HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/29/98 BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
May 29, 1998
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /~ ~/,
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Responses are enclosed to the questions from the May 18th budget hearing.
2. The monthly activity report from Recreation and Parks is attached.
3. We received a letter from the contractor for the recently constructed Jack in the Box
restaurant on Rosedale Highway. They were very appreciative of the service
rendered by City of Bakersfield employees.
4. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
· Update on the railroad crossing repairs;
· Staff respond, in writing, to citizens who spoke at the residential refuse rate
hearing and provide to Council a more defined analysis of the rate increase,
comparison to other cities, and Proposition 218 language (joint response from
Public Works and City Attorney's office).
5. We will begin automated refuse and greenwaste service in the recently annexed Palm
and Olive areas.
6. Do any of you know people at Nestles or Frito-Lay? They are two of our biggest
industries. We'd like to sell their products in the new arena and can't get them to talk
about it. If we sell "out of County" competitors' products, a lot of people will think it's
odd - and it would be.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
FY 1998/99 BUDGET WORKSHOP
QUESTIONS/RESPONSES
Date: May 29, 1998
Question Response Councilmember
May 18, 1998
No. 1 In regard to enforcement of the smoking ban When a citizen's complaint is received by the Bakersfield Fire Carson
in local taverns, what is the current policy in Marshal's Office, a form is completed by the complainant in person or
place? by mail. A letter is mailed to the employer (business) to advise them of
the complaint with a brief explanation of the law and their obligations.
The employer has 10 days to provide the Fire Marshall with notification
of the steps taken to ensure compliance with the law. If no notification
is received, an Arson/Prevention Captain will make contact with the
business to check for compliance. A second letter with a new deadline
date is mailed and the process repeated. If after this new ten-day
period, compliance is not registered, a third letter is mailed stating an
Officer will respond to the business and issue a citation.
No. 2 What is the action plan for enforcement of the At the end of 1998, the Bakersfield Fire Marshal's Office will review the Carson
smoking ban in local taverns? enforcement program and its results, along with the Kern Tobacco
Control Division, and make any necessary revisions. Also, the City
Attorney's Office is developing a supplemental report to accompany
the citation if one is issued.
No. 3 What is the status of the potential purchase of Staff is working on determining a price for the property and comparison Salvaggio
the property for the Kern River Parkway at with sales prices of other properties recently purchased by the Water
Manor Drive? Department. Since the property is in the secondary flood plain, state
grant funds are not eligible for the purchase of the Wattenbarger
property. Other funds will need to be identified.
No. 4 What are we doing about all the small sumps The Water Resources Department is in the process of inspection and McDermott
in newly annexed areas to determine if we inventory of all sumps to determine maintenance needs and schedule
need all of them? repairs. Since these small sumps were originally constructed to serve
each small tract as it was built, we will be requesting an engineering
analysis of the annexed areas to study alternatives such as
consolidating drainage basins, disposal to canals or waterways or
forming a master drainage district.
FY 1998/99 BUDGET WORKSHOP
QUESTIONS/RESPONSES - Continued
Question Response Councilmember
May 18, 1998 Revenue from water sales are anticipated to decrease as a result of McDermott
No. 5 Why are charges for services and fund the large water supply available in the area. A large water supply along
balance on page 191 of the budget document with the same level of demand will dictate a lower sales price. Fund
estimated to decrease even though we have balance is estimated to decrease because it has become the principal
more water? source for funding our capital improvement projects such as
construction of water wells and water main extensions.
S:\Darnell\Response1-1998-99
2
BAKERSFIELD
FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 21, 1998
.To: Ron Fraze, Fire Chief
From: Jim Shapazian, Fire Marshal
Subject: AB 13 Smoke-Free Workplace Law
This is a summary of the reporting and enforcement procedures enacted by the City of
Bakersfield Fire Marshal's Office pertaining to the AB 13 Smoke-Free Workplace Law
as it applies to bars, taverns, and gaming clubs.
The process begins with a citizen's complaint by telephone or personal office visit. We
either mail the complaint form to the complainant or they complete the form in person.
The completed form is the beginning of a maintained file that tracks the complaints and
ensuring enforcement.
A letter is mailed to the employer to inform them of the'complaint and a brief explanation
of the law and their obligations. The employer has ten days to provide the Fire Marshal's
Office with notification of the steps taken to ensure compliance of the law. If no
notification is received, an Arson/Prevention Captain or the Fire Marshal will make
contact by telephoning or going to the business to check for compliance.
A second letter, identical to the first letter with a new deadline date, is mailed with the
process repeated. If after this new ten-day period compliance is not registered, a third
letter is mailed stating an Officer will respond to the business and issue a citation. A total
of 30 days may pass before the enforcement process is complete.
This process has been agreed to by the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern as
similar in nature and intent. The intent being to educate those unfamiliar with the law
and eventually get compliance. This process has been designated as a "fa'st year" need to
offer additional time for educating the public, as well as the employers, to the intentions
of the law.
May 21, 1998
Page 2
At the end of 1998, we will review the enforcement program and its results, along with
the Kern Tobacco Control Division, and revise the process to possibly be similar to the
two-letter process currently being utilized.
Attached are forms and letters we are currently utilizing for this process. The City
Attorney's Office has assisted in developing a supplemental report to accompany the
citation if and when it is issued. This report is currently in draft form and it expected to
be completed by next week.
JS/kec
Attachments (5)
memo\Shapazian\Smoke-Free
STATE SMOKING LAW (AB 1~) VIOLATION REPO~NG
Name of Facility:
Address of Facility:
Owner/Manager:
Telephone Number:
Date of Incident:
Description of Incident:
Did you discuss it with the manager/owner?: Yes No
If you discussed it, what was his/her response?:
Name (print) Signature
Address
Date Telephone
Return this form to: ATTN: Fire Marshal/Tobacco Control Program
City of Bakersfield Fire Department/Fire Safety Control Division
1715 Chester Ave., Ste. 300
Bakersfield, CA 93301
A:\AB13:COMPLAIN
FIRE CHIEF
MICHAEL R, KELLY
,'~MINIS~T~VE SERVICES Attention owners and managers of bars, bar areas and gaming clubs.
2101 'H · Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805)326-3941 Based upon existing law (Section 6404.5 of the Labor Code), effective January 1, 1998,
FAX rS0S) 395.1349 smoking will not be permitted in bars, bar areas and gaming clubs in California. Consistent
SUPPRESSION SERVICES with existing law, the prohibition against smoking in these areas does not include smoking in
2101 'H' Street any area that is not defined as an "enclosed place of employment", such as an outside Patio in
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(80,5) 326-3941 which a bar is located. The provisions of AB 3037 th'at required bar and gaming club owners
FAX C805) 395-1349 to designate a nonsmoldng section within their establishment, if practicable, and not to require
PREVENTION SERVICES employees to enter smoking areas, are no longer in effect as of January 1, 1998. That is,
1715 Chester Ave. effective January 1, 1998, these additional provisions have been superseded by a complete
Bakersfield, CA 93301 100% smoking ban in bars, bar areas and gaming clubs.
(80,5) 326-3951
FAX (805) 326-O576
On July 21, 1994, Governor Pete Wilson signed into law AB13 which regulates smoking
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1715 Chester Ave, throughout the State. AB13 became effective off January 1, 1 995, and requires that;
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 326-3979
FAX (805)326-0,576 · All restaurants be 100 per cent smoke flee;
· Thirty-five per cent of the rooms in hotels and motels be reserved for
T~INiNG DIVISION non-smokers;
5642 Victor Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308 · Hotels and motels maintain separate lobby areas for smokers and non-
(805) 399-4697
FAX (~) 3~-s7~3 smokers; and
· All places of employment be 100 per cent smoke free.
AB13 has three main goals: (1) To reduce employers' staggering cost due to tobacco use-
related health problems which cost employers over $60 billion a year; (2) To safeguard the
health of both smoking and non-smoking employees and patrons; and (3) To protect
employers from the cost of expensive law suits from employees who may experience health
problems due to second-hand smoke. Employees have filed law suits and won judgements
against their employers. This law will help protect you and your business.
This law helps you protect your health and the health of your employees and.patrons. Current
statistics show that only 17 percent of Californians smoke, and half of the smokers wish they
could quit. It is not good business to break the law and risk fines to cater to a few patrons
at the expense of losing business of nearly 83 per cent of the public. Breaking the law can
result in heavy fines: $100 first offense, $200 second offense, $500 third offense.
Thereafter, the matter will be referred to OSHA for fines up to $7,000 or $70,000 if willful
non-compliance is exhibited!
This' letter is to inform you that on , my office received a complaint alleging that your facility
allowed smoking in violation of ABl3. As an employer, it is your responsibility to post no-smoking
signs at all entrances to your facility(les) to tell your employees and patrons that your establishment
does not permit smoking. The money you will make from a smoking patron will not equal the cost
of fines, litigation, bad publicity, and the loss of your time.
It is possible that some of yom: employees are not aware of ABl3 and overlooked the incident and
allowed smoking in the facility. I hope that you will take corrective action. Educate your employees,
and ensure that no-smoking signs are visibly posted at each entrance to your facility informing your
patrons that smoking is not allowed. Please notify my office within ten (10) working days of the
steps you have taken to ensure compliance with the law. We are hopeful that no further action is
required by this office.
o If you have any questions, please call my office at (805) 326-3951.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
A:'u~.B 13:1ST-MSTR
-2-
Date:
FIRE CHIEF
MICHAEL R. KELLY
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
2101 'H' ~reet Attention owners and managers of bars, bar areas and gaming clubs.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[805) 326-3941
FAX(80S~39S-1349 Based upon existing law (Section 6404.5 of the Labor Code), effective January 1, 1998,
SUPPRESSION SERVICES smoking will not be permitted in bars, bar areas and gaming clubs in California. Consistent
2101 'H' Street with existing law, the prohibition against smoking in these areas does not include smoking
Bakersfield, CA 93301
~ 326-3941 in any area that is not defined as an "enclosed place.of employment", such as an outside
FAX (805)395-1349 patio in which a bar is located. The provisions of AB 303 7 that required bar and gaming
club owners to designate a nonsmoking section within their establishment, if practicable,
PREVENTION SERVICES
1715 Chester Ave. and not to require employees to enter smoking areas, are no longer in effect as of January
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(805) 326-3951 1, 1998, these additional provisions have been superseded by a complete 100% smoking
FAX (805) 326-0576 ban in bars, bar areas and gaming clubs.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1715 Chester Ave. On July 21, 1994, Governor Pete Wilson signed into law AB13 which regulates smoking
Bakersfield, CA93301 throughout the State. AB13 became effective on January 1, 1995, and requires that:
(805) 326-3979
FAX (805) 326-0576
· All restaurants be 100 per cent Smoke free;
TRAINING DIVISION · Thirty-five per cent of the rooms in hotels and motels be reserved
5642 Victor Street
Bakersfield, CA 93308 for non-smokers;
(805) 399-4697
FAX (805)399-§763 · Hotels and motels maintain separate lobby areas for smokers and
non-smokers; and
· All places of employment be 100 per cent smoke free.
This law helps you protect your health and the health of your employees and patrons.
Current statistics show that only 17 per cent of Californians smoke, and half of the
smokers wish they could quit. It is not good business to break the law and risk fines to
cater to a few patrons at the expense of losing business of'nearly 83 per cent of the public.
Breaking the law can result in heavy fines: $100 first offense, $200 second offense,
$500 third offense. ThereaRer, the matter will be referred to OSHA for fines up to $7,000
and up to $70,000 for additional violations.
As an employer, it is your responsibility to post no-smoking signs at all entrances to your
facility(les) to tell all your employees and patrons that your establishment does not permit
smoking. The money you make from a smoking patron will not equal the cost of fines,
litigation, bad publicity, and the loss of your time.
The matter relating to the smoking incident in your facility was discussed with you in a letter
dated A third complaim has been lodged against your facility alleging that you continue
to permit smoking in your facility. This third offense was discussed with you over the phone on
Unfortunately, you have failed to take corrective action. The importance of compliance
with the law was discussed with you both by telephone and in our letter which followed. Due to
your lack of compliance with the law, an officer of the Bakersfield Fire Department will issue a
citation and assess appropriate fines prescribed under the law.
Sincerely,
S:'~.ND-MSTR
-2-
PREVENTION SERVICES
AB 13 COMPLAINT CONTACTS
BUSINESS NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE
RESPONSIBLE PARTY
CONTACT
DATE TIME PERSON . RESPONSE
ab 13cmplt
05/1.8/9~ 14:27 "~805 3259162 CITY ATI'OIU~Y ~002/002
,,~ BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT
Supplemental Labor Code § 6404.5 Report
Citation No.: Date:
Business Location:.
Business Owner(s):
Name:
Address:
Telephone No.:
Employees on Duty at Time of Incident:
Name:
.- Position:
Name:
Position:
Name:
Position:
Business Description:
Signs In Place: No.: Visibility:
Location:
Tobacco Products Used:
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 1998
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Gene Bogart, Water Resources M-affage~
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 1998/1999 BUDGET WORKSHOP RESPONSES
The following is in response to City Council questions fromt he Water Resources Department
budget hearing on Monday, May 18, 1998:
Question #1 (May 18, 1998 Memo):
What are we doing about all the small sumps in newly annexed areas to determine if we need all
of them? (McDermott)
Response:
The Water Resources Department is in the process of inspection and inventory of the sumps in
the newly annexed areas to determine maintenance needs and schedule repairs. Repairs to items
such as fencing and surface weed control will be performed immediately, with major maintenance
to be scheduled with the availability of the department's heavy equipment and personnel.
The sumps original size and locations were determined as the sub-divisions were built and in
these areas, were without an overall drainage plan. In short, a sump was constructed to only serve
each small tract as it was built and served no more than that. An engineering review would be
required over the entire annexed area to study alternatives such as consolidating drainage basins,
disposal to canals or waterways or forming a master drainage district. This department will
request an engineering analysis be performed to investigate these alternatives.
Question #2 (May 18, 1998 Memo):
Why are charges for services and fund balance on page 191 of the budget document estimated to
decrease even though we have more water? (McDermott) R E CE ~VE [)
!;CITY MANAGER'S OFFICe?
May 21, 1998
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 1998/99 Budget Workshop Responses
Response:
In reviewing the detail for charges for services in the Agricultural Water fund there are seven
different types of revenue sources included in the total. Five of the seven sources are projected
to increase or remain level next fiscal year. The two revenue sources that are projected to
decrease next year are due to the large water supply available in the area. The first source
pertains to revenue earned from water sales. As a result of the large supply market conditions
will dictate a lower sales price. The second source relates to income derived from other water
districts using the 2800 Acres to bank water. The City will be exercising its first rights to bank
in the 2800 Acres this year. However, we anticipate increased revenue to the City in future years
from selling the water that we will be banking in 1998-99.
Fund balance is estimated to decrease next year as in previous years since it has become the
source for funding our capital improvements. We have always started the budget with a
substantial fund balance. Should the time occur when we actually ended the year with a small
fund balance we would defer future capital projects within the fund.
MR:sr
cc: Dolores Teubner, Assistant City Manager
Darnell Haynes, Assistant to City Manager
DIVISIONS OF RECREATION AND PARKS
DATE: May 26, 1998
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks
SUBJECT: Monthly Report for March and April 1998
The following are the highlights of activities for the divisions in March and April.
Detailed information is available. If you have any questions, please let me know.
OF SPECIAL NOTE
I need to thank Juan Tobar, MIS, for his effort in creating our first comprehensive
and accurate, park and facility map. The map has been distributed to city staff and
departments, as well as the City Council.
We received a letter from Mr. Richard Vanderberg (copy attached) complimenting
the park staff on their quality of work, responsiveness, and service.
Also attached is a copy of a letter sent to Terry McCormick thanking her for her
work with a community project on the Kern River Parkway.
i.~I'1'~ MANAGER'S OFF1C~!
RECREATION
MLK Community Center: Total participation in March was 2,425 and 2,716 in
April. The center continues to host many meetings and programs for the community
such as the statewide AIDS conference which was held on March 5. The demand for
the facility has reached a point where we need to develop a policy for facility use by
outside groups and agencies.
Youth Sports: The youth basketball program completed its season on March 26.
The team from Stella Hills won the 5-6 grade division and Franklin won in the 3-4
grade division. Youth softball began on March 31.
After School Program: Participation at each site was:
March April
Casa Loma 25 42
Franklin 30 35
Franklin West 40 58
McKinley 29 35
Stella Hills 80 90
William Penn 98 95
Silver Creek Community Center: Linda McVicker has been recruiting staff for
aquatics and the summer day camp program. She has also been overseeing the
training for the aquatics staff. This summer will be utilizing the Learn to Swim
program developed by the National Safety Council and Ellis and Associates.
Lap Swimming had 64 participants in March and 70 in April.
Lowell Neighborhood Community Center: Total participation in March was 1,511
and 1,146 in April. MIS has provided the center with eight computers for general
and classroom use: Participation in the international ballroom class is up to thirty
individuals.
Adult Sports: Volleyball concluded in March and softball began league play in April
with seventeen co-recreational and fifteen men's teams. Total participation in
softball for April was 2,184.
Camp Fair: The division participated in the Kern County Family Magazine's first
annual camp fair held at Stockdale High School on April 29.
PARKS
Projects: We currently have seven projects (five streetscape and two parks) at
various stages of completion. There are also thirteen projects in the six month
maintenance period. Four parks have been identified as sites for future lighting for
soccer areas. New light fixtures were installed at the entry way of Grandlakes
Avenue. Stamped concrete has been installed in the median on Panorama Drive
between Mt. Vernon and the bluffs.
Central Park: The division co-sponsored with the Village Artisans, Multi-cultural
Festival Group, and the Centennial Foundation the Centennial Arts and Crafts Show
which was held April 11 and 12.
c: Citizens' Community Services Advisory Committee
John Stinson, Assistant City Manager
Dolores Teubner, Assistant City Manager
Division Staff
2601 Laurel Drive
Bakersfield CA 93304
April 2, 1998
Mr Stan Ford, Director
Parks and Recreation Department
City of Bakersfield, Ca
Sir.
I should like to commend you and your department for the
prompt and satisfactory attention to those items that I was
concerned about in the Wilson Park fenced area. It is good
to know that our city is responsive to the needs of it's citiz-
ens.
! should further commend both Alberta and Richard for the
friendly attitudes and the meticulous care given the park. I
have never seen it look cleaner or more inviting.
Thanking you again for a well administered department, I
remain an appreciative user of the park.
Ralph J. Vanderberg
2601 Laurel Drive
Bakersfield, CA 93304
THE CHURCH OF
JESUS CHRIST
OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
Clareen Hays
Director of Public Affairs
Bakersfield Area
7316 Alamosa Lane
Bakersfield, California 93309-7839
Phone: 1-805-833-9297
April 30, 1998
Terry McCormick
City of Bakersfield
Recreation & Parks
4101 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Dear Terry:
Sincere thanks for your cooperation and assistance in helping us with the April 25th
Family Service Day at Kern River Parkway Bike Path. We planted over 150 trees which
will help to beautify our community. This included about 40 trees planted at the Rosedale
Highway/Fwy. 99 interchange Pierce Road offramp. Without your help and the help of
others, it would not have been possible. Thanks, too, for placing extra trash bins at key
locations. Many bags of litter were picked up from the Bike Path and in Beach Park and
Yokuts Park.
About 400 people participated in the litter clean up and tree planting which was
followed by three separate family picnics. The weather was beautiful and everyone had a
great time.
It was a pleasure to work with you and we hope to help again in the future. Special
thanks to Mr. Stan Ford for waiving the park reservation fee in exchange for our labor.
Sincerely,
Clareen Hays
May 4, 1998 RECEIVED
Mr. Andy Tandy, City Manager CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1501 Truxton Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Jack In The Box - 8320 Rosedale Hwy.
Dear Mr. Tandy:
I have recently completed a construction project in your city and wish to convey to you the
various levels of extraordinary service I received from a number of city employees, especially
Mike Brisco, Building Inspector. It was unfortunate that Mike was reassigned during the last
two weeks of the project. I would like to recommend that inspectors be.allowed to stay on one
project until completion. Our new inspector had to quickly absorb important details and did not
have an opportunity to be as close to all the issues that occurred as the project progressed
over the last two and one-half months.
In the course of the Jack In The Box project at Rosedale & Coffee, employees in Police, Fire,
Planning, Public Works, and Business License handled every request with professionalism and
cooperation not often seen today. They kept my schedule moving at all times. But when I met
Mike Brisco, I met someone with a unique talent to "go that extra mile" and bring about a
successful project that benefits both of us.
My schedule on this particular project was on a "fast track" (75 days from start to finish) and
completion dates were very critical. In my 30 years of construction work, I've met thousands
of city employees. After working through one of my morning inspections with Mike, and
correcting necessary items soon after that, I requested an afternoon re-inspection. I saw Mike
return without hesitancy, with a positive attitude in working towards a closure to a specific
correction, and things were able to move forward. He had knowledge of all building codes at
the tips of his fingers at all times. I found him to be extremely detailed in how he worked with
the city's approved set of construction plans. He was also very instrumental in assisting me
with correct contact to agencies involved in all my final insPections. My lasting impressions of
Bakersfield are all positive. Please pass on my thank you to those departments who made
this project succeed.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Williams, Superintendent cc: Bill Clark, CLARK CONTRACTORS
CLARK CONTRACTORS, INC. Jim Eggert-Planning Dept.
27162 Burbank Ave. Dennis Fidler-Building Dept. I
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 Chuck Manassee - Project Manager
Pager 714-470-5129 Jack-In-The Box, Foodmakers,lnc.
BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM' RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~~/3~ ~~--~
DATE: MAY 28, 1998
SUBJECT: RAILROAD CROSSINGS
Council Referral WF0017901 1 002
ICouncilmember Salvaggio requested an update on the condition of the railroad crossings on South I
Chester Avenue, Hughes Lane and the crossing further west.
I
The crossing on South Chester Avenue was repaired approximately five years ago and
is still in good condition.
Staff'contacted the San Joaquin Valley Railroad Company and informed them that the
following crossings were in need of repair.
South "H" Street, north of White Lane.
Hughes Lane, south of White Lane.
Wible Road, north of Pacheco Road.
Stine Road, north of Pacheco Road.
District Boulevard, west of Stine Road.
The Street Division is working with Steve Holm, Road Master for the San Joaquin
Railroad to find a solution to the problem.
Staff will continue to work with the railroad representatives to address the need to
repair the crossings, as needed, and will keep you updated on this matter.
Copy: City Attorney's Office (Ref#WF0017901/001)
G:\GROUPDAT~STREETS\RRXINGS,MAYRE PORT,wpd
City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0017901 / 002 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 5~28~9
REQUEST DATE: 5/20/9~
CREW: SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: COMPLETION: 5/21/9
GEN. LOC: WARD7 FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR: COUNCIL
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - SALVAGGIO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: PLAWRENCE WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: RR CROSSINGS
REQUEST COMMENTS
***DUAL REFERRAL TO CITY ATTORNEY & PUBLIC WORKS;
CITY ATTORNEY AS LEAD***
SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE HIM WITH AN
UPDATE ON THE CONDITION OF THE RAILROAD CROSSINGS
ON SOUTH CHESTER, HUGHES LANE AND THE CROSSING
FURTHER WEST.
Job Order Description: RR CROSSINGS
Category: PUBLIC WORKS
Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / /
B A.K E R S F I E L D
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ·
FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
BY: HOWARD MORRIS, SOLID WASTE SUPERINTENDENT
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRALS #WF0017897/001
RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATE INCREASE
Attached are copies of letters to the following speakers at the May 20, 1998 Council
meeting, who submitted testimony for the proposed residential refuse rate increase for
Fiscal Year 1998-99: Jack Hamvaroff, Phuoc Nguyen, William East, John Frassel and
Edith Rogers. Staff also spoke to Michael Mullins by phone on May 2!, 1998 regarding his
concern for trash collection being reduced from twice per week down to once per week.
After it was explained that the City system separates greenwaste from trash and that each
is picked up .once per week, he ordered two green carts. One-speaker could not be
contacted since her name (Judy Baise?), and address was not left with the City Clerk, and
she left before staff could reach her.
Copies of memos addressing concerns expressed by Councilmembers Carson and
McDermott are also attached.
S:\W PDATA\CR_RATE98.M EM
,." RECEIVED
CITY MANAGER's OFFIC~
~-~ ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0017897 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 5129198
REQUEST DATE: 5/20/98
CREW: SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: COMPLETION: 1/98
GEN. LOC: CITY WIDE FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR: HRG. 7. A.
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - CITYWIDE ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: PLAWRENCE WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATE INCREASE
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE***
COUNCIL REQUESTED STAFF RESPOND, IN WRITING, TO
ALL OF THE SPEAKER'S QUESTIONS REGARDING BILLING,
INCREASES, SERVICE, ETC. STAFF TO PROVIDE COUNCIL
WITH MORE INFORMATION, A MORE DEFINED ANALYSIS OF
THE INCREASE, COST COMPARISON OF OTHER CITIES AND
RESPOND TO QUESTIONS REGARDING PROPOSITION 218
LANGUAGE. ****STAFF CAN PICK UP COPIES OF
CORRESPONDENCE AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE****
Job Order Description: RESIDENTIAL REFUSE RATE INCREASE
Category: PUBLIC WORKS
Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / /
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 29, 1998
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
/,
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBER CARSON'S MAY 20, 1998
COMMENTS ON SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Following the public hearing on residential refuse rates at the May 20, 1998 City
Council meeting, Councilmember Carson asked what basis is used for determining the
need for an increase and asked if a comparison had been made to other cities. She
also requested a more defined analysis on how the increase is coming about.
The basis for determining the need for an increase is a comparison of expenses and
funds available within the Refuse Fund as an enterprise independent of the General
Fund. This comparison includes capital and operating expensesto be covered by a
combination of reserves, financing, revenue from fees for services, and sale of
recycable.materials. This approach is similar to many other cities which provide refuse
and recycling services, in a survey of 18'refuse rates in surrounding areas and cities of
comparable size thro~Lghout the state, Bakersfield is $0.51 per month lower than the
average, and bnly two, of the other entities fund a senior refund program. In addition,
most of these cities have extra charges for street sweeping, while it is included in our
rate.
Due to the State's unfunded mandate for recycling, many cities are finding it necessary
to implement costly programs to divert waste from landfills. The greenwaste recycling
strategy selected by Bakersfield's City Council has proven to be one of the most cost
effective in the State. However, there is one final "hump year" of equipment purchases
needed to achieve full implementation. This includes $800,000 for greenwaste carts to
finish implementation of the automation program in contractor-served areas, an
expense that should not recur for at least ten years (when carts are replaced). Another
item is $426,000 for additional equipment to handle the increased flow of greenwaste
material into Mt. Vernon Recycling Facility. These changes are necessary for
compliance with the state recycling mandate.. They are partially offset by cash flow
which had been used previously for the Panorama Burn Dump Remediation.
KB:smp
G:\GROU PDATxSOLI DWASTE\CARSON052098.wpd
05/29/98 TRASH FEE SURVEY
SINGLE FAMILY RATE
Illegal Parks/ Exlra Extra
Single Trash Trash Green Green Curbside Senior Dump Police/ Spring Landfill Trash Green
Mandato~ Public/ Family Pickups/ Capacity Pickups/ Capadty Recycling Refund Sweeping Cleanup Fire pickup Cleanups Rate Cart or Cans Car~ Fee/
Municipality PoDulatio~ County Collection? Private Rale ~ (in gals) week (in gals) (in gals) percent Included? Included? Included'? Induded? per ton fee/month month
Garden Grove 152.000 Orange Yes Private $13.45 1 i 120 1 120 0 $650 $0.00
Delano 32.350 Kern Public S13.80 21 90 0 0 0 0 Yes $29.00
Tehachapi 6,500 Kern Private $14.11 1 0 $29.00
Wasco 18,850 Keen Public $14.16 90 0 $29.00
Kern Co, Unin. 280.600 Kern No Private $14,53 2 128 0 0 0 0 No No No No $29.00 $9.78 rile
Ridgec~est 28.700 K~n No Private $14.75 I 77 0 0 0 0 No No No ?? $29.00 373' n/a
Modeslo 179.800 Stanislaus Yes Private $15.15 t 90 1 90 Yes 0 No No No No $34,50 $11,98 $0.00
San Bemardino 180,300 San Bernardino Yes Public $15.25 0 Yea
Bakersfield 214.600 Kern Yes 50/50 $15,92 1 96 1 65 0 50% Yea Yes Yes No $29.00 $3.95 $0.00
Chula Vista 156,100 San Diego Yes Private $16.09 1 90 1 60 18 0 No i No Yes $2.00 $1.00
Riverside 241,600 Riverside 50/50 $16.31 0
Glendale 195,6OO Los Angeles Public $16.55 10%
Taft 6.650 Kern Private $17.25 2 90 0 0 0 0 $29.00
California City 8,750 Ket"n Private $17.80 1 0 $29.OO
Fremont 192.200 Alameda $18.22 0
Shafter 11.000 Ket'n Public $19.85 2 100 0 $29.00
Oxnard 152,800 Ventura Yes Public $20.67 1 55 1 90 90 15% Yes Yes Yes $4.00 $000
SIockton 236.500 San Joaquin $21.90 0
Average single family monlhly rate = $16.43
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 29, 1998 ~"~
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~i
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~ ~ ~'~'~( "~'
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBER MCDERMOTT'S MAY 20, 1998
COMMENTS ON SOLID WASTE BUDGET
Following the public hearing on residential refuse rates at the May 20, 1998 City
Council meeting, Councilmember McDermott questioned the proposed increases in the
Solid Waste Division operating budget and total charges for services. It is important to
note that these budget totals include $1.9 million new expenses and offsetting revenues
for a new line of work which has been added to the hauling contract. This work (roll off.
container service) has historically been performed by the local haulers on a permit
basis, and through last year's amendment, was brought into the same contract as
regular refuse services in order to gain control of the waste stream for recycling and to
enhance the refuse enterprise operation. Thus, the proposed operating budget
appears significantly larger than the current one.
While the foregoing explains the operating budget increase, it is also important to note
some large items in the capital budget. One item is $800,000 for greenwaste carts to
finish implementation of the automation program in contractor-served areas, an
expense that should not recur for at least ten years (when carts are replaced). Another
item is $426,000 for additional equipment to handle the increased flow of greenwaste
material into Mt. Vernon Recycling Facility. These changes are necessary for
compliance with the state recycling mandate. They are partially offset by cash flow
which had been used previously for the Panorama Burn Dump Remediation.
By adjusting the rates 3% for FY 98-99, the City's main recycling programs will get over
a "hump year" with full implementation. In the following year, the refuse enterprise fund
will begin to build a fund balance which will be necessary to reduce financing
requirements for the Bakersfield Landfill closure project in subsequent years. In a
survey of 18 refuse rates in surrounding areas and cities of comparable size throughout
the state, Bakersfield is $0.51 per month lower than the average, and only two of the
other entities fund a senior refund program. In addition, most of these cities have extra
charges for street sweeping, while it is included in our rate.
KB:smp
O :\O ROU PDAT~SOLI DW ASTE\MCDERMOTT52098.wpd
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR * CITY ENGINEER
May 22, 1998
Jack Hambaroff
7013 Weldon Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93308
Dear Mr. Hambaroff:
Per our conversation after the May 20, 1998 Council meeting, Varner Brothers has assured us that
your advance payment to them has already been reconciled. To recap, you are provided trash
collection for May and June for free, to phase in the City style service. If this is not the case, please
contact me immediately.
Also, I have enclosed a few senior rebate applications for you and some friends your wife mentioned
on the phone. This covers the period of July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, i.e., the first year you
will receive service as a city resident. Simply fill out the enclosed application and send us a copy
of your driver's license and property tax bill. We will process your application, and at the end of
your first year as a city resident, we will mail you a check for the 50% rebate. Your check for
$69.00 will be mailed out in August 1999.
If you have any questions, please call me at 326-3136.
Sincerely,
-H6ward l~orris, Solid Waste Superintendent Public Works Department
S:\WPDATA\R HAMBAROFF.LTR
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Solid Waste Division
SENIOR REFUSE REFUND PROGRAM '99
City Ordinance No. 3083
FIRST TIME APPLICATION
To qualify for the Senior Rebate Program you must satisfy the following requirements:
(1) You must have owned and occupied your residence as of JULY 1, 1998 and currently
occupy said residence.
(2) Your Kern County Property Taxes must be paid in full by June 30, 1999
(3) You must be 65 years of age or older as of June 30, 1999.
If you satisfy all three requirements, please complete and return form by June 30, 1999
First time applicants enclose:
COPY OF BIRTHDATE VERIFICATION: Driver's License, or Birth Certificate
COPY OF LAST YEAR'S COUNTY PROPERTY TAX BILL.
Refund Checks covering the period of July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 will be mailed the First Week
'of August 1999
Forms will not be accepted after October 1, 1999
Spouses of deceased Property Owners are eligible. Please provide your Date of Birth and Social Sec #
Relatives of deceased Property Owners are NOT eligible.
Questions should be directed to: Solid Waste Divison 326-3114.
Please mail completed application to: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Solid Waste Division / Senior Refund '99
4101 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93309
I Please print or type clearly all information I
LAST ' FIRST: TELEPHONE (805)
ST NO: ST NAME: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: sOCIAL SECURITY No.
CITY: ST: ZIP CODE: DATE OF BIRTH
r'-i MOBILE HOME PARK Name: Space #:
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that I did reside at said address during the
period covering July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, and that I did pay all utilities and expenses related to above address,
the above is TRUE AND CORRECT.
Applicant's Signature Date
': ~..~ .; , : '~: ~'. ;~',;~." ~:. :~i;::,~"~.~i: ~¥ .i~; :. ':~ ' ' · . · .
". .~ ~:::% ~:'~?:~ ~'~:~ ;!~ :~:' ~::~ ~i~';:; ;:i~?:' ~ '.'
MEMORANDUM
May 26, 1998
TO: DARNELL HAYNES, Assistant to the City Manager
FROM: ROBERT M. SHERFY, Chief Assistant City Attorney ~YY~
SUBJECT: Response to Comments Made by the Public (Phuoc Nguyen) on City's
Residential Garbage Fee Increase
Mr. Nguyen claims that the City has not followed the proper procedure for counting
protest votes to the proposed increased residential garbage fee.
Mr. Nguyen has confused the procedure that applies in this matter. Initially, he cites
Section 4, paragraph (e) of Proposition 218, as the procedure for determining if a majority
protest exists. However, that Section only deals with determining a majority protest when
assessments are imposed upon property. Section 6 deals with property-related fees and
charges, which would include residential garbage fees. Paragraph (a)(2) of Section 6
provides that: "... If written protests against the proposed fee or charge are presented by
a majority of owners of the identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or
charge." This is the proper procedure for determining if there is a majority protest.
Additionally, Mr. Nguyen cites Section 6, paragraph (c), as further authority for the
proposition that the increased fee or charge must be approved by a majority vote of
property owners. However, that subsection exempts from this requirement fees for sewer,
water, and refuse.
Hence, the proposed increase for residential garbage fees requires that protests
against the proposed fee must be presented by a majority of owners of all the parcels
subject to the fee before there can be an effective "protest" that would negate the fee.
Additionally, there is no requirement that increases of fees for sewer, water, or refuse
collection services be approved by a majority vote of property owners.
RMS:cj
S:~Mar~ager~/IEMOS~cornmentmmo.wpd
THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED
BY THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR ,, CITY ENGINEER
May 28, 1998
Phuoc Nguyen
1700 Custer Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93304
Dear Mr. Nguyen:
Thank you for your testimony, submitted at the May 20, 1998 Council meeting, and for your
letter that was delivered afterwards. You have asked many questions and I hope to
respond to them here.
In both your testimony and your letter, you expressed concern about the procedure to
count the majority protest and whether Prop 218 was adhered to correctly. The City
Attorney noted that the process was legally correct, in response to your testimony that
evening.
Specifically, comment #1 in your letter quotes Prop 218, Section 4(e), regarding tabulation
of the ballots. Section 4, however, relates to "assessments" which can benefit certain
properties differently than others, while trash collection is a "fee" for a service that is
provided the same to all. "Fees" are covered under Section 6. Section 4, therefore, does
not apply to residential trash collection services. Comment #2 identifies the City's
interpretation of Prop 218 correctly. As stated in Section 6(a)(2), "If written protests
against the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of the owners of the
identified parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge." Comment #3 relates to
Section 6(c), which specifically excludes this process in the first sentence: "Except for fees
or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services .... "The authors of Prop 218
did not intend, I believe, for cities to hold expensive general elections every year for
services affecting health and safety, i.e., water, sewer and trash collection.
Comment #4 asks whether trash collection expenditures are audited. The answer is yes.
The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is prepared by independent auditors in
accordance with State law. This is both a financial and a compliance audit, covering fiscal
responsibility and legal accounting principles. A copy of this report is available for your
review at the City Clerk's Office.
Comment #5 relates to the quality of the service and relative cost. (1) If you have a
problem with cars parked in front of your house, please call us. We can often fix that
Phuoc Nguyen
May 28, 1998
Page Two
problem in two different ways. First, the cart can be placed in the corner of the driveway
approach to prevent it from being blocked. Anyone who parks in front of your driveway can
have their car towed away. Also, police can put a warning ticket on the car to keep next
door neighbors from parking in front.
Comments #2 and #3. The new system separates the trash from the greenwaste, so that
people are provided one trash pickup and one greenwaste pickup per week. The "savings"
are both long and short term. Separating out the greenwaste preserves our landfills which
reduces costs in the long term since we can continue using nearby landfills for many years
longer than we would if we threw everything away. In the short term, automated pickup
will be based on one truck/one driver instead of one truck and 2-3 workers. The short term
savings will become obvious in subsequent years, however because the last major
purchase of carts will be accomplished next year to complete the final phase of
automation. Cost of living increases after next year will be for fewer people, and the carts
do not have to be replaced for 10 years. Comment ¢f-4. You note that you are restricted to
one big trash can. However, the system is flexible. If you have a gardner and wish to
exchange your green cart for a trash cart, you may do so, at no extra cost. Also, if you do
your own gardening, you may request an additional green cart, also at no additional cost.
Comment #5. It is true that the old manual system would often pick up discarded
mattresses and other large items, at no additional cost, because it was subsidized with
general fund money. In 1986, for example, the trash fee was only $17.00 for the year,
though the actual cost was much higher. The effort today is to make government run more
like a business and to charge the actual cost of providing a service. Nevertheless, your
point is well taken. Staff is working to develop a bulky item program in conjunction with the
county so that people can avoid long trips to the landfill when they need to discard, i
furniture, tires, stoves, etc.
If you have any questions or are in need of additional information, please call me at 326-
3114.
Since.rely,
~/~~~s, S~ol~'/~~Superintendent~. Public Works Department
c: Bob Price, Mayor
Council members
Alan Tandy, City Manager
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director
p:\wp\ltr\cc_nguyn.ltr
Phuoc Nguyen
Parcel / APN 023-111-01-00-9
1700 Custer Avenue
Bakersfield, CA. 93304-5008
Thursday, May 14, 1998
Pamela A. McCarthy
City Clerk
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA. 93301
Subject: Comments on the Bakersfield City proposed $t 38.00 for residential solid
waste fee for 98-99. These comments to be presented at both hearings on Wed,
May 20, 1998 and on Wed, June 10, 1998.
Dear Madam,
It is requested that the following comments be presented to the Bakersfield City Council,
the Mayor, the City Management, and the public at the two hearings.
Comment #1: The Bakersfield City illegal procedure to count the majority protest
In the Invitation letter, at the end of paragraph 4, the City states that: "any
interested property owner with an objection to the proposed service fee may file a written
protest .... If protests against the proposed fee are made by a majority of identified
parcels, the City shall not charge the annual proposed service fee." What is the legal foundation for that procedure?
Proposition 218, Section 4(e) states: "A majority protest exists if, upon the
conclusion of the hearing, ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the
ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. In tabulating the ballots, the ballots shall be
weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property."
Comment #2: The Bakersfield City illegal procedure to count the majority protest
I repeat, the City states that: "If protests against the proposed fee are made by a
majority of identified parcels, the City shall not charge the annual proposed service fee."
Proposition 218, Section 6(a)(2) states that: "At the public hearing, the agency
shall consider all protests against the proposed fee or charge. If written protests against
the proposed fee or charge are presented by a majority of the owners of the identified
parcels, the agency shall not impose the fee or charge."
While Proposition 218 emphasis on the property owners at the public hearing
as the total, and the fee increase disapproved if protest ballots exceed the ballots
in favor of the increase, the City wants to use all property owners in the City as the
total, and written protests must exceed 50% of all property owners in the City.
Subject: Comments on the Bakersfield City proposed $138.00 for residential solid
waste fee for 98-99. These comments to be presented at both hearings on Wed,
May 20, 1998 and on Wed, June 10, 1998.
Comment #3: The proposed $138 residential solid waste fee must be approved
by a majority of the property owners.
I repeat, the City says:" If protests against the proposed fee are made by a
majority of identified parcels, the City shall not charge the annual proposed service fee."
Proposition 218, Section 6(c) states that" ... no property related fee or charge
shall be imposed or increased unless and until that fee or charge is submitted and
approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the property subject to the fee or
charge or, at the option of the agency, by a two-thirds vote of the electorate residing in
the affected area."
Please remember that any fee or increase must be approved by a majority
vote, and written protest vote should not be used.
Comment #4: The proposed program expenditure of $ 9,507,6t3 for residential
solid wasted related services is not acceptable because it was not audited.
Proposition 218, Section 6(b) and 6(b)(2) states that:
"A fee or charge shall not be extended, imposed, or increased by any agency
unless it meets all of the following requirements:"
"Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose
other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed."
There is no indication that amount was audited to comply with this law.
Comment #5: The proposed fee of $t 38 for 98-99 for my property is not
acceptable because the City wants more money for less service.
Ten month ago, in July 1997, when the "automatic refuse collection service" was
imposed on my neighborhood, the explanations were "the new system would be more
economical"
NOw the City wants more money for the service. Where are the savings?
Personally I receive less service now than in the old days:
1. The one-person crew would not accommodate the trash pick-up if somebody
park his/her car in front of my house.
2. Now only one Trash pick-up, I repeat trash pick-up, per week instead of two
trash pick-up per week by the old system.
3. I have to store trash for seven days, not three or four days like in the past.
4. Now I am restricted to one big trash can, equivalent to about two "normal"
cans of trash. The two-person crew was willing to pick up four trash cans.
5. Now I have to size my refuse to the trash can. If I have a discarded mattress,
or a big cardboard box, I have to take it to the dump. Not in the past.
Phuoc Nguyen
Cc: The Bakersfield City Council
THIS IS AN INVITATION, NOT A BILL!
The City of Bakersfield invites you to a hearing on the annually collected
service fcc tbr residential refuse services, in compliance with voter
approved Proposition 218.
m-oticc is hereby given that pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of Title 8 of the Bakcrslield Municipal
Code, Bakcrslicld has provided residents a comprehensive solid waste system including refuse
collection, disposal and other residential solid waste services for thc protection and enhancement
of the environment and tile health, salbty and welfare of the community. By law, charges for these
services are paid directly by property owners and/or occupants within the city as part of the annual
property tax bill. In compliance with Proposition 218, approved by the voters in November 1996,
residential property owners within the city limits of Bakersfield are hereby informed of the
proposed service charge for refuse services. Your property is included, as identified on the top line
of this ~nailing label.
your li:c for last year's service was $134.00. The proposed flee for FY 1998-99 is $138.00. This
is calculated based on proposed prqgra__.m~_~._x, penditures of $9,507,613 tbr tile residential solid'
waste related services curre-nti_y__pr__ovidcd to ali residents of Bakersfield. Due to inflation and other
costs, tim proposed expenditures are 3% higher than last year.
This
notice serves as an invitation to two hearings to be held regarding thc residential refuse
I. collection services and proposed service li2e. The first, to be held on Wednesday, May 20,
1998 at the Council Meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m., will be a public testimony hearing at which the
City Council will be happy to Ilear rely comments regarding thc proposed annual service fee. The
meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at 1501 Truxtun Avenue.
The second hearing will be held on Wednesday, June 10, 1998 at the Council Meeting beginning
at 7:00 p.m. This will be a protest hearing tbr those wishing to express protest on the proposed
annual service fee for refUse collection, disposal, and other residential solid waste services. In
addition, any interested property owner with an objection to the_2[pp_o.s_ed service fee may .file a
written protest, signed by the owner, des%thing the parcel of pr. gperty..so that itmay be identifi~d'~
.and stating the grounds for the protest. Written protests shall be filed with ,tic City Clerk at 1501
Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301, at or before the protest hearing.~ If protests against
the proposed fee are made by a majority of identified parcels, the City.._s. hall not charge the annual
proposed service fee.
'f you would like additional infommtion on the services provided by the City or on the proposed
.service tee, please contact Martha Haslebacher of the City Solid Waste Division at (805)326-
3114. She would be happy to discuss any questions or concerns you might have.
Dated: April 23, 1998 ~hh~,01 ~- (/~
· - Pamela A. McCarthy
CITY CLERK, City of Bakersfield
PRESORTED
Bakersfield Solid Waste Division FIRST CLASS MAIL
C/O City Clerk's Office u.S. Postage
PAID
1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA
Bakersfield, CA 93301 Permit No. 110
il,l,,,,ll,,,ll,ll,,,,I,,I,l,l,ll,,,ll,,,I,.I,II,,,ll,,,I,,I,I
Ifllll.#lli#iillUTOmliS-O I G ! T 93304
p#uoc YlIU & Si#ONE BU! NGUYIrll
OZ 3 J: t
tTO0 CUSTER iWE
SI~KER$1:iELO, CII 93304-5008
u/ab"
r ~
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS. DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER
May 21, 1998
William East
2906 Sunflower Way
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Dear Mr. East:
Enclosed please find your senior rebate application, per our phone conversation.
Upon receiving a copy of your completed application, driver's license and property tax bill, we
will process your application and mail you a check for 50% of the 1997-98 trash fee, i.e., $67, in
August 1998. The rebate will cover the period of July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998.
If you have any questions or are in need of additional information, please call me at 326-3114.
Sincerely,
~d~~perintendent" 't.} N, Public Works Department
CI~Y OF BAKERSFIELD i .A¢co,,,=,~ u,o,~,- ;
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Solid Waste Division I i
SENIOR REFUSE REFUND PROGRAM '98
City Ordinance No. 3083
FIRST TIME APPLICATION
To qualify for the Senior Rebate Program you must satisfy the following requirements:
(1) You must have owned and occupied your residence as of MARCH 1, 1997 and currently
occupy said residence.
(2) Your Kern County Property Taxes must be paid in full by June 30, 1998
(3) You must be 65 years of age or older as of June 30, 1998.
If you satisfy all three requirements, please complete and return form by June 30, 1998
First time applicants enclose:
COPY OF BIRTHDATE VERIFICATION: Driver's License, or Birth Certificate
COPY OF LAST YEAR'S COUNTY PROPERTY TAX BILL.
Refund Checks covering the period of July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998 will be mailed the First Week
of August 1998
Forms will not be accepted after October 1, 1998
Spouses of deceased Property Owners are eligible. Please provide your Date of Birth and Social Sec #
Relatives of deceased Property Owners are NOT eligible.
Questions should be directed to: Solid Waste Divison 326-3114.
Please mail completed application to: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Solid Waste Division / Senior Refund '98
4101 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93309
LAST: FIRST: TELEPHONE (805)
ST NO: ST NAME: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: SOCIAL SECURITY No.
CITY: ST: ZIP CODE: DATE OF BIRTH
~] MOBILE HOME PARK Name: Space #:
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that I did reside at said address during the
period covering July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998, and that I did pay all utilities and expenses related to above address,
the above is TRUE AND CORRECT.
Applicant's Signature Date
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER
May 28, 1998
John Frassel
6101 Terra Vista Court
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Dear Mr. Frassel:
Thank you for your testimony, submitted at the May 20, 1998 Council meeting,
regarding the proposed trash fee rate. You brought up a number of points at the
meeting, many of which were discussed with you and solid waste staff at length.
Therefore, I will try to cover the new points and reiterate the old.
Your new concern was the use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as a tool for
adjusting cost of living increases for the contract haulers. The City uses the index for
the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside area to revise the rate, upward or downward, up to
a ceiling of 6%. The advantage of the CPI is that it is an objective measure of costs for
the southern California area. Obviously, it is not a perfect measure but it is superior to
the alternatives such as auditing the books every year. Taxpayers may wonder if the
prohibitive cost of an annual audit would ever pay for itself, compared to a standard CPI
adjustment. Also, experience with other cities is that contractors tend to operate "Rolls
Royce" operations when they know that such expenses will help to justify increases in
the following year's audit.
You also expressed concerns for the competitive process, or lack thereof, and what is
in the taxpayers' best interest. Throughout the country, solid waste service fees vary
considerably according to local conditions and the range of services funded by the fees.
We feel, as does the vast majority of ratepayers, that the rates in Bakersfield are
reasonable considering the number of programs required for recycling mandates and
regulatory compliance.
We have also learned, from examples all over the country, that municipal operations
can work in tandem with privately owned companies, in public/private partnerships, to
operate just as cheaply as traditional City-only or private-only arrangements. This is
the case in Bakersfield, and we value the ability to use a combination of municipal and
contract operations to avoid runaway costs. Judging from the way in which many
corporations play the rate game with cities across the country, we feel that Bakersfield
has done well to establish a long-term contract which is limited to standard inflation.
This falls in line with your comment about the wisdom of making loans to the haulers.
Municipal financing has certain advantages over private financing. When savings can
benefit the ratepayer in instances where they are used as a pass-through for the
contractor, the public interest is served.
Thank you for expressing your concern, We hope this and the lengthy discussions you
have held with staff have helped.
Sincerely,
Bob Price
Mayor
c:~cc_frasl.ltr
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(805) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR ,, CITY ENGINEER
May 27, 1998
Edith Rogers
7712 Hooper
Bakersfield, CA 93308
Dear Ms. Rogers:
You listed a number of questions at the May 20, 1998 Council meeting regarding the trash fee,
and I hope to respond to them in this letter.
"Other costs" costs defined. This year is the last phase of city-wide automation and greenwaste
recycling for the State recycling mandate. By April 1999, the entire city will be automated. But,
in order to do that, one last major purchase of carts and other equipment is needed. There is also
a 1.2% Consumer Price Index increase for the contract hauler serving your area.
Varner Brothers does not raise the rate in the County area. The County Board of Supervisors is
responsible for raising the trash fee, and they are expected to do so. The amount of the increase
is being negotiated at this time.
You paid Vamer Brothers for three months in advance. Contact them and request a refund for
May and June. You are provided trash service for free during the months of May and June as
part of the effort to phase in the City style service. Finally, I have enclosed an application for a
senior citizen rebate which is available to homeowners over the age of 65. The rebate brings you
a 50% rebate, meaning the proposed fee of $138 would actually be $69.
If you have any questions, please call me at 326-3114.
Sincerely, .
Kevin/Bames, Solid Waste Director
Public Works Department ~ ' !- '? ~''.'. :." wE DlVtStO,..
,LED
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Solid Waste Division
SENIOR REFUSE REFUND PROGRAM '99
City Ordinance No. 3083
FIRST TIME APPLICATION
To qualify for the Senior Rebate Program you must satisfy the following requirements:
(1) You must have owned and occupied your residence as of JULY 1, 1998 and currently
occupy said residence.
(2) Your Kern County Property, Taxes must be paid in full by June 30, 1999
(3) You must be 65 years of age or older as of June 30, 1999.
If you satisfy all three requirements, please complete and return form by June 30, 1999
First time applicants enclose:
COPY OF BIRTHDATE VERIFICATION: Driver's License, or Birth Certificate
COPY OF LAST YEAR'S COUNTY PROPERTY TAX BILL.
Refund Checks covering the period of July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999 will be mailed the First Week
,of August 1999
Forms will not be accepted after October 1, 1999
Spouses of deceased Property Owners are eligible. Please provide your Date of Birth and Social Sec #
Relatives of deceased Property Owners are NOT eligible.
Questions should be directed to: Solid Waste Divison 326-3114.
Please mail completed application to: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Solid Waste Division / Senior Refund '99
4101 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93309
I Please print or type clearly all information .
::: :: · : . . '~: .' ..: , ': .,..{... -:..' .....
LAST: ~. FIRST: TELEPHONE (805)
ST NO: ST NAME: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: SOCIAL SECURITY No.
CITY: ST: ZIP CODE DATE OF BIRTH
r-~ MOBILE HOME'PARK Name:' ~/:,' '~:.~ ' '. ~: Space #: .
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that I did reside at said address during the
period covering July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999, and that I did pay all utilities and expenses related to above address,
the above is TRUE AND CORRECT.
Applicant's Signature Date
· : · :i ~: . ,. ~-~:,.~ ;.~ :,.:.. ~ ~":. ~ '~ ',~::~'~ ? ~:.} ':.:~ .~ ~: ii~: ..:i'..~:~: ?~ .?'~i:~' ;~.*'. ~. ~ ~.~.. ......
FimtTime~pl S:~SENIOR_REF~SENIOR~ORM_IST_PAL~LIVE_DE~.RSL 0~27~8 ~unl 1
B A .K E R S F I E L D
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 27, 1998
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~j
SUBJECT: AUTOMATED REFUSE/GREENWASTE SERVICE IN PALM AND OLIVE
AREAS
The recently annexed Palm and Olive areas will begin automated refuse/greenwaste
service during the first week of June. Containers will be delivered to the residents
during the week of June 2nd. Staff mailed the attached flyer to each. resident and .
presented an informational display of the new carts at the two service fairs in April.
Homes currently receiving refuse service from Varner Bros. Inc. were billed for their
service only through the end of April. All homes in the area will be added to our annual
billing via the county tax roll on July 1, 1998. No prorated billing for the months of May
and June will be made.
P
Attachment
S:\WPDATA\PALMOLIVE598.wpd
Wh~ if I am physically unable to
handle the carls?
>' Thc Cit' ~ill provide free roll-out service for B A K E R S F I E L D
qualified residents. Medical verification is
required. ~ ·
>' Please call for more information. Automated
Refuse and
What if my collection day falls on a
Greenwaste
:~ If your trash or greemvaste service falls on or Recycling
after a holiday, service v-ill be delayed one day
that week.
Forexample: If the holiday falls on a Tuesday, Service
service will be on Wednesday. Wednesday's
service will be delayed to Thursday and so on.
Holidays are: Jan.
July 4th
Thanksgmmg Day
Dec. 25~ The resourceful way to take
the trasht.
oztt
For more information or questions
about refuse collection and recycling,
Call: 326 - 3114
Men. - Friday, 8 am - 5 pm
~ o ~ ~ City of Bakersfield
m ~ < ~< .~ ~ Solid Waste Division
Solid Waste Division ~, § .,,,,,,
Public Works Dept. O ~ ~= ~,; ~ 4101 Truxtun Ave.
City of Bakersfield ~ -,, - · ~ Bakersfield CA 93309
Your neighborhood will soon be part of Do I r'~%od speciol contoiners? 3- Cans placed near vehicles, other carts, or any
a new automated refuse' and green- other obstruction cannot be picked up.
waste recycling system. --- Please set your cart out bv 6 am on collection
>- Yes, the City will provide you with special new
~.. carts which are included inthe price you already day. Carts should be kept out of view from the
~ "x ' street or alley bem'een pick-up days.
Whlli~'lut0mltfl'~ pay.
~~ >- These carts are much larger and more durable
", than your old cans and they should adequately WhClt ff I IX;lye DuIky J~m$ I],e. couch,
hold your trash and yard cuttings, refrigerator, etc..}?.
> Your old cans may be put to good use as
recycling containers. Recycling drop-offcenters >- Look in the classifieds under cleanup and
are located throughout the citv. Please call for hauling services for more information.
more information.
How mony contoiners will I get, and ~WhatifI get 10st, st01en'~
what type of refuse can I put in them? ·
>' Automated collection is exactly what it savs.
Instead of having a worker lift your refuse into
the truck a mechanical arm does it for you. The >' You will receive 2 containers; I greenwaste
worker is in the truck cab operating the recycling cart and 1 tan refuse cart. The carts
mechanical arm, which is a safer and more will be picked up once a week on separate davs.
efficient wav to handle your refuse and
greenwaste. · Tan Refuse Cart-,- All REGULAR
household trash.
· Greenwaste Recycling Cart-*- Grass, leaves,
Why ks aufomoteO colleclk>n better brush, and small branches. Greenwaste is
lhon ffadifionol meltx:x:ls? recycled into compost and mulch for home and >- Carts are labeled with your address and can
garden use. serial number. Before reporting your cart as
missing, please yetiS' that it was not misplaced.
The curbside containers are maneuverable and Who~ ShOuld I do on collection cloy? >- The City will repair or replace all damaged
easy to roll. No more strained backs from containers at no charge, except those damaged
"ca .rrying out the garbage." due to negligence or abuse.
> Place your cart on the sidewalk curb, with the
Automation eliminates manual loading, thus handle facing your house. >- Carts are assigned to the propem' address. If you
reducing job related injuries.
move. they must be let~ behind for the new
'.~ You need to leave at least 5 ft. of space around resident.
It allows us to collect garbage more efficiently, the cart
California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties
League of California Cities
Legislative Day in Sacramento
May 27, 1998
The three local government associations represented on May 27, 1998 for Legislative Day in
Sacramento ask the following of the State Legislature and the Governor.
1. It is Time to Invest in Local Communities. With a $4.4 billion state surplus, the state is
going in the wrong direction with state and local government financial relations. It is attempting
to divest in local communities. It should be investing in those communities and restoring
libraries, maintain public services for safe streets, adding afterschool programs for youth
and building programs that strengthen social services.
2. It Is the Wrong Tax to Cut. If the state is determined to seek a tax cut, cut a state tax -
NOT A LOCAL TAX. The Vehicle License Fee has been a local tax since 1935 and has been a
stable source of local government while other revenues have fluctuated wildly. Other state tax
cuts would make much more sense as an economic stimulus than the vehicle license fees.
3. Let the Voters Decide. If the state wants to cut local taxes, let the voters decide if they want
to reduce local services. The voters should also decide in the same ballot package to: 1) return
the local government property taxes taken by the state in the early 1990's; and, 2) complete
constitutional protection for local government revenues in the furore
League of'C. alifornia Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916) 658-8200 Fax: (916) 658-8240
www.cacities.org
Why Legislative Efforts to Eliminate the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) Will Hurt
California's Communities.
FACT SHEET
Several bills now pending in the state Legislature would repeal the vehicle license fee (VLF). They are
Assembly Bill 1776 and Assembly Constitutional Amendment (ACA) 45 (McClintock, R-Simi
Valley), Senate Bills 2001 and 1998 (Hurtt, R-Garden Grove) and Senate Bill 1723 (Haynes, R-
Murietta).
The League of California Cities opposes efforts to eliminate VLF. Even proposals to provide a
constitutionally protected replacement revenue source aren't enough. Until all local government
revenue sources are constitutionally protected and cannot be manipulated by the state, as outlined in
the League-sponsored ACA 42 (Aguiar, R-Chino), none are safe. Specifically, ACA 42 would ensure
that local tax dollars stay in the community from which they came, put control over local revenues
squarely in the hands of local voters and secure a base of funding that could not be manipulated by the
state or used to pay for state programs.
Background on VLF
VLF is the fee that those who own registered vehicles pay each year instead of paying local
property taxes on their vehicles. It is 2% of the market value of the vehicle.
· The VLF is a major revenue source, expected to total nearly $4 billion in 1998-99. More than 90%
of VLF goes to cities and counties and benefits the communities they serve. The state DMV
receives less than 10% to cover administrative costs.
· Of the $3.6 billion in VLF revenue that goes to local government, cities receive $1.2 billion or $42
per capita. The.counties' portion of VLF is calculated differently.
· VLF accounts for as much as. 33% a city's budget and is general purpose or discretionary revenue -
- that which is not earmarked for a specific purpose. This is significant because for the average city
only 35% of its budget is discretionary and must make up the bulk of funding for police and fire
services, libraries, parks, economic development, planning, roads and other essential services.
· In 1986, California voters approved Proposition 47, reserving VLF revenue fOr local government
so the state could not take it away. For that reason, VLF is not considered part of the state's
general fund and is not at the discretion of state Legislators. Therefore, how it is distributed is not
up for debate during budget deliberations every year nor is it the subject of the fierce competition
among those who must vie for a piece of the state budget.
- ox;er -
Why We Oppose Efforts to Eliminate VLF
VLF is a long-standing, voter-approved local revenue source that primarily benefits public safety.
o The state created the VLF in 1935 to replace the personal property tax on motor vehicles, which
had been levied and collected by local governments. In 1986, California voters approved
Proposition 47 and reserved VLF revenue for local government so the state could not continue to
siphon its revenue to pay for state programs.
The average city spends 65% of its discretionary revenue on police and fire. That means the $1.2
billion cities will lose if the VLF is eliminated translates into a $780 million hit statewide to public
safety alone.
The state's track record tells us we should not bank on its promises of revenue backfill and protection.
o The state Legislature has taken billions in local property tax dollars since the early 1990s to help
the state budget overcome the effects of the recession. Since the shifts began, cities have lost a net
$2.3 billion, counties a net $5.9 billion and special districts a net $1.5 billion. Within 10 - 15 years,
the property tax revenue taken by the state will double in value due to strong property tax growth
and a healthy economy.
The state's non-partisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the state's 1998-99 budget year will
close with a-surplus of $1.5 billion. More recent estimates calculate that figure at as much as $4
billion. Even when the state's coffers are overflowing, as they are this year, legislators are
proposing to take more local government revenue instead of seriously designing ways to return or
suspend the local property tax shifts -- despite past promises.
· Local government is still hurting from the property tax shifts. Repealing the VLF before the
property tax is returned is insult to injury.
Since the late 1970s the state reduced or eliminated a variety of its long-standing revenue sources
to cities and counties, resulting in a loss of more than $300 million a year to cities
VLF provides much needed economic diversity to local government.
Because the state' has eliminated or reduced several historic local government revenue sources,
including property taxes, the VLF has become one of the three most important revenue sources for
cities. Ironically, it is the most stable since unlike the others -- sales and property tax -- it does not
dramatically rise and fall with the state's often unpredictable economy.
Good Politics Don't Equal Good Policy
With a possible $4 billion state budget surplus, proponents of the VLF bills say taxpayers should
share in these good times. Then, why not refund a state tax instead of one that benefits local
governments who are not enjoying those same good times?
What $1.2 Billion Means to Cities
The $1.2 billion cities would lose if the VLF is repealed equals:
· Construction of 400 libraries
· Employment of 12,000 police officers
· Operation of 1,000 fire engine companies -- staffed around the clock all year
· Value of 35,000 acres of developed park land
For more information contact Julie Marengo at (916) 658-8228 or David Jones at (916) 658-8245.
5/5/98
IMPACT OF STATE ADJUSTMENTS to CALIF CITY REVENUES
since 1980 in millions of dollars
Annual Cumulative
'1997-98 Impact
Year / Action value in 1998 dollars
FY79-80
Business Inventory Exemption Reimbursements -$ 21 million (one time) - ~$41.6
FY81-82
Vehicle License Fees and other subventions -$145 million (one time) - -$245.4
Liquor License Fees -$13 million -$28.2 -$411.3
Highway Carriers Uniform Business Tax -$ 3 million -$6.7 -$97.5
Financial Aid to Local Agencies -$22 million -$109.1 -$1,109.8
FY82-83
Vehicle License Fees and other subventions -$236 million (one time) - -$387.0
Veh Lic Fees for no&low-prop tax cities +$ 2 million +$6.1 +$75.0
Local Agency Relief Fund +$ 7 million (one time) +$11.5
FY83-84
Vehicle License Fees and other subventions -$278 million (one time) - -$437.0
FY88-89
Property Tax for no&low-prop tax cities +$44 million +$53.2 +$579.6
Growth in Veh Code Fines +$40 million -$40.0 -$451.8
FY90-91
Admin Costs of Cigarette Tax Subventions -$ 6 million -$6.0 -$50.9
Booking Fees and Property Tax Admin Charges-$100 million -$100.0 -$872.7
FY91-92
47% of Cigarette Tax Subventions -$20 million -$16.6 -$131.3
50% of non-parking fines -$75 million -$75.0 -$564.6
FY92-93
Remaining Cigarette Tax Subventions -$21 million -$22.9 -$144.7
Trailer Coach\Mobile Home Fees -$1 million -$1.2 -$6.8
ERAF Property Tax Shift -$240 million -$189.8 -$1,128.1
Redevelopment Agencies -$200 million (one time) - -$226.0
Vehicle License Fees and other subventions +$ 40 million (one time) - +$144.4
FY93-94
One-Half Cent Sales Tax for Public Safety (Prop172) +$82 million +$97.0 +$452.9
ERAF Property Tax Shift -$313 million -$348.9 -$1,675.8
Redevelopment Agencies -$ 65 million (one time) -$71.6
Vehicle License Fees and other subventions +$ 90 million (one time) +$144.4
May 11, 1998 League of California Cities Michael Coleman
(530) 758-3952
FY94-95
Redevelopment Agencies -$65 million (one time) -$69.7
FY96-97
COPs Public Safety Funding +$100 million (one time) +$100.0 +$103.0
FY97-98
COPs Public Safety Funding +$100 million (one time) +$100.0 +$100.0
Vehicle Code Fines + $62 million +$62.0 +$62.0
Total Take Aways -$904.5 -$7,671.8
Restorations/Additions +$378.3 +$1,221.0
Net Take Aways -$526.1 -$6,450.7
Total gross ERAF -$538.7 -$2,803.9
May 11, 1998 League of California Cities Michael Coleman
(530) 758-3952
California State Association of Counties
Repeal of Vehicle License Fee Negatively Impacts Counties
Even with a Backfill of Sales Taxes
11oo K S,eetS UMM~R Y
Suite 101
Sacramento ]. RETURN THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FIRST The repeal of the VLF and the use of
California
95814 state sales tax revenues to backfill local governments for the loss significantly diminishes the
state's ability to return the shifted property tax dollars which were originally imposed to fund
Telephone
916.327.7500 local services. The VLF repeal competes directly with our goal of recapturing property taxes for
Facsimile local services.
916.441.5507
2. DIMINISHES STATE'S CAPACITY TO MEET CURRENT OBLIGATIONS There could be a
deficit in the state General Fund budget of up to $3.9 billion if the economy does not sustain
current growth over time. Likely candidates for cuts are the state/county shared programs.
3. INCREASES COUNTY DEPENDENCE ON STATE BUDGET~ROC~ESSt T-his substitution of
revenues would place all county programs and services currently funded by the constitutionally
protected local VLF at risk in the annual state budget:cycle. ~his increased 6×156sure to the
vagaries of the budget process is unacceptable .to loc, al gove ,rnments V~hdse budgets 9re,a!rg.a. dy
subjected to annual jeopardy. · .... '
4. BOND RATINGS COULD SUFFER Since th~.,V. EF'i~ guaranteed to cdunties and cities by the
state Consmut~on, ~t ~s often hsted ~n official bond documents as a secure revenue source '
dedicated to retirement of the short and long-term bonds. If VLF were not available or if the
replacement revenue did not have the strong constitutional protection and were not as
economically stable as VLF, many bond issues throughout the state could face a downgrade.
5. RELIANCE ON SALES TAX REVENUES HAS OTHER IMPLICATIONS It narrows the stable
and reliable revenue streams for county services and increases reliance on sales taxes that are
more vulnerable to economic cycles. Reliance on sales tax also has land use implications as the
increased reliance on sales tax would only exacerbate the existing bias towards land uses that
favor sales tax. ~" .....
6. POTENTIALL Y DISMANTLES THE REALIGNMENT INITIATIVE Diminishes the reliability
of on-going program funding for these needed mandated services. The Realignment Initiative of
1991 restructured the state/county relationship in a number of health, mental health and social
service programs.
7. VLF IS NOT "INHERENT£ Y" A REGRESSIVE TAX The 2% flat tax is filtered by purchasing
choices and duration of ownership. The VLF is applied in neither a progressive or regressive
manner but a proportional and uniform fashion.
8. TECHNICAL PROBLEMS It is not clear, in the current language of the measures, whether a
redistribution of current funding levels among local governments could occur. Also, uncertainty
surrounds the language regarding the annual appropriation of funds as well.
Repeal of Vehicle License Fee Negatively Impacts Counties
Even with a Backfill of Sales Taxes
There are a number of bills which have been introduced in 1998 which would repeal the Vehicle
License Fee (VLF); AB 1776 (McClintock), SB 1723 (Haynes), SB 2001 (Hurtt) and SB 1998
(Hurtt). These bills follow a very popular campaign pledge to repeal a similar tax in Virginia.
The repeal of VLF, on the surface, provides a political tax cut with seemingly minimal financial
impacts to state and local governments. However, there are a number of issues that are of
concern to counties.
BA CKGR 0 UND :
Thc VLF is a tax in lieu of any ad valorem property tax on vehicles and is administered by the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Rather than assessing thc value of each individual
vehicle and imposing a 1 percent property tax, as is done with real property, California uniformly
applies a 2 percent tax on each vehicle based on its purchase price adjusted by a depreciation
schedule. All revenues generated by the VLF are constitutionally dedicated to local governments
(Article XI, Section 15 [a]). These revenues are statutorily split between counties and cities for
General Fund purposes. For the 1998-99 fiscal year, the Governor projects the VLF to generate
$2.7 billion, with counties receiving $1.6 billion and cities receiving $1.1 billion. (These
estimates include both commercial and noncommercial vehicles). In 1991, the Legislature
revised the existing depreciation schedule to fund human services programs, which are projected
at $951 million (Chapter 87, Statutes of 1991). VLF revenues also fund at least $200 million in
DMV administration, which brings the total impact of VLF repeal to $3.9 billion.
RETURN THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES FIRST
The State is currently using $2.6 billion in county property taxes each year to help balance its
budget. When the city and special district property taxes are added to the county amount, fully
$3.4 billion in local property taxes are being used to artificially reduce the State's constitutional
obligation to .fund schools. The repeal of the VLF and using state sales tax revenues to backfill
local governments for the loss significantly diminishes and likely eliminates the state's ability to
return any of the shifted property tax dollars which were originally imposed to fund local
services. The VLF repeal competes directly with our goal of recapturing proPerty taxes for local
services.
DIMINISHES STATE'S CAPACITY TO MEET CURRENT OBLIGATIONS
There could be a deficit in the state General Fund budget of up to $3.9 billion if the economy
does not sustain current growth over time. It has been suggested that education and corrections
would remain whole and that the growth of the state's general fund will allow appropriations to
continue for other program areas (i.e., health and welfare, courts, transportation, housing, and
environmental protection) including increases for inflation. This is contingent upon the
indefinite continuation and acceleration of the current economic expansion with low inflation.
This assumption is unrealistic. All of the programs that have a shared fiscal responsibility
between the state and county governments would be in jeopardy. The following compares the
historical growth patterns of both the state sales tax collections and revenues generated by VLF.
Comparison of Sales Tax & VLF Growth
($ In Thousands)
Sales .. Growth
Year Tax % Inc VLF % Inc Difference
1992 17,458,521 4,369,862
1993 16,598,863 -4.9% 4,470,321 2.3% -7.2%
1994 . 16,857,369 1.6% 4,518,795 1.1% 0.5%
1995 16,277,447 -3.4% 4,749,594 5.1% -8.5%
1996 17,503,864 7.5% 5,009,319 5.5% 2.1%
1997 18,434,781 5.3% 5,224,709 4.3% 1.0%
1998 19,519,601 5.9% 5,436,756 4.1% 1.8%
1999 20,355,703 4.3% 5,658,191 4.1% 0.2%
Totals 16.2% 26.4% -10.2%
AVG 2.3% 3.8% -1.5% ·
Figures are from Governor's Budget Summary, page 79.
VLF figures include not only VLF but also registration, weight fees and other fees. The VLF
portion equals $3.7 billion in 1999.
In order for the state to maintain state/county program funding, accompanied with increases to
cover inflation (3% for example), other state revenues would need to grow at a rate high enough
to compensate for 1.5% average annual loss in the sales tax/VLF revenue exchange. This is
further complicated by the predictions outlined in the LAO's The 1998-99 Budget: Perspectives
and Issues. In the fiscal year 1999-00, the tax reduction package enacted in 1997 carries a cost
of $1.1 billion to the state general fund. The LAO notes that the impact of this tax reduction
results in a higher growth in expenditures (6.1%) in 1999-00 than the anticipated growth in
revenues for that same fiscal year (4.8%). Given these fiscal constraints it is unrealistic that state
revenues will increase to meet the demands of state/county programs that counties are required to
provide.
INCREASES COUNTY DEPENDENCE ON STATE BUDGET PROCESS
The VLF is dedicated by the California Constitution to be used for local government purposes.
The sales tax revenues are part of the state general fund and subject to statutory appropriation.
This substitution of revenues would place all county programs and services currently funded by
the constitutionally protected local VLF at risk in the annual state budget cycle. This increased
exposure to the vagaries of the budget process is unacceptable to local governments whose
budgets are already subjected to this annual jeopardy. At the same time, this legislation would
ultimately deplete the State's General Fund revenue base by $3.9 billion which would add to the
likelihood that future state budget shortfalls would be shifted onto counties and other local
governments.
BOND RATINGS COULD SUFFER
Since the VLF is guaranteed to counties and cities by the state Constitution, it is often listed in
official bond documents as a secure revenue source dedicated to retirement of the short and long-
term bonds. Such a secure revenue source both increases the assurance to bond purchasers that
repayment will be made and tends to ensure lower interest rates. If VLF were not available or if
the replacement revenue did not have the strong constitutional protection and were not as
economically stable as VLF, many bond issues throughout the state could face a downgrade.
Repealing VLF would raise many questions in the investment community, given the percieved
strength of the VLF revenue stream.
In Orange County, the recovery bonds issued as a result of the 1994 filing for bankruptcy were
tied to the receipt of VLF revenues. If VLF is no longer available to pay debt service, the
viability of the recovery bonds may be in question. Many other counties have used VLF in a
similar way to lower interest rates on short and long-term bond issues.
RELIANCE ON SALES TAX REVENUES HAS OTHER IMPLICATIONS
Substituting sales tax for VLF has a fundamental and operational flaw. It narrows the stable and
reliable revenue streams for county services and increases reliance on sales taxes that are highly
vulnerable to economic cycles. When the economy is in a down cycle, as in the recession of the
early nineties, revenues would be lower, but this is the time when demand for county services
tends to peak. Diversity of revenue sources that are not so closely linked to the economy is the
only safeguard to ensure meeting the fluctuations in services demands.
Reliance on sales tax also has land use implications. The fiscalization of land use, where
development decisions are based on the amount of sales tax revenues generated, has led to
growth patterns that are unhealthy for communities. The increased reliance on sales tax would
only exacerbate the existing bias towards land uses that favor sales tax.
POTENTIALLY DISMANTLES THE REALIGNMENT INITIATIVE .
The Realignment Initiative of 1991 restructured the state/county relationship in a number of
health, mental health, medical and social service programs. The revenue that funds Realignment
consists of an increase in the VLF and a 'A cent sales tax increase. About one-third of
Realignment funding is generated by vehicle license fees. Although these two revenue streams
are distinct when collected, they are intermingled in the realigned programs. Therefore, any
extraction of the VLF from Realignment would destroy the carefully balanced formulas that
allocate these funds to counties.
Realignment works. Prior to Realignment, county health funding under the Medically Indigent
Services Program (MISP) fell from $522.4 million in 1985-96 to $232.2 million in 1990-91.
Mental Health funding experienced similar drops in funding from $498 million in 1988-89 to
less than $300 million in 1990-91. The formula structure has settled the very divisive issue of
funding equity among the counties and provided a reliable source of funding for critical
programs that maintain California's health and well-being. Realignment has provided the
counties with the flexibility to use their allocations within, and, to a limited extent, between the
Health, Mental Health and Social Services Trust Funds to meet locally-defined priorities and
needs. Many of the realigned programs have shared or matched funding with the State. Also,
counties must use the realigned VLF exclusively for certain realigned programs as a condition of
receiving tobacco tax revenue for health care services.
VLF IS NOT "INHERENTLY" A REGRESSIVE TAX
The VLF is a tax in lieu of any ad valorem property tax on vehicles and is administered by the
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Rather than assessing the value of each individual
vehicle California uniformly applies a 2 percent tax on each vehicle based on its purchase price
adjusted by a depreciation 'schedule. The fact that the calculation of the tax is based on the
purchase price does take into account some form of measurement of economic capacity or
income. A higher income group may purchase a $50,000 vehicle with a tax of $1,000 and have
the same tax rate of 2% as a lower income group that purchases a $10,000 vehicle. The 2% fiat
tax, however, is filtered by purchasing choices and duration of ownership. The VLF is applied in
neither a progressive or regressive manner but a proportional and uniform fashion.
We recognize that individuals have distinct purchasing preferences. Potentially, persons with
higher incomes may purchase lower priced vehicles and vice versa, which would increase the
regressive nature of the tax for lower income persons. However, the opposite may also occur
increasing the progressiveness. Additionally, it could be argued that higher income individuals
purchase new vehicles on a more frequent basis resulting in higher amounts of taxes paid'due
their remaining at the upper end of the depreciation schedule. The amount of tax paid is
determined by personal preference and not due to an inherently regressive tax.
TE CHNI CA L PR OB L EMS
It is not clear, in the current language of the measures, whether a redistribution of current funding
levels among local governments could occur. Also, uncertainty surrounds the language
regarding the annual appropriation of funds as well.
It has been suggested that the sales tax revenues for local government purposes be
constitutionally protected. There is a constitutional amendment proposal that would "fence" all
revenues that local governments receive from state intrusion. The condition of this proposal is
still in the development stages and the timing of legislative and voter approval is incongruent
with the legislative process of a 1998 VLF repeal or reduction bill.