Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/04 B' A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM May 7, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~'T'L~ SUBJECT: General Information 1. As mentioned last week, there is a possible deal brewing between the Governor and the League of California Cities which would, effectively, trade out accepting two years of budget losses in exchange for the Governor's support of the constitutional initiative that would, after the two years - theoretically - protect cities from further monetary raids by the State. Since learning of the discussions, we have been asking for the cost estimate to us. After persistently inquiring with the League this week, the best we can tell you is that the League board will meet on Saturday, May 8th, to consider allocation formulas. Hopefully, no later than next Monday, we will be told officially what the cost of this "deal" is to us. That is not certain, however, as it may take longer. A League membership meeting is currently scheduled on Thursday, which could be the time when the membership will be asked to endorse this plan. Those time schedules are too short; we have advised the League of our opinion on that and asked that more time be given to deliberate the issue once the cost is made known. There are many other players in this drama, including the comparable organizations to the League for the counties, special districts, and redevelopment agencies, in addition to the Governor and the legislators. We anxiously await finding out what the "tab" will be. An explanatory memo from the League is enclosed. 2. We are, of course, very pleased with the CPUC's decision to deny the sale of the Kern Power Plant to North American Power Group. Our efforts on this issue will now be fully directed to working cooperatively with PG&E to determine a more compatible disposition and use of the property and to assist them in any way we can in that process. The attached correspondence was directed to PG&E this week. 3. Staff received notice this week regarding the County's proposed booking fees for FY 2004/05. They are currently proposing a significant increase of approximately 26%, for a total amount of $1,155,621. Staff will be reviewing the figures presented and will be meeting with County representatives to discuss the proposed fees. Honorable Mayor and City Council May 7, 2004 Page 2 4. At the second Council meeting in May, I hope to place before you the documents which would trade out who the concessionaire/caterer is at the Convention Center from the Holiday Inn Select to Aramark. In exchange, the City would give up the land we own under the hotel ballroom to the Holiday Inn. The land has no value to us - their hotel is over it and there is a long term obligation not to charge rent. It was a structure that had meaning at the time those facilities were financed, but that debt is paid off, and it no longer does. This transaction would help clear up property records for the hotel. The benefit of this proposal to us is that Aramark already has the concessions in Centennial Garden. There would be menu, price, and quality consistency. There is management in place and part-time crews to cover the Convention Center's needs. Aramark has strong customer service and superior concession equipment~ We believe, overall, it would be better service for our customers. The Holiday Inn would continue to cater events they book and some which were grandfathered to select their own caterer would keep their grandfathered status. Please call if you have questions or concerns. 5. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: · Results of traffic signal timing review at 17th and F and 21st and F Streets; Councilmember Benham · Results of investigation related to a vendor selling cotton candy near Roosevelt School; · Follow-up information on traffic issues in the Oleander neighborhood; Councilmember Couch · Copy of correspondence supporting the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act enclosed; · Status report on the grant-funded energy conservation program being conducted by PG&E; Councilmember Hanson · Additional information regarding recruitment efforts for Public Works and Recreation and Parks; · Citizen concern regarding the playground equipment at Campus Park North; · Explanatory report regarding the tax exempt licensee fee for non-profit groups; · Report related to parcel taxes and the experience of California City regarding their recent ballot measure; this is an informational response, not a recommendation; Coun¢ilmember Salvaq.qio · Report on feasibility of applying for Proposition 40 monies or other grants to use for opening and maintaining the temporarily closed pools; · Status of graffiti abatement on masonry wall near the RV business at Panama; · Status of graffiti abatement on South H and LeMay. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pam McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst ~ ~RY-05-2004 NED 07:46 RR League o[ CR Oi{ies F~X NO, 916 658 8240 P, 03/08 OF C~,t.I FORNI^ Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916 668.8240 C I T I E S TO: League Board of Directors FROM: Chris McKenzio, Executive Director DATE: May 4, 2004 SUB3ECT: Proposal From Governor for Alternative Ballot Measure and Two-Yea' Budget Agreement This memo w[~ pmpatad to guide your preparation for our l~o~rd conference call Wednesday afternoon at 3:00 p.m. 1 will be traveling on League business tomorrow in the late morning, but i will be available by cell phone if you need to reach mc. Mimi Shatpe can give you my number it' you need me. Thanks. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Governor has approached the League and members of the LOCAL Coalition with a proposed alternative constitutional enendment to protect the same revenues protected by the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety he,action Act (the "LOCAL initiative") and two-year budget agreement that would secure the Governor's endorsement and active involvement and campaigning for the alternative measure. Thc alternative would constitutionally protect the same local revenues and provide similar protection from unfunded mandates as the LOCAL initiative. The budget atpeoment would include two years of "contributim~s" by local governments of $1.3 billion each year, with cities, counties and special districts each contributing $3:50 million and redevelopment agencies contributing $250 million. After two years, the contributions would cease, the revenues would be protected constitutionally from future raids, and the state would begin the process, ov~ five yeats, of paying local governments back for all previously deterred unfunded mandates. Staff recommends the Executive Committee support the proposal on behalf of the Board of Directors, subject to subsequon! ratification by the League General Assembly on May 13, 2004. RACKGROUND ERAF Facts. In fiscal 2003-04, the ERAF shigt cost cities, counties and special districts $5.2 billion. $in0o its inception, ERAF ha~ deprived local govcrnment~ of over $44 billions76 percent of whi~ch..has bee_n borne by co~_nties and_l 6. peroont_by cities.. · Prop. 172 Mitigation. In 1992 voters approved Proposition 172, which provided sales tax funding for public safety programs and today totals $2.5 billion--S2.7 billi<)n less than the_ an_n. ual ERAF_s_hifi co~Hnd it must be used for public safety purposes. While ~4% of the Prop. 172 t'unding goes to counties and 6% to cities, coumies still are losing about $1.$ billion and cities approximately $650 million per year. · Carrent Year Loss. In curtain state FY 2003.04, the first three months of the VLF backfill (the "VLF Gap Loan") was withheld from cities and counties by the state as a "loan" to the state to be repaid in August of 2006. The loss was initially estimated to be $825 million ($412.5 million city and $412.5 million county). After the increase in cm' sales in the three months leading up to the increase in the VI,F, the Department of Finance revised this estimate to $1.3 billion. (The "loan" repayment is !~nsecur_~-d by agreement or the constitution). The state also required a $135 million ERAF payment from redevelopment agencms. No payment was required from special districts. ~ ~ ~ ~RY-05-2004 NED 07:47 AM League o£ CR Cities FAX NO, 916 658 8240 P, 04/08 · Goveruor'a January Budget ProposM. In his January budset, the Governor proposed an additional $1.3 billion EIL~F shit% on top of the current $5.2 billion ERAF loss, to i~ borne $1 g8 million by cities (I 4%), $'q 16 million by counties (69%), $07 million by spcoial districts (7%) and $135 million by redevelopment agencies (10%). in addition he proposed cuts in one state subvention of interest to cities (Booking Fees - $311 million), suspension of Proposition 42 payments to cities and counties ($90 million each) and an additional $500 million in cuts in health and hunums services programs administered by counties for the state. · Legislative Analyst Proposes Alternative, In February the LAO proposed a package of approximately 31.5 billion in cuts and revenue transfers to local governments, including $200 million in local .~ales tax from cities and counties, :f~400 million from special districts, and $320 million from redevelopment agencies. The LAO also proposed eliminating most state subventions to local governments, totaling over $400 million. · LOCAL Initiative Flied. On April 16 the LOCAL Coalition filed over ]. 1 mi]lion ~ignatures to qualify the LOCAL initiative for the November 2004 ballot. GOVERNOR'S ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL Alternative Constitutional Amendment; Two=Year Budget Agreement. The Governor has approached the League and its LOCAL colleagues with a proposal'to sponsor an alternative constitutional amendment that would provide the same base of constitutional protection a~ the LOCAL initiative linked to a two-year budget "contribution" by local governments. The alternative measure is necessat~ because the LOCAL initiative would prevent most conuibutions by lo,al governments in 2004-0:5, and it mo~ certainly would preclude any two.year budget agreement without a vote or' the public. Wc have now completed discussions on the scope o~' the alternative measure and it is being drafted. ! am pleased to inform you that it will t~rovide bet~r orotect_ion of our revenues that the LOCAL_ .initiative nlus a m_ore enforce~tb-~e' mandate r~imbu_r~ment section~. Furthermore, it a~ord$ us the op-p~rtunity to clari~ word~g on some issues that have arisen since our measure was filed. Finally, the second year of the "budget agreement" would be contingent upon passage of the constitutional amendment. Governor Pledges ~o Lend Campaign. On April 16 Governor Schwarzenegger met by phone with the League Executive Committee. In that call he expressed concern about the effects of the LOCAL initiative on his effort to aeoomplish a state budget recovery and his strong desire to work wi~h us to craft an alternative measure coupled with a two-year budget agreement. He pledged to lead the campeig~ and raise funds t~r the campaign if we could agree to the proposal. In a meeting with very hip=;b staff of the Governor yesterday (May 3), they confirmed this commitment. If we reach agreement, our political teams will begin meeting week at'~er next. V~LF l~ate Reduction; VLF Backfill---ProperVy Tax Swap. The conterpioce of the Oov~nor's alternntive proposal is a permanent reduction of the VLF rate from 2% to 0.65% (its current effective rate). This would trigger elimination of the $4 billion "¥LF backfill'~ from the sta~e general t~nd that has been so contemlous in re~ent years and replacement of that revenue source, dollar-for-dollar, with property taxes to cities and co~nties from the ERAF fund or' each count. In the event ora shortfall in the ERAF ~und, the school shares of prope~ taxes would be teduoed as well to finance the swap, with the state making schools whole from the sta~ general fund. ~ This is due to ~wo factors. First, it protects all of de revenues and local governments prote~ted by the t. OCAL, measure (including repayment of the $650 million VLF gap loan in 2006.07), wi~b the addition of the new Bradley Burns sales tax authority ~anted by the legidaMre last year. Secondly, the mnndate seetio~ will provide tbr the automatic repeal of mandates that are not funded. Some labor groups were increasinRly criticizing the ~ocal suq~nslon provision in thc LOCAL measure, ~ they suggested this new approach. 2 " ? = ~ ~RY-05-2004 NED 07:47 RM League of CR CiLies F~X NO. 938 858 8240 P, 05/08 Two-Year Budget Agreement Elements. Instead of a traditional ERAF shi~ for cities and counties, the Administration proposes equivalent payments by cities and counties similar to the current year's $650 million each but at a surlier amount--S350 millim~ each from cities and counties---for two years. This amount would bo withheld from cities nnd counties and remah~ in the county ERAF fund m the fir-~t two years of the swap and then be paid to them in full in 2006- 07 and become part of the base amount of new property tax that would go to the cities and counties~in exchan~ for the YLF backfill on a dollar for dollar basis. Special districts and redevelopment agencies would make a traditional contribution to ERAF of $~50 million and $250 million, respectively. The Admini~tTation al~o agrees to begin repayment of the d~fcrred mandate reimbursements, beginning in 2006-07, to be paid in full over five year~. No Property~Sales Tax l~xehange. Over th, last few weeks tl~e Governor's Office has been under tremendous pressure t~om stone legislators to add a property-sales tax exchange to the proposed "aj,~ement". We have communicated that such a provision would be a deal killer, and they have heard us. We have now received very clear a~surances that the Governor will oppose the addition of such a proposal to the package when it goes through the legislature. This has been very important to us, ns you know, and it has taken weeks to complete the discussion. By the way. Michael Coleman now estimates that when the VLF backfill--property tax exchange take:~ full ~t'l~c~t in 2006-07, cities statewide will be receiving ] 1% of their revenues fTom the property ax and 10.9% from tho sales tax---a significant balance on a statewlde basis SUGGESTED ISSUES FOR BOARD ATI~ENTION Our discu.,ions with the Governor's staff.have been positive a~d thorough, in£ormed by the work of a separate ¢ornmitlee of s~ate (Dept. of Finance, Controller, and Legislative Analyst Off, ce) and local (League, CSAC, CSDA and CRA) technical expms. J'u~ a few issues are remaining from those discussions that are not resolved and on which we need your reaction. I. Allocation of $350 Million Reduction. This is a challenging issue for the League, and the Administration essentially wants us to decide the allocation mechanism and inform the Govornor and Legislature. The Governor's original $1.3 billion ERA}: reduction in January would have been spread on an ERAF basis, hitting cities wi~h hi,ar shares of the property tax with & g~oater share of the burden than those with a lower share. The C~ovcrnot's recent two-year budget proposal abandons a traditional ERAF "contribution" from cities and oounlies by withtmlding payment of $350 million to cities and a like amoum from counties in the first two years of the exchange of VLF backfill for property taxes on a doilar-tbr-dollar basis. The financial impact will be felt by cities when they do not receive their share of the $350 million from the county ER.A}: fund-as opposed to the previous method of the county auditor making a payment to the ERAF fund from the propen3, taxes actually collected for the city's property tax share. Alternatives for allocating the impact of the reduction would appear to include the following: (~) AIIo~ate on · motor vehicle tax basis (essentially per capita), the same basis as the current year's reduction (a higher amount tbr 304 cities); (2) Allocate on an ERAF basis (n higher amount for 174 cities), the same basis ns the Governor's initial reoommead~tion; and (3) Some type of combination of these two methods or some entirely different method that looks at these and other factors. CS^C has done this already and chosen a VLF basis for the allocation.. RI~COMMENDAT~ON: Authorize the League President to appoint a small task force. representative o£the mcmborsi~ip, to develop a recommended allocation method that shares the " ~ ~ ~ MRY-05-2004 NED 07:47 RM League o[ OR CiLies FAX NO, 9]6 658 8240 P, 06/08 pain of* the reductions on as equitable a basis as possib)e. Thc Task ]:orc¢ would forward ia recommendations to the ~ard of Directors for action in a meeting held by conferene~ eaU. 2. Hardship Allocation. During ]a~ year's budget negotiations we convinced the Administration to find $20 million to finance the cost orr tho $1.3 billion VLF Gap Loan for about 25 local governments that had either pledged VLF to repay bonds, are new cities that get a three- fold amount of VLI: to help them get started, or are dlq~roportionately dependenl on VLF to support their general fund (37% or more). This was done at the expense of the .~tate. This year the Department of Finance has said they want to exempt from the YLF backfill- property tax swap the local governments that have pledged VLF In repay their bonds. They are open to a "hardship" designation, but none of the other local government groups want to participate in a hardship program because of the dlffioulty of drawing eligibility lines. This is easier for cities, perhaps, because it is clear which are now cities and which a~e the most VLF dependent. If we do it, however, it would be at the expense of other cities. RECOMMENDATION: Support a hardship allocation in principle, but recognize that the extent of the need for one is a function, in part, of the allocation method chosen for the entire amount of $350 million, ffVLF is the basis, there are some small cities that receive a disproportionate share of their general revetlues from VLF (i.e., those in the 3?% category mentioned above) that would be devastated by such an approach, if another method of allocation is used, it could soften tile blow on these cities and eliminate the need for some or all of a special "hardship" exemption. Staff recommends supporting this concept in principle and referring this issue to tho League Task Force mentioned above for review and recommendation 3. Lu the Size of the Badger iaackage Too Big? ] have received feedback fh~rn some board members and others that the proposed fi~al impact on cities of this package is too big ($350 million), especially considering the fact that redevelopment is at $2S0 million, 96% of which is from city redevelopment agencies. I have tried repeatedly to get both numbers lowered, and the tespon~ from the Administration is "we need $1.3 billion, and if you want it lower, it will have to be a 3-year package." Moreover, there are so many questions state officials have about redevelopment agencies and their avai]able resources, that ] have been unable to address them in a way that would secure a lower number. Others may be able to do it, but ! have not. It might be useful to keep a few benehmn~ in mind as you look at this: 2O03-O4 20O4O5/O5-O6 Budget Impact on Cities $650 million (VLF Loan) $350 million Budget Impact on RDAs $135 million (ERAF Shift) ~250 million Budget Impact on Cities/RI)As Comblnedz $780 million $590 million Other Budget Cuts Proposed for Counties $500 million ~ POLITICAL CALCULUS · in tho final analysis, whether this proposed alternative is in the best interest of cities is a political question. 1 respectfully submit some of thc factors that deserve our a~xention in weighing this opportunity include the following: 2 This combines $350 million and 96% oldie ILDA figure of $250 million. 4 '~ ~ .... ' ~ ~RY-05-2004 NED 07;47 RM League of CR Cities FRX NO, 916 658 8240 P, 07/08 · Fundralsing. We need to raise approxinmtel¥ S10 million and it will be much more difficuR with the Governor's opposition and slgnificanfly easier with his support. The Governor's staff told us again yes~rday he would play a significant (not dominant) role in as-~istinj~ with fundraising, allowing his name to be used, headlining the program at some fimdraising events, crc. He also will serve as chair or co-chair ct'the campaign. Coalition Building. Some business and tax groups am withholding support for the measure until they know the Governor's position. His opposition could bring opposition from these groups as well. Tile Governor's Office has already reached out to ~ese groups and feels we cnn secure their support t'or this alternative package. · l-~islative Snpport, The amount of 1o$islative support for this package is unknown. Our sources indicate strong support for it in Republican cimles and unknown support levels among Democrats. It would be a 2/3-vote bill,, so bipartisan support will be ,lecessary. ]t'we are unable to secure legislative support in a way that is timely or satlsf'actorT, we will need to go ahead with the LOCAL initiative~possibly with the Governor's opposition, but he could also gO neutral or $~pport if he is cot)vinced wc worked hard to get the alternaive measure passocl. · Member aaa Coalition Sappert. We m~y lose some members or coalition members ~f we strike a "deal" because of' the financial impact or they don't like the iclca ct' givin& up any grmmd. · Olber Wlmt lffs. The next few months bold many questions in store for us. One we discussed today on our ooalitmn conference eau was what type o£baJIot arguments do we file tot out measure given that the deadline is Sune 28 and the alternative constitutional amendment will not be signed by limn. The answer is: we file arguments that will help us win. M~,~:y o~her timing and strategic issues will a~ise, and we need to face them head on. CONCLUSION On balance, I believe this alternative proposal from the Governor, developed in consultation with our LOCAL panners, provides an important opportunity to accomplish the League's number one priority--constitutional protection ct' local rcvenues~with a higher degree of success on the November ballot. Thc addition of the Governor's leadership and fundraising potential, the prospect for an even clearer and stronger constitutional amendment, and the stronger coalition opportunities all suggest support for this unexpected modification in our campaign plan. In the final analysis, if it proves infeasible from a 1¢gisLatlve standpoint, we will have formed a stron~ alliance with lhe Governor and should feel confident of his support for our priority. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Executive Committee express support tbr the proposal as described herein on behalf of the Board of Directors, with the recomme~ded actions described herein. Final resolulion of the allocation method and other related manors would occur over the next month. GENERAL ASSEMBLY '~tile the ~tive ~mmi~'s a~ ~ ~half of l~ ~d would ~ vicw~ by thc Adm~istrntion ~ suppo~ for ~e "a~ment", I have informed various mff mem~n in the Governor's Offi~ of our Genial As~mbly me~ on May 13. ~e Governor has been invimd to s~ak ~ the May 12 ~slanve Ac~on Days event, ho~v~, ~d we will le~ Fdday if he will ~. If ~ d~s came, he w~.li ~t ~ anno~c~ thc "~en~.~ven tho~ ~ will b~subi~t t~ ~fi~a~ion by t~. ~n~a[.Assembl~d ~e BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy ·City. Mana§er May 6, 2004 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mr. Craig Schmidt, 'Public Affairs Director '~ Governmental -Relations 650 O Street, 3rd Floor Fresno, CA 93760 RE: Kern Power Plant Dear Craig: In light of -the CPUC's official decision will prohibit the sale of the Kern Power Plant to North American Power Group, the City of Bakersfield would now like to focus on initiating a-cooperative effort with PG&E to consider the future disposition and use of the site. Our efforts for the past year have, by necessity, been .concentrated on justifying why the power plant should not.be ~put back in operation and in opposing the proposed sale to NAPG. The latter was much more complicated and time consuming than we had anticipated, since NAPG was so uncooperative with City staff and equally ambiguous about their plans to operate the plant. We never did receive any substantial .proof that they actually .had the financial ability to do what they claimed, even though we repeatedly asked for details. While NAPG attempted to garner .positive public sentiment, they were never forthcoming with City staff during any part of the process. Moving forward, the environmental condition of the property and its urbanlocation ought to be the primary basis for any decisions made regarding future use. The City would like to-Pursue a collaborative effort ingetting the clean-up completed and facilitating the disposition of -the property in such a way that .it will be beneficial 'for both the community and PG&E. There were several major concerns brought to the forefront-during the last year which remain to be addressed: · The location of the facility is adjacent to residential and commercial ~development that has taken place since the plant ceased operation and the permits were allowed to lapse. The general public sentiment has been in opposition to restarting the power plant. In practical terms, the northwest area of Bakersfield has literally grown up around the plant site. City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office ° 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California ° 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 324-1850 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Craig Schmidt, Public Affairs Director May 6, 2004 Page 2 · The .groundwater contamination caused by the` Sunland Refinery, just ··east of the power plant, is a long-standing concern, and it.will take considerable .time to complete the environmental clean up. · The air pollution in our region receives negative media attention almost everyday and has recently ~been downgraded again.~ It is-imperative that .the future use of the · property will not further compromise local air quality. The City is in a position to take a leading involvement ·in zoning decisions and other developmental impacts that will help PG&E. Just as we ~have entered into discussions with representatives ~rom Shell about the future land use of their refinery property on Rosedale Highway, we would like the opportunity to assist PG&E in the same manner. We would like to work with you to-maximize the compatibility of the power plant property to existing conditions in the area and to realize ·a positive economic outcome, as a result. Your thoughts regarding our proposal would be appreciated. Sincerely, cl,~nMTaannad~e r~ AT:RS cc: Honorable-Mayor and City Council Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney i t RECE ¥ D MANAGER'S B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May $, 2004 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM' RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR//'.~,~ SUBJECT: SIGNAL TIMING AT 17TM & F Council Referral #763 Council requested review of the signal timing for 17th and F and 21st and F during the late evening hours. Signals stay on red and do not cycle in a timely manner. Traffic Engineering reviewed the signal timing and operations of the traffic signals at 17th and F Streets and at 21st and F Streets. The intersection of 21st and F Streets is temporarily operating with a detector recall to the east-west side street (21 st Street) because of an operational problem with the signals cycle for the north-south direction. This temporary condition may be the cause of the noted signal timing concern by the public. Traffic Engineering is working to resolve the operational problem with additional detectors in the future. Signal timing will be adjusted, where possible, to minimize the delay until such [ime that additional detection can be added to the signal. No changes are proposed, at this time, to the signal timing at 17th and F Street. The signal timing is correct and it is operating as designed. Traffic Engineering continues to monitor these locations, and other traffic signals in the City, for changes or improvements to accommodate the flow of traffic as may be appropriate. G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~2004\04-28\763 - Traffic.doc MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: LESLIE SIMPSON, TREASURY SUPERVISOR (ACTING) .~.,k~ SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL #000771 DATE: MAY 4, 2003 This is in response to a Council referral from Council member Benham requesting staff check the status of a vendor selling cotton candy in front of Roosevelt School. Financial Investigator, Cheryl Simpson went to Roosevelt School on Monday, May 3rd at 2:00pm to talk to the cotton candy vendor. When she got to the school there were two Bakersfield police cars parked in front of school, and a city car driving around the school. After making several passes by the school, she was unable to locate the cotton candy vendor. cc: Gregory J. Klimko B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May 6, 2004 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~ SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ISSUES AND FENCING AT BHS Council Referral #757 Councilmember Benham referred a prior referral concerning traffic in the Oleander Neighborhood to staff for follow-up and also requested an update on a prior referral concerning the railroad fence near BHS from City Attorney. TRAFFIC ISSUES: A prior referral concerned speeding on F Street in the area of 1st Street and 3rd Street in the Oleander neighborhood, and pedestrian crossing of H Street at 1st Street. Traffic Engineering completed the speed study on F Street and determined that the average mean speed for the street was 25.75 miles per hour. The prima facie speed limit per the California Vehicle Code is 25 miles per hour. The 85th percentile speed was 28.68 miles per hour. The 10 mile per hour "pace" speed was between 20 and 30 miles per hour with 78.43 percent of all vehicles within that speed grouping. These speed statistics are excellent for a typical 25 mile per hour residential street. To reinforce the residential speed limit, new speed limit signs were installed at each end of the street segment. No other improvements are proposed. A pedestrian crossing study was also performed at the 1st Street and H Street intersection. Pedestrian volume was substantially less than 100 per hour with only 18 crossing in one two-hour period and only 6 crossing in another 90 minute period on separate study days. In addition, the location proposed is only 300 feet from the fully signalized, pedestrian protected intersection of Brundage and H Street. This is much less than the 600 foot separation from a signal for an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing. The Traffic Engineer strongly recommends that pedestrians use the existing traffic signal to safely cross H Street in this area. G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals'67.004\04-28\757 - Traffic.doc B.A K E R S F I E L D CALIFORNIA April 21, 2004 CITY COUNCIL Har~eyL. Hall Mayor The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger David Couch 'Vice-Mayor California State Governor Ward4 State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Irma Carson Ward 1 RE: Request for Support for Local Taxpayers and .Public Safety Susan ~ ~enham Protection Act Ward2 Dear Governor Schwarzenegger: Mike Maggard Ward 3 As the mayor and city Council members of the City of Bakersfield, we HaroldW. Hanson ask for your support of.the .Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Ward5 Protection Act, a ballot measure for November 2004 that would JacquieSullivan require a vote of the people before State government could shift Ward6 more revenues away from local government. Mark Salvaggio Ward7 This initiative effort is consistent with your values of protecting local control and local democracy, keeping local taxpayer dollars local, and supporting city, county, and special districts in their efforts to provide'health and safety services to their constituents. The collective health-of local governments is vital to the overall health of the State and, as elected local officials, we take pride in our ability to provide those local services that make our quality of life second to none. 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 · (661) 326-3767 ° Fax (661) 323-3780 The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger April 21, 2004 Page 2 We respectfully ask for and encourage your support of the Local · Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act. D~. Couch, ~ice ~,~~~ ~cilmember, Ward 4 Mike Maggard, Councdmember, Ward 3 Harol~ ~ ~d H~nson, ~unci mber, Ward 5 Ja~uie Sdl'iivan, Councilmember, Ward 6 Mark C. Salvaggio, Councilmember, Ward 7 L0404192-Schwarzenegger cc: City Manager Tandy, Admin. Analyst. Slater, League of CA Cities RECEWED i,,iAY - 6 2OO , B A K E R S F I E L DclwMANAGER's':~':''- Economic and Gommunity Development Department MEMORANDUM May 6, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manag~,~Y FROM: Donna L. Kunz, Economic Development Director SUBJECT: P.G. & E. ENERGY CONSERVATION Council Referral No. Ref000766 Vice-Mayor Couch requested staff contact P.G. & E. to identify cost saving programs available to the City, businesses and homes; provide an update on the City's efforts to conserve; Donna Kunz to provide update on the half million dollar grant; Trudy Slater to contact Denise Newton or Liz Gomez regarding mailers or rebates to assist with conservation efforts. At the October 8, 2003 City Council meeting, a Resolution was approved authorizing the submission of a grant application to the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for energy conservation programs for commercial and residential users in Bakersfield and Kern County. PG&E (lead agency) and Staple/Hutchinson and Associates (consultant) submitted a two-year application and in December 2003 the Bakersfield/Kern County application was awarded $5.5 million. The majority of the grant funds will be used by PG&E and the consultant to market the Energy Watch Program in Bakersfield and Kern County and provide direct install services to residential and commercial customers. This application provided that 20% of the grant award would be shared between the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern (approximately $550,000.each) toward making necessary energy-saving improvement to government building upgrades. Since that time, City staff has been working with PG&E and energy audits have been conducted to determine the energy savings that could be realized at the Convention Center, the Ice Center, Centennial Garden, the Aquatic Center, and the Development Services Building. Once the audits are completed and analyzed, an agreement will be prepared for Council action. The audits are scheduled to be completed late in May. S:\DEBBIE'S\Council Referrals\PG&E grant.doc c B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM May 6, 2004 //~/ TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: CARROLL HAYDEN, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER SUBJECT: RECRUITMENT OF LABOR STAFF Since mid-March, when you authorized additional temporary workers for Public Works and Recreation and Parks, we have intensified our efforts in the recruitment of blue collar workers. We have had 130 applicants for these positions and have filled 21 positions. We still have 37 vacancies. Of the 130 applicants, we have not offered jobs to 59 applicants as they did not meet city standards for employment, such as convictions for assault and battery, possession of firearms, theft, hit and run, poor driving record and failure of drug screens. Seven applicants changed their mind about being considered after being asked for reference information. We have hired 3 individuals who did not appear for work and 2 who worked a short amount of time and quit. We have only had one Laborer applicant who turned down employment because the salary was too Iow, therefore, I do not think that the wage rate is an issue. Several have mentioned that they wanted permanent employment rather than temporary, so this is probably more of an issue than wage rate for Laborers. I do think we need to increase the hourly rate for Service Maintenance Worker by $2.00 an hour, as these positions require a commercial driving license and our $11.00 an hour rate is too Iow for experienced commercial drivers. Our efforts to overcome a limited qualified applicant pool have included the following: · Used alternative advertising to reach non-subscription households of the Bakersfield Californian (Mainstreet and El Califomiania), which resulted in direct mail pieces to 90,000 residents. · Identified Spanish speaking contact for all non English speaking applicants · Parks has streamlined the interview process by doing phone interviews every evening instead of waiting to do daytime interviews in person. · Targeted local high schools to ask for referrals. · Contacted local colleges and universities. · Contacted Career Services Center to assist in recruitment. · Contacted radio stations for PSAs to announce job opportunities. · Contacted sports associations for applicants. I would not recommend using a temporary help agency, as the markup for this type of worker is typically at least 50%. In addition, we would be responsible for any accidents and could be held liable for worker's compensation claims as well. It would be better to use overtime with our own employees, whom we know are trained on our equipment and in our methods. We will continue to source every avenue we can think of and welcome any ideas that might prove fruitful in providing applicants. The publicity in The Bakersfield Californian and Channel 17 this week caused a flurry of applications being requested. We just hope that we have them returned! The following items are some ideas we have yet to try and that we will be trying to implement, if feasible: · Design a flyer advertising our jobs in both English and Spanish · Meet with Parks staff and have application packets available for them to give to friends and neighbors. Many do not know we are hiring, as we have been putting the word out for months that we were not hiring. · Price the cost of ads on some Hispanic radio stations · Approach Vallarta Grocery and Mercado Latino about permission to post flyers or perhaps to have a recruiting table on a Saturday. · Recommend a rate increase for temporary Service Maintenance Workers. · Work with Parks staff to develop a plan for hiring workers who do not have a driver's license. This would allow us to hire some applicants who seem good, but do not have a license. It would also give us an opportunity to use BARC who often does this kind of work at state rest stops. RECEIVED  C~TY MANAGER'S OFF~CE DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: May 5, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Director Recreation and Parks~. SUBJECT: NORTH CAMPUS PARK PLAYGROUND Ref000756 (WARD 5) Councilmember Hanson referred correspondence from Shirley Steenbergen and requested staff look into the deplorable conditions of the playground equipment. Staff visited and inspected the playground equipment at Campus Park North and found it safe to be used by the public. A playground equipment audit was performed several years ago on all our park equipment in the City. We have renovated and/or replaced all park equipment that was evaluated to be unsafe. This ClP playground equipment replacement program still continues and Campus Park North is on the list. Shirley Steenbergen was contacted by staff and it was explained to her all of our playground equipment was audited and continues to be inspected for safety hazards. We informed her the City has a variety of funding methods to construct, renovate, and replace play equipment and it also has restrictions on where and how to use these funds. It was communicated to her the reason why we "plow' the sand was to "soften" the sand so it is a softer surface to fall on. In our telephone conversation with Mrs. Steenberger, we told her we want would review the playground equipment replacement list along with Campus Park North and determine if any adjustments needed to be made to the replacement schedule. S:\Council Referrals 2003\Ref000756.doc May 5, 2004 (10:32AM) ,~i,¢,,i' - 5 2004 2~'T~ i'~ANAGER'S ,-, MEMO~NDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: LESLIE SIMPSON, TREASURY SUPERVISOR (ACTING)~...~ SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL #000761 DATE: MAY 3, 2003 This is in response to a Council referral from Council member Hanson requesting information on the tax exempt licensee fee for non-profit groups. He requested staffto prepare a background report explaining the $5 fee for non-profits, and the cost effectiveness of the fees. The $5 processing fee is charged at the time a new business license is established or a business license is renewed. Non-profit organizations are exempt from the business license tax, but not from the $5 processing fee. This processing fee was established to help recover the costs incurred by staff, and materials needed, that are associated with issuing and renewing business licenses. Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) Section 5.02.060 (A) states that "It is unlawful for any person to transact and carry on any business in the city without first having procured a business tax certificate to do so." BMC, Section 5.02.060 (D) requires that any person claiming exemption from the tax substantiate their claim with a sworn statement to the collector stating the facts upon which the exemption is claimed. Cheryl Simpson, Financial Investigator (Business Licenses) reviews the SBC Street Ad&ess Telephone Directories, business listings for compliance to the business tax certificate requirements. After comparing information in our database any business that is found to be non- comp!iant with the business license requirement is sent correspondence and a business tax certificate application package. Once the applicant contacts Cheryl, and it is established that the business is exempt from the tax, they are instructed to send in documentation substantiating their claim of tax exempt or non-profit status, along with the $5.00 processing fee, and a tax certificate is issued to the applicant without payment of the tax as provided by BMC 5.02.060 (E). While a business may be exempt from the tax, all businesses are charged the $5.00 processing fee. Each year tax exempt and non-profit organizations are also sent business tax renewal statements, and the City of Bakersfield is able to maintain compliance from all businesses as required by City Municipal Code. cc: Gregory J. Klimko RECE VEU - 7 2004 CITY M '- · ANAG:R S C? MEMORANDUM May 5, 2004 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director A/~/( Subject: Parcel Tax / Shortly after the March 2004 election you requested I research the issue of Parcel Taxes. If memory serves me correctly this issue was raised by Councilman Hanson. I spoke to Terry Hicks, California City Finance Director regarding their recent parcel tax ballot measure. He advised me their election was for an $85 per subdivided parcel "special tax" requiring a 2/3 vote which failed with a 63.52% yes vote. They plan on resubmitting the parcel tax for the next election since this revenue represents approximately 30% of their general fund budget. The resolution and other materials Terry sent me are attached. The City of Bakersfield currently has approximately 87,000 taxable parcels. A parcel tax would generate approximately $870,000 per $10, $1,740,000 per $20 and $2,610,000 per $30 levy, etc. The California City parcel tax was a "special tax". I requested the City Attorney's office research the difference between a "special tax" and a "general tax" since a "general tax" only requires a majority vote. The City Attorney's office and I agree that the distinction between the two is the purpose for which the tax is to be levied. A "general tax" must not state a specific purpose (i.e. public safety, road maintenance, etc) or it would be classified as a "special tax". A general purpose tax (i.e. replace revenue lost to the State) might be acceptable and remain classified as a "general tax" requiring only a majority vote. The California City parcel tax was a "special tax" since the election materials reported the portion of the $85 to be used specifically for Police, Fire, Parks/Recreation, Streets and Water lines. S:\KimG\GregotyXblemo - ATParcelTax-A.doc To: Alan Tandy, City Manager Page 2 Subject: Parcel Tax There are several types of taxes which could be levied and depending on the use of the tax proceeds and information provided to the voters may be a general or special tax. These include parcel tax, utility user tax, transient occupancy tax, etc. All property tax measured by the value of the property (Ad Valorem Tax) requires a 2/3 vote. Parcel tax~s are considered regressive in their nature since the levy is a fixed dollar amount per parcel regardless of the value of the property. I did some research regarding a utility tax for comparable purposes only. A 1% electric and gas utility user tax would yield approximately $2.8 million. This is based on approximately $280 million gross receipts attributable to the electric and gas sales to users within the City of Bakersfield by P G & E and Southern California Gas during the 2003 calendar year. S:\KimG\GregoryWlemo - ATParcelTax-A.doc Feb 24 04 03:41p Cit~ o~ Calit~or-nia Cit~ 760 373 7532 C' : RESOLUTION NO. 10-0~-2082 A RI=SOLUTION OF THE CITY' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY CALLING A MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO CONSIDER A SPECIAL TAX MEASURE AND ORDERING THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE ELECTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CALIFORNIA CITY RESOLVES as follows: 1, Purpose. This Resolution calls an election on a special tax measure and requests consolidation with other elections hel(J on the same date. 2. Election Call. A municipal election is called for March 3, 2004, to consider the following measure: "Shall a city-wide special tax of $85.00 per lot or parcel be approved for each of five (5) fiscal years beginning July 1, 2004?" 3. Required Vote. The measure shall pass if two-thirds of the votes are in favor. 4. Ballot Analysis and Argument. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure. The Mayor shall prepare an argument in favor of the measure not exceedil~g 300 words in length. The argument shall be included with other ballot materials. Any person may prepare an argument against the measure not exceeding 300 words in length. If more than 'one argument is submitted against the measure, the City Clerk shall select the argument against the measure to be included with the ballot materials. Rebuttal arguments shall be permitted. 5. Consolidation. The Kern County Board of Supervisors an(/the County Clerk of Kern County are requested to consolidate the municipal election described herein with other elections held on the same .date. CC~e~102103cat~SeTa~,20(~.~. Page 1 of 2 Feb 24 04 03:42p Cit~ oF CaliFornia Cit~ ?GO 3?3 ?$32 ' ELECTIONs CODE 'SECTION92ig: "Arguments in aec'hors" h~ ~z~ion of the Argum=,c t%r Measure Our Special T~ ~ntinues to be tha me~s for Califo~a City to improve and grow. With the support ofo~. t~paying citizens, gmat ~tfides have been made in each o'f~e depaaments receiving Speci~ T~ money. Each dep~ent is adhering to a ~et budget Our police ~d fi~ protectiun continues to be ~ong the best in Kern Co~ty. ~c incre~e in ~e water ~ea~ent pl~t capacity h~ been accomplished. This will pe~it increased building in C~ifomia City ~d is evidenced hy the l~Se number of building permits issued in the 2003/2004 fiscal ye~. Our next large challenge replacement of miles of leaky water lines in our ci~. Street improvement work continues a~d a-schedule for regular street mainten~ce has been established ~d is now in operation, The police dcpatment ~d P~ks ~d Recreation Department, is developing a progr~ to educate our young Deople about the d~ger~ of drug u~e. ' Although city co~cil members and ~e city staff is wor~ng h~d to bring in new bu~ine~se~ to our city, we do not yet have a business and/or mmmfacturing b~e l~ge enough to provide the ~ income necessa7 to suppo~ our city depaament needs. It is vital to our city that we continue the Special T~ that will allow us to continue improving our city infr~tmcmre. Ple~e remember ~at rite Citizen's Advisory Committee will continue to mo~tor receipt and use of all Special T~ Fun~ received hy our city depaamen~s and will report ·eir findings to the public ~d to ~e ci~ council on a semi-~ual basis. W~ ~SPECTFULLY URGE A YES VOTE OM COMMITTEE FOR PASSAGE OF MEASURE C~I~AM ....... Lynda Wilson Feb 24 04 03:42p Cit~t oF CaliFornia Cit~.l 760 373 753;~ Lemieux o'N iii a pmt'~slona! law corpm~tion ~93 [ ownsgate Rd. · Suite 201 · We t Village · California 9136]-2502 ')'el: 805_.0..5.'/49.~.4770, Fax: 80.5 4 ~.7 November 18, 2003 Via Email & U.S. Mail Helen Dennis, City Clerk City of California City 21000 Hacienda Boulevard California City, California 9350,5 RE: Impartial Ballot Analysis Dear I'Ieleu: The following i~ our impartial ballor analysis for a special city tax measure for the City of California City. If this measure is approved by two-thirds of the voters, the City will be able to levy a special tax for five years commencing July 1, 2004. The maximum amount of tax the city can levy is $85 per 1o~ or parcel per year. The City will use proceeds of the special tax to pay for police, fire and' recreational services, and to repair streets, parks, sewers and building malntenancc. We await your questions a.nd.c, omments' Very truly yours, LEMIE UX & O'NEILL Wayne WKL/Ims Police $19.55I Fire $25.50 Park/Rec $8.50J Speci I T B dget $85 B akdow mFire ~ Par~Rec U Streets ~Water Lines D $8.50 Fa~9 & Rec ~va~r x 42,0~g IQ~ S3.S~O,ooo.on ~ot~ Dep~d~nl(23%) $ ~21,100.00 Fi~ ~Pa~enl (30%) 1,07t ,0~.00 S~;el RepeVs (24%) 856,800.~ W;le~ [~ Re~ammenl (13%) 4~, 100.~ ' RECE VED CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: May 5, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Director Recreation and Parks~./ SUBJECT: PROP 40 FUNDS FOR POOLS Ref000767 (WARD 7) Councilmember Salvaggio requested staff research the feasibility of applying for Prop 40 funds, or possible other grant resources. To use for opening and maintaining the temporarily closed pools. Staff reviewed a variety of grants and their requirements along with Prop. 12 and 40 grants and found they will fund capital related projects that deal with new construction and the renovation of old facilities, structures and sites only. These funds cannot be used for "operational related" costs such as; chemicals, small repair parts, painting, labor, etc. As you are aware there are Community Development funds that can be used towards operational costs but that is a very small percentage. Staff will be recommending that a large portiOn of Prop. 40 funds be allocated for the City to renovate, repair, and reconstruct older pools. Our plan is included in the proposed CIP budget, which will be presented to the City Council in the upcoming weeks. S:\Council Referrals 2003\Ref000767.doc May 5, 2004 (9:18AM) CITY MANAGER'S B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May $, 2004 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ __._~ SUBJECT: GRAFFITI AT VENTURE OUT RV Council Referral #764 ICouncilmember Salvaggio requested graffiti abatement on the concrete masonry wall at Panama near Venture Out RV. The Anti-Graffiti team removed this graffiti on Monday, May 3, 2004. G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~004\04-28\764 - GS.doc RECEIVED ~ B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May 6, 2004 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECi'OR/,,/~ J SUBJECT: GRAFFITI AGAIN ON SOUTH H & LEMAY Council Referral #765 Councilmember Salvaggio requested graffiti abatement again on the wall and redwood fence on South H near Lemay The Anti-graffiti team removed this graffiti on Monday, May 03, 2004. G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~2004\04-28\765 - GS.doc