, e CI counc a ou . h taff f I ' 0 ' ill- ouse s 0 awyers means 1 percent, the CIty clerk about 7 k ing th b liti tin t d th. di 4' eep em usy - ga g, percen , an e CIty~? to~.. . advisin .and do' the,other. ~ c" percent. ~. ~-~- ",Yo ", ";0" g,..,.. ,ll)g. ,.." ' . things lawyers do. But of co,urse there's unpor- ' tant stuff to do in the city attor- ,Having lawyers on staff, and ney's office, Since each the deep pockets provided by depa.rtment lists its objectives for taxpayers often means litigating the year, what are those of the matters all the way, appeal after city attorney that will cost $6 appeal, just to prove you're right. . million to accomplish? Do we all remember the cost of " Continuing education' trying to get the Oakland Raiders back? The No.. 1 objective will be to 'Another objective of tlie city "enhance in-house mãndatory attorney is: "To develop a disas- continuing legal education ter/emergency response legal trainihg programs for attorneys procedures manual by June to enable them to meet 75 per- 1995." cent of the state bar's require- '. ments for continuing education . If we should have another di- training:" gaster or ~mergency, and Lord , . Shouldn't the top priority be a' ~ows we ve seen °?I' share ~ere tenefit to the city and its popula- ill Oakl~d, we won t be looking ;n, not the legal profession? to the CIty attorney f~r some pro- 0, if this is such a great pro- cedural manual. Not if those law- g;ram, ~houldn't they meet 100- yers ?ruy r~s~ond 50 percent,of ~ p~rcent of the requirements? ~e time WIthin 24 hoUI:S: ! think l¡ TheNo.2,objectivewillbeto Illc~91l,Isurehopeits. ¡ refute requests for assistance to working 100 percent ofth~ time. , I ~d!Vision supernsom witlûn two \ business days. That sounds more Peggy Stinnett's column ap- . like bureaucratic paper shuffling pears in The Oakland Tribune than a top priority of a power- on Wednesdays and Sundays. I" .." ~ Ul a p'~~"-- they put a gun to thà.t' guy'st:xa"'t<--- ,~dhegivesupmeandeveIY- ~ ~~-.,' 'else." They are such people as Lt. he real tragedy of cheating PaiJIa Coughlin, the Navy officer ldals such as this is that many-' - who co~plained about the se~al . tlg men and women are left with shenanIgans that had become instI- choices - each equally dam- tutionaIized at the yearly Navy Tail- 19. hook party in Las Vegas. Do you turn in your classmate - Lt. Coughlin resigited from the - I guarantee the kind of ostracism Navy recently. She couldn't stay in t will mark you as abilger? Or do after what she did; after bilging so 1 lie to protect your classmate many Navy careers. ' :l pretend that you are stiII honor- . . ,~'. le in your deceit? Even if It was the right thing to Academy offic . will that d? Ev~n if the changes her ~tions . . ers say will bnng have been something ~ honor code 18 supreme. Truth that, b' d' at I 'd d gns That ust b;ld seen esper e y nee e . . you m _e. ' I But I wonder if they really be- It was over for her. She had ve that. bilged, big-time. I r~mem?er wa~ching Ollie And so, will the Academy make Irth s testimony ill the Iran-Contra wholesale cheating a thing ,of the arings, and how Sen. Daniel paSt? )uye, D-Hawaii, acted with disbe-, . f that Co!. North, an Academy . The~e s ~ of that now. Getting Wuat~, would lie to Congress. od .~f.gougmg would be a start. But Sen. Inouye read Col. North the thatsthe easy part. .,. . - - > -... ademy honor code while Col. . The hard part would be teaching , I)rth smirked back at him. midshipmen not to help each other . to cheat, to get them to act as indi- {ample: Ollie North viduals in the acadenuc world, not I understood why Co!. North was ~art of a group. To make the.m more ot ashamed. He was obeying the like the ~utthroat world outsIde the lher code, the code of loyalty to gates. is group. Co!. North could handle The words I remember most in e~g called .a liar. But he was not all the things said aþout the recent omg be a bilger. cheating scàndlÙare those by Vice. And I found that even though I Adm. William P. Lawrencei 64, a lisagreed with Co!. North's politics graduate and former superintendent d actions in Iran-Contra, I grud- who has reviewed the investigative . gIy respected him for what he reports on the cheating episode. d. He'd be the military man I'd " ant on my side when the shooting ,I have to b~ frank;~d sar I ;arts.He'd be the guy I'd want next do~ t see any difference ill nud- me in the POW camp. He'd be ship~en of today and ~ose of my e guy to trust when trust was the day, he told The WasþingtonPost. y consideration. . Adm. Lawrence poiilted out the But he was also a dangerous subtleties of honor. "Some cheated an, a zealot whose actions may andlied," he said. "Others just lied ~e harmed the citizens of his out of self-preselVation. But some' untry - the people he was really also lied out of protection of their rking for. His loyalty had made fellow classmates. . . As disap- lose sight of the rule of law. pointed as'I am. . . I know we stiII He was the best and worst ~f have the right stuff here. . . and will en. He was loyal and blind. That's produce fine combat leaders." quinella that will take you a long Steady as she goes. 'ay in a big organization. Espe- - ialIy blindness. They still moldmidsbipmen who Men and women of a spoken won't bilge their classmates. :onscience don't last long in tightly It remains the best and worst mit groups. They are the police of- news, to come out of Annapolis. ;ympathy Boomer: . standards of decency and sports- Un C e rt ale, manship have been set aside for a n legal standard." , But the tide may be turning. Continued from A-19 1~Wbile-BeÐbitt-and the-Mene . ' '" . - - -- ,- , , " boys were not convicted, Ronald ,e countJ:Y S"tõtãl.pop.uIatiol1~"'; Ray Howard and Mike Griffin were. whatever 18 on theIr mmds to And Harding eventually pleaded a great degr~e ~uences the ,v -~ guilty to interfering with an investi- mood and directionof~t!te_~~"'" gation. country. ...----Re-<"-- In the ~o~d case, Jackson _And. 'is on the minds -County Dístrtct Attorney Bobby B~ll - - - of many is the question: We're argued successfully that, rap mUSIC still m. this t g th h H. d . - 0 e er sow ere or no, owat' was responsIble for d f h ? his actions ::::::-and a jury agreed. 0 we 'go rom ere. ,_'-'My argument was, 'So what?'" The boomers' personal I ell said. "He is resP9nsible. It sense of uncertainty and of. oesn't matter;- in a c~ optimism dashed, is'already c~urt, tha~ ~?,n t got nothin to do changing the political and so- th nothin., cial landscape of the country. Too often, he says, prosecutors "" to convict people like It helped put the nation's oward get into arguments with de- first boomer presidential team ense attorneys as to how bad a de- over the top in 1992. endant's past was. Instead, he says, - I they should simply emphasize what . No~ a I?'°~ grouP. of I I he did, and that such life setbacks them ~ agitating for Social \ -,aren't mitigating circumstances for Secunty refo~ under the 1 lkilling someone. theoIY that,like the ~heap J , : Katovich and Jellison both say real. estate and_pl~ntiful pro-¡ hat society is growing tired of let- motIons that dissIpated as th~ ing people blame their circum- boomers c.row~ed into adul- ,( , ...¡ tances: The feeling, Katovich says, ~ood, theIr retIrement bene- . that this has gotten out of hand, fits may not be there (or them , t society's sympatlie\ic nature is as their giant generation eing abused the moves in ,01 e. Ii II \.~ /" ",. '~resno, -;A . This is call~ in the traae: em- "'- "- I n (Fresno Co.) I i1Tep l1UI.œa pire preservation. In the.same I / Bee )ftpnr ';.roo') profile about the n~ chief, the : '" ./ (Cir. 0, 144.800) local fire~~ UDlon head, AI ,I! (Cir, S. 1 ìO,400) ST1:) UI sumu; Rush, 88ld SIX times o';lt of .10. , Ii S..l!Yrej~1S;'M.U when the ~1l phone nngs It zs..n 't . J dn)f;)Ia B1' a fire. Which stands ~ a ~ \fPa'tIoåa..l z ment to years ?Í'fire inspections, ~ P R ? ,1: :11;1 ~ ~ ¡W°"I rnO..ll sprinkler ~ments and bet- .'. 1m O::>IXaw' ter construction. . , .. 6uas81:Id 6 T Another ob b JWen J p, C. B Ed /;,88 \ de~ent. ruO, " ' / :,aUM. )p.ÌO Tw~for-one deals q~ u Well, I hope I didn't leave the we; stove on at home, but we really n z' have a dumb expensive way of .-:. running ambulances arouIid ; Fresno. Fall in the shower, and often not one, but two come.. The gr city rolls up in a red-and-white . t- van American rolls up with a ~IM WASSERMAN [d red: white ,and blue van. Some- times the city will even roll up a Ne' W chi f firE; engine for ~. But the kick- e ' er 18: Only Amencan can take yo~~=m. .c. fl ¡aJ:! use '0 County lans am. es - entered into a ~ntract .10 years ago with Amencan, which the ' f ~ ~ ~ ' ' city agreed to, giving American 0 Param.eWc e'1~ the territory. N~body ~ the ~n company of terrible sernce or . . åu scandal. It doesn't chew up tax , ISSUe agam p~ money, and last year American " .-> '\71 P" ' even got.a whole ne\! contract F resnó' s'ï'new fire chief )IT for the CIty of San Di : starts work a week from Ò . ' tomorrow, and I think he's 'ð': " already confused. Valley heat . \ . . with his brains being on fIre. H \ Last ~unday in a story on this ~; page, MIchael. E. Smith talkedà about expanding the Fresno Fire "D n , epartment. He sawin the fu- e ture. our future, more fire de- \ part~ent paramediCs visiting I our houses when we faint. In- deed, a bigger role for the fIre I 5 Dot a fire! department at the very time it 1 Last Sunday the new chief has rewer fires per building than ~, pointed out the first thing most ever. I. people think of in a car crash or And I thought: What? Bad l explosion is to call the fire de- math alert! Excuse me, if there's [; partment; I question that. already a private ambuIanœ h Personally, I think of ambu- company, cruising Fresno, why t1 lances. For the fire department, I ?o we need more paramedics on see firefighters with very ~ ,.he Clt'J.. payroll? f jobs and houses in ~e foo~. , . ~~~mg: ~here he was.' our Good people, but ~d of Ç?i1ed, ;:,hief-m-w81tmg easing out of I ¡ still scaring the City Co~ci1 out "an,Jose. already trotting out ( of cutting those paramedics. tired\old f!esno arguments Here comes their new chief abo~t\~nng up the city pam- ' seeing a green light to expand. I m~c p{ogram. And paying for it I sure hope I turned off the coffee II wIth an ap1bulance transport fee. Î maker, but whatever he was told Ii; .Bad ide8t' never die. do they? \' I in his interview is .not how ev- II ,Y¡thout tT}l,nlš to sauna like a I erybody f~ls. Until I see cats~, "I ,'~il1. for Amer~,A..rIlbulance. I . I'm assummg whatever Ame~- mat s such a crock. That some- : ' can Ambulance can do, the CIty how Fresnans \vin be better I can do costlier. served and save \noney over the long haul by letting the fIre de- Jim wasserman is a ~ staff writer. partment have the city ambu- For a sneak preview of hIS column\ call lance business Oh '\. eda I Beeune 443-2400, ext. 2160, the night " . yes, som y before catS will learn to fly. too. ' . ,/ ~ - - - -- ..