Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/04 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM May 28, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager SUBJECT: General Information 1. We continue to use the fiscal crisis as a means of producing more efficiency where possible. We will be initiating the purchase of one gang mower and three 60" mowers, which is larger equipment than we have used in the past. It's part of our effort to do more with less in the parks and maintenance districts. It is costly, from a capital standpoint, but will save time by cutting a larger area with fewer passes. 2. Attached is a report from Coleman Advisory Services, the financial consultant to the League of California Cities. The analysis attempts to explain the VLF for property tax swap, as proposed in the Governor's local government budget agreement. This is a bizarre, but true, description of how our revenues will be structured! As you can see, it involves several complicated transfers of funds to and from cities through the State and school funding sources (giving us back part of the ERAF money they currently take from us, in exchange for the VLF they plan to take) and the retention of property tax funds for the next two years. Needless to mention, the State has made it very difficult to see where the money comes and goes! 3. The McMurtrey Aquatic Center is looking very attractive and inviting. There is water in the pools, and the slides are much larger in reality than they looked in the drawings. I predict that we will have very long lines, indeed! As a reminder, the schedule for the opening events is as follows: Grand Opening / Ribbon Cutting Wednesday, June 9th 11:00 a.m Fundraising Dinner, featuring Janet Evans Thursday, June 10th 6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m. "Pack the Pool" Day Saturday, June 12th 12:00 p.m.- 6:00 p.m. Facility opens to the public Monday, June 14th 12:00 p.m. The June 10th dinner, a joint effort by the aquatic fundraising group and Recreation and Parks staff, will be made possible through the generous donations of a number of sponsors. Proceeds will be dedicated to programs for aquatic safety and to give youth scholarships for swim lessons. Honorable Mayor and City Council May 28, 2004 ' Page 2 4. Staff has arranged a program to bus youths from the closed City pools to the McMurtrey Center throughout the swimming season, from June 14th to August 13th, The attached memo includes details regarding the schedule. 5. According to the enclosed article from the Sacramento Bee, dated May 27th, the Assembly unanimously approved legislation this week to ensure that unpaid volunteers can assist on public works projects. The bill now goes to the Senate fd~r consideration. If passed, it would be retroactive to January 2002. 6. The Bakersfield Symphony will be coordinating the summer concert series in Beale Park. Per the enclosed memo, our employee shortage prevents us from organizing or staffing the events this year. We are, however, assisting the Symphony with initial set-up, so their representatives can oversee the events. 7. There is a memo attached explaining the County's action to discontinue the Proposition 90 tax credit. The credit currently allows people, at age 55+, who move to Kern County from other counties to transfer their existing factored base year value of real property used as their primary residence to a replacement home in Kern County. In the short term, this will have little effect on the City, but in the longer term, we will lose less property tax revenues, due to the elimination of a tax subsidy for homeowners coming from other counties. Kern County homeowners will still receive a similar benefit through Proposition 60. 8. A response to a Council request is enclosed, as follows: Councilmember Couch; '~ · Attached correspondence sent to the Sierra Club with information on a volunteer program concerning air pollution mitigation. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pam McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst f Coleman Advi~or~ 'bervJCe~ ~ CaliforniaCit,~Finan¢e. Com The Proposed VLF for Property Tax Swap of 2004 Facts for Local Officials on the Proposed Revenue Swap Rev. 21 May 2004 In May 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger proposed a ¥~F for property tax swap as a part of a state- local budget agreement. The proposal has been endorsed by the mai or local government associations and is pen~ng review in the Legislature. This paper outlines the proposed swap in some detail. I. Current Law: The VLF in FY04-05 if Nothing Changes The current MLF tax rate is 2% of the value of the vehicle. The state general fund "offsets" 67.5% of this tax resulting in an effective tax rate of 0.65%. Under current law, in 200505, ~ taxpayer revenues would be supplemented with a backfill from the state general fund to provide cities and counties with revenues equivaJent to a full 2% VLF tax rate. Under Section 11001.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, 24.33% of VLF funds axe allocated to the Local Revenues fund to pay for health and welfare programs largely provided by counties under a stateqocal program realignment in the early 1990s. Of the remaining amount, about $27S million goes to reimburse state agencies for administrative costs of the program (Department of Motor Vehicles, Franchise Tax Board, and State Controller). Of the amount remaining aJTter realignment and administrative charges are taken out, 18.75% is allocated for special payments including supplemental funds for cities that did not levy a property tax in 1977- 78, eligible low property tax cities incorporated prior to 1987, and supplemental funds for counties. The 81.25% is allocated half to cities and half counties on a population basis.~ Figure 1-2 shows the revenues and allocations of the VL1; under current law. Figure 1' VLF Allocation $7- Figure 2: VLF Revenues and Allocation - Current Law $6' Special %1 ~L'  j>fl 8.75 $5- · ,, Counties Per ]/ / ._0 MVLF VLF , caPita I/ ~.~ ~ase VL F'1 $4- $3' ' Cities Per I/ /~O H &W $2 ~ Realignment ~~..,/ .~/~ <--'----(Lo~, Rew~ VLF Fund) $1 Revenue H&W ~ Lo~l at 0.65 rate Reali~nt ~Revenue ~ $0 - ~ Fu~ 24.~ ~, ~ For more information on the history and allocation of the VLF sec "VLF Facts: A Primer on the Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax, the Car Tax Cut and Backfill" at www.californiaciwfinance.com/VLFfacts04.pdf and other resources at w ww.califomiac/tyfinance.com/# VLF Phone,: 2 May 18, 2004 rev Mmy21, 2004 II. Proposed VLF-Property Tax Swap, State General Fund Contribution and Constitutional Amendment The Governor has proposed that cities, counties, special districts and redevelopment agencies make a two-year contribution to solving the state's budget deficit of $1.3 billion per year. In exchange, the Governor has pledged to lead a campaign to secure legislative and voter support in November 2004 for a constitutional amendment with revenue and mandate protections similar to the LOCAL Initiative. The proposal also involves the permanent elimination of the Vehicle License Fee backfill and replacement with a like amount of property tax revenue to cities and counties (except for the 2 year state budget contributions). Local government associations including the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties have endorsed this proposal. A. Constitutional Amendment. The proposal includes a new constitutional amendment would contain the same revenue protection features as the LOCAL Initiative as well as some new features that enhance the level of revenue and mandate protection.2 B. VLF Reduction Permanent/Additional Property Tax to Cities and Counties. The centerpiece of the proposal is a permanent reduction of the VLF rate from 2% to 0.65% (its current effective rate). The VLF backfill (approximately $4 billion) would be eliminated and replaced with a like amount of property taxes, dollar-for-dollar. Subsequent to the FY04-05 base year, each city's (and county's) "property taxes in lieu of VLF" would increase in proportion to the growth in gross assessed valuation in that jurisdiction. Figure 3: The VLF for Property Tax Swap State General Fund~ State repeals VLF backfill $4.1B State General Fund ~ _, . , $4.1B and perm~ently reduces revenuetomaketpfor VLFrateto 0.65% ~ !VLF Backfill i reduced propertytax ~ ._ · · .. ........... ~ (ERAF) to schools I ad Revenue I K-14 oc Propatytax shitied Schools/ from countywide ERAF $4.1 '-Property tax ~ ~ ."~-lieu or . r~ '~ .'VLF Prior prop erty tax 2 For more info on the proposed alternative constitutional amendment see www.califomiaciwfinance.com/Overview May13.pdf mq~.r-.aliforniar-.it,/~inan~e.~om 3 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 C. Two Year State General Fund Contribution. In both 2004-05 and 2005-06 cities and counties would make contributions to the state general fund of $700 million ($350 million for cities, $350 million for counties). These contributions would come from reductions to each agencyk "property taxes in lieu of VLF." The $350 million state general fund contribution from cities would be allocated as follows: · One-Third in proportion to VLF. One third of the $350million on the basis of cities' proportionate share of Vehicle License Fee revenues; · One-Third on Property Tax. One third of the $350 million on the basis of cities' proportionate share of property tax revenues; and · One-Third on Sales Tax. One third of the $350 million on the basis of cities' proportionate shares of the 1% Bradley Burns sales and use tax. · Minimum and Maximum. No city shall have a contribution of more than 4% or less than 2% of their FY01-02 general revenues. The fiscal impacts of the cap and floor will be allocated proportionately? The $350 million state fund contribution from counties would be allocated in proportion to VLF. Redevelopment agencies and special districts would also make state general fund contributions in FY04-05 and FY05-06 in the amounts of $250 million and $350million respectively. Figure 4 diagrams the VLF for property tax swap taking into account the $700 million contribution from cities and counties in FY04-05 and FY05-06. Figure 4:,~~~ VLF for Prop~Z~x S....~ate General Fund~ [ .... ~~~7~' $3.413~ / State General Fund .~, · ~~~'~i/_~w° / revmueto make up for >, ~ i VLF Backfill _l wv rare to u.~/o / reduced prop~rtytax ~ ~ ~ _' ~' (ERAF)toschools =~ . .............. ~ _/ ' IVLFFee I / / ~ ~ [ Revenue I /K-14 Local/ ~ ~ Propertytax shifted ,/Schools/ ~ from co urt ywide ER~,,,"/ / .. .............. / ~ _'Property tax ~ I cities and I ~ '- in-lieu of [ \ counties in ~ ~. i VLF -' NFY04-05 and in,/ I (U Prior prop erty tax D. The New VLF Allocation. Under the proposal, the VLF remaining alter the repeal of the VLF backfill would go first to maintain full funding of health and welfare programs largely prov/ded by counties under a state4ocal realignment shift in the early 1990s. In this way the VLF would continue to provide the same level of funding for these programs. For more detail on these allocations see ww w.cali fomiaciwfinance.com / Contrib040511FINAL.pdf or ww.califomiadwfinance.com/Contfib040511 FINALdetail.pd f ~.Cali{0r niaE. ibI~inan~.~0m 4 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 Remaining VLF revenue would be deposited in the Motor Vehicle License Fee Account. These funds, less administrative charges, would be allocated to cities on a per capita basis. Figure 5: VLF Revenues and Allocation - Proposed Change Special All ocations To be Counties Per [paidfrom $4' VLF Backfill Capita ~.property rtax in-lieu $3 Cities Per ~ /°f VLF Capita ) Cities ~l~'Per Capita Admin Charges Admin Cha~es VLF Revenue VLF Revenue H&W $1 at 0.65 rate at 0.65 rate / I Realignment ~ RealignmentI $0 Revenues Revenue After Allocation Allocation After Status Quo Proposed Swap Status Quo Proposed Swap Figure 5 shows the effect of the proposed reduction in VLF backfill and the allocations that would be swapped into "property tax in-lieu of VLE" Figure 6 shows the new VLF allocations and revenues under the proposal. Figure 6: Proposed VLF Allocation & Revenue $2.0 VLF to Cities Admin Charges $1.5 VLF Reve nue $1.0 at 0.65% H&W effective Realignment rate $0.5 $0.0 Revenue VLF Revenue AIIocation Rema ini ng III. City Allocations of VLF and Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Figure 7 shows the total VLF allocation to cities under current law and the proposed swap -prior to the state general fund contribution from cities. The remaining VLF to cities under the proposal amounts to about 12.5% of city VLF revenue under current law. 5 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 $2.0 Fia_ure 7: VLF to Cities $1.5 Property Per Capita Tax $1.0 VLF in Lieu of (in clud in g V LF backfill) to cities to Cities $1.5 a $1.7 B $0.5 Per Capita MVL F / to Cities ~" $220 M $o.o Status Quo ProposedSwap (current law asst.-~ing full Dollar for Dollar funding of YI-F bac~fal) Figure 8 shows how city VLF and "property tax in-lieu of VLF" will grow in future years. VLF revenues will grow as taxpayer VLF revenue to the MVLF account grows. Allocations to individual cities will continue to be affected by each city's population growth relative to the population growth in cities statewide. Cities will continue to have their population figures based on three-times-registered voters for the first seven years of their incorporation. "Property tax in4ieu of VLF" will grow in proportion to the growth in each jurisdictions gross assessed valuation. $2.5 Figure 8: VLF to Cities Grows annually 'with growth in $2.0 jurisdictions gross Assessed Valuation of Taxable Property $1.5 $1.0 ,Grows annually with growth in VLF revenue and jurisdictions $0.5 po pu lation growth relative to po pu lation VLF growth in cities $_ that's how VLF FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-10 grows now) Figure 9 shows the growth in city VLF and "property tax in4ieu of VLF" with the FY04-05 and FY05-06 state general fund contributions. 6 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 Figure 9: VLF to Cities $2.5 I - with $350m grate General Fund Contributions / $3,50 million I' State General Fund r $2.0 I----' contibutio ns -- -r $1.0 $_ II I. ( I.I I.I . . FY04-O 5 FYO 5-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY08-09 FY09-1 0 Figure 10 shows estimated allocations for FY04-05 for VLF and "property tax in-lieu of VLF" for cities and counties statewide and individual cities and the county in Sonoma County. Column A shows the estimated non-rva/ignment (MVLF) allocations to cities and the county under current law, with the VLF backfill fully funded. Column B shows the MVLF allocations following the repeal of the VLF backfill and the property tax swap. Column C shows the amounts to be paid as property tax in-lieu of VLF - prior to state general fund contribution. Column D shows the FY04-05 reduction for state general fund contribution. Column E shows the property tax in4ieu of VLF net of the state general fund contribution. A complete listing of estimates for all cities and counties is available at www.californiacityfinance.com/VLFestimatesFY05.pdf. Figure 10 VLF Backfill for Property Tax Swap: City and County Estimates for FY04-05 A B C=-A-B D E=C-D VLFBackfillwith RemainingVLF VLF appeal State GenFundI of VLF net of FY 2004-05 FY04-05 IlInLieuPropTax Contribution [ Contribution Citv/(~onntv C,,rrent l,aw After ,qwan II FY 2tOd-tiS i~VO4-O_~ I FY04-05 CITIES + 1,775,773;544 +217,684;594 + 1~55g~0887950 - 350?000?000 + 17208~088t950 COUNTIES +2,507,663,994 + 0 + 2,507,663,994 - 350,000,000 + 2,157,663,994 +4,283,437,539 +217,684,594 + 4,065,752,945 - 700,000,000 + 3,365,752,945 CLOVERDALE + 4517225 + 55,741 +395?484 - 78?364 + 317~120 COTATI + 414,604 + 51,038 +363,566 - 72,048 + 291,518 H EALDSBURG + 690,497 + 85,118 + 605,379 - 143,763 + 461,616 PETALUMA + 3,370,398 + 415,712 +2,954,686 - 698,397 + 2,256,288 ROHNERT PARK + 2,575,599 + 317,197 +2,258,402 - 470,889 + 1,787,513 SANTA ROSA + 9?290,702 + 1 ?146~206 + 87144 ?495 - 1 ~9477077 + 6~197t419 SEBASTOPOL + 470,934 + 57,967 +412,967 - 102,535 + 310,432 SONOMA + 570,613 + 70,273 +500,339 - 133,361 + 366,979 WINDSOR + 1,480,366 + 181,808 + 1,298,558 -270,310 + 1,028,247 County of SONOMA + 33,259,357 + 0 +33,259,357 - 4,642,079 + 28,617,278 ~..C-aliforniar-..1 Finan to.corn 7 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 Figure 10a Example F'Y04-05 Comparison of Current Law t) Swap With Contribution City of Windsor Current Law I Proposed Swap w/Contribution I VLF including backfill 1,480,366 (A)I Veh Lic Fee Revenue 181,808 (B) I Pro.oe~_..y Tax in-lieu of VLF 1,298.558 (C--A-B)__ -- . State Gen Fund Contribution (270,310_) (92 '1 Property Tax in-lieu of VLF -Net Paid 1.0~'8.2'78 ' (E=C-D) Total 1,480.366 I Total 1,210.056 i IV. The VLF - Property Tax Swap and the "Triple Flip." As a part of the Proposition 57 state fiscal recovery funding mechanism, cities and counties are currently receiving property, tax payments in lieu of I/4 cent sales and use tax they would otherwise receive under the Bradley Burns local sales and Use tax. In each county, the County Auditor determines the county's and each city's compensation amount and makes the transfers to each jurisdiction from the countywide ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund). The state fully compensates school agencies for the reduced ERAF with higher payments from the state general fund. This mechanism is generally referred to as the "triple flip." This proper~ tax in lieu of sales tax operates similar to the way in which the proper(y tax in-lieu of ViFwould work. However, in the case of the in-lieu sales tax payments under the "triple flip," the property tax in lieu of sales tax increases each year in relation to the sales and use tax each jurisdiction would otherwise have received. In effect, year to year growth is in proportion to each jurisdiction's year-to-year groxvth in sales and use tax revenue. By contrast, the properO~ tax in lieu o£ l/LFwould grow in subsequent years with each jurisdiction's change in the gross assessed value of taxable property. Because the growth formula is tied to sales tax and because it is temporary, ptoper~/tax in lieu o£ sales tax under the triple flip should be generally be considered a subset of "sales tax revenue". Because it would be permanent and because its growth would be tied to the assessed valuation of real property, ptoper~ tax in lieu o£ P/.Fshould be considered a subset of property tax. Figure 11 shows the combined interaction of these two revenue swaps. While they operate through similar mechanisms, these two "flips" do not affect each other. ~.Califor nia~.it,{ Finan **.corn 8 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 Figure 11' The VLF for Property Tax Swap and the Prop 57 "Triple Flip" o ~ 0.25 ofthe ~ ~ ~, 1.00 localrate ~ $1.2B ~ State Fiscal ~ ~ ,r ............... . Recovery Fund =- '~ducingbcalsalestaxrate - o= ~ I ~md ho'easing ~0ecfll state rate. ~ ~ Remaining I ..~ ~$ sales tax I ~ State General Fund ,/2 ." ........... ~~"' $4.6B* / State GeneralFund ~ -' ~o~)' .... / revmmto make up for ;~ '. VLFBackfill ~ed~-c~ll~ropert-y-tax '~ ~ : : / (ERAFJto schools _~ . .............. i ./ ' . WFFee I /' / O ~ [ Revenue I Propeaytax shifted ~ K-14 Local/ from ~ou~tywi de ER~g..,'''''''''~ ~/ Schools/ ~.~~"~ $3.4B,~'''~ · ...... .... . ~ .' Property >,? -' in-lieu of -'| in-lieu of i / ~2 ! sales tax !! VLF i ~ 1~ · .............. ~t~ .............. · ~'~ ~ I N~tothe ~ate ~memlfmd ~ .~ I Prior I k~/: [ propertytax I mq~.Califor nia~.it,{ finan ,e.,om 9 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 v. Frequently Asked Questions About The VLF for Property Tax Swap 1 The formula allocating each dty3 share of the $350 million state generalJhnd contribution in FY04-05 and FY 05-06 is based on property tax, saks tax, and I/LE. W/ill each of these sources be reduced? No. The city and county contributions will be taken from a reduction in "property tax in-lieu of VLF" 2 Ho~v is annualgromth in the "property tax ft~ lieu o£. VLF" determined? After the dolhr-for dollar swap in FY04-0S, county auditors will change property tax in lieu of VLF payments to dries and counties in proportion to each jurisdicfion's annual change in gross Assessed Valuation. 3 W/e have a redevelopment agency and thal reduces ourproperty lax revenue gromth because.property tax gromth in the redevelopment project area goes to the agency. W/on't redevelopment also aflbct the gro~vth of "property tag ill lieu o£ VI, F?" No. Thc County Auditor will calculate your regular property te~x allocation, the property tax increment allocation to your redevelopment agency and your AB8 shares first just as would be done absent thc VLF for property tax swap. Then the County Auditor will look at the amount you are owed under the swap, which is your FY04-05 VLF loss due to the repeal of the VLF backfill with growth in proportion to the growth of gross assessed valuation (i.e. without netting out property tax increment growth going to redevdopment) in your jurisdiction. Thus, redevelopment's property tax revenue will not be affected, nor will redevelopment affect your property tax in lieu of VLF payments. 4 How udll annexations affect the '~topetty tax ia lieu o£ VLF"payments? In determining the growth in your property tax in lieu of VLF, the county auditor will include the added gross assessed valuation in the annexed area and your payment will increase accordingl3~ $ W/e have been getting a 4~ecial l/Id; allocation as a lomproperty tax city. W/hat happens to that? County VLF, and special VLF allocation will all be converted 100% into property tax in lieu of VLF. 6 W/e have a property tax sharing agreement udth the county. W/ill this "property tax in lieu o£ VLF" be subject to revenue sharing? No. For the purposes of such agreements, the property tax in-lieu of VLF payments should be viewed as VLF revenue. 7 W/e have used I~ff_2~ to back a debt issuance. W/ith the loss of the ~ backfill, ~hat happens to ourfinancing? It should not be affected. For the purposes of such agreements, the property tax in-lieu of VLF payments should be viewed as VLF revenue. 8 W/e are a lovproperty tax dty because a fire district provides us fire service. W/ill our lou;property tax share qffect mhat ~ve get J3om the '~topelty tax in lieu of VI2v?' It will have no affect. The amount you receive in property tax in lieu of VLF depends on how much VLF you lose due to the repeal of thc VLF backfill with subsequent annual growth fled to total gross assessed valuation in your jurisdiction. Whether low or high, a city or county's share of secured and unsecured property taxes will have no affect. 9Hov ~ill this VLFd3rproperty tax svap aflbct the Proposition 57 tripkfl~? It will have no affect. Thc two operate independentlF 10 Should I reduce my sales tax revenue estimate by !/3 of our state generalJ~nd contribution? No. Sales tax revenues will not be affected by the VLF swap or by the state general fund contribution. Sales tax revenues are a component of the formuh used for determining each city's share of the state contribution from cities, but thc entire amount of each city's state contribution will come from property tax, specifically property tax in lieu of VLF. ~.g.a[ifor niag. it~ Finan ~.com 10 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 1~ W/ill there be enough money in the count~de EIL4? to cover thep~ments of both the "pcope~ty tax in lieu of ~ales tax" under the Proposition 57 tr~k flip and the "ptopecty tax in lieu o£ VLF" under this proposed svap? With $4.1 billion of property tax swapped for VLF backfill arid $1.2 billion in property tax swapped for sales and use tax under thc Proposition 57 triple flip, a number of counties will have insufficient money in ERAF to make the in-lieu property tax payments. In these counties, County Auditors xvill shift the necessary funds from school shares and (as in the case of the ERAF reductions) the school entities will be fully compensated from the state general fund. 12 W/hen ~d/l we receive the ~ptopetry tax it; lieu of VLF"payments? As with the property tax in lieu of sales tax payments under the triple flip, property tax in lieu of VLF payments will be issued in January and May with a "true-up" payment in July/August. 13 W/ill County Au&'tor charge cities and counties Property Tax Administration Fees for the '~topecty tax it; lieu o£ VLF" pqymen ts ? No. At this time County Auditors have said they will not increase property tax administration charges for administering the property tax in lieu of VLF. Property tax administration fees are determined according to AB8 proportionate shares. The calculation of property tax in lieu of VLF payments occurs after AB8 shares are calculated and will not alter those figures. 1 4 W/ill the growth in the ~p~opetry tax it; lieu o£ ~" befigured on the reduced amount (for the state generalfund contributions) or on the total amount pdor to lhe reduction? Year to year growth on the property tax in lieu of VLF payments in FY 05-06 and in FY06-07 will be determined on the prior year gross amount of property tax in lieu of VLF ~)r each jurisdiction prior to reduction for the state general fund contribution. 15 Of the proposed $1.3 billion local government state general fund contribution in EY 04-05 and EY 05-06, $350 milh'on is ygom cities. Is this $350 million in addition to the $~.3 bilh'on new ERA]~ sh~t proposed in the Governor3 Proposed Budget in January? No. This local government agreement with the Governor rephces his proposal from JanuarF. 16 ~u said my '~oroperty tax in h'eu of VLF" ~dll grow in ~roportion to the gro~vth in assessed valuation in my city. [Vill our contribution to the state general fund grom aho? No. Thc amount of contribution is $1.3 billion from local governments in FY04-05 and $1.3 billion in FY05-06. Thc amount for dries is $3S0million each in each year and each individual city's allocation will be the same amount in each year. 17 W/hen ~dll cities get repaid for their $350 million contributions in FY04-05 and FYO5-06? They will not. The local government contributions to the state in FY04-05 and FYOS-06 arc not loans. The amounts will not be repaid. 18 W/hat about the $~.3 bil~n VT~F backfill gap in FY03-04? W/hen ~dll ~ve get paid for that? The state is obligated by law to repay cities and counties for the VLF backfill gap from FY03-04 in August 2006. The local government agreement with the Governor includes a new provision in the constitutional amendment to reinforce this requirement. 19 ~f the VLF offset/backfill is 67.5%, why ~ould my dty V'LF be reduced ~y over87%? After the repeal of the VLF backfill, funding health and xv elfare programs provided primarily by counties under a state- local realignment in the early 1990s will be maintained. Moreover, the VLF allocation includes certain fixed administrative charges which will not change, regardless of the amount of VLF revenue. This means that the impact of the loss of the VLF backfill will be visited on the remaining allocations, leaving oniy about $220 million in FY04-05 for per capita allocations to dries. All other allocations (including allocations to counties and special allocations induding ~.Ca[ifornia~.it,~Financ~.com 11 May 18, 2004 rev May21, 2004 those to no and low property tax dties) will be swapped 100% for property tax. About 87.5% of city VLF will be swapped for property tax. ~.g. alif0r nia~.it,~Finan ~.c0m CITY OF BAKEFISFIELD Department of Flecreation and Parks 5~25~2004 TO: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager/Interim Director Rhonda Smiley, Office Administrator/Public Relations FIROM: Sally Ihmels, Recreation Superintendent SUBJECT: Make a Splash Carribean Night at McMurtrey Aquatic Center The Recreation and Parks Department is working with representatives from the Bakersfield Aquatic Fundraising Committee to conduct the "Make a Splash Carribean Night," fundraising dinner. The purpose of the event is to raise money to promote aquatic safety and give scholarships to youth for swim lessons. The Make a Splash event is featuring Janet Evans, four-time Olympic gold medalist, as the guest speaker and is being held during the grand opening week on Thursday, June 10, 2004 from 6:00pm to 9:00pm. A number of generous sponsors have underwritten this event. The following is a list of secured sponsors: 1. Speedo and Action Sports have underwritten the cost of Janet Evans' appearance at the event. 2. KERO-TV 23 and Slap Shot Snacks (the concessionaire in the facility) are underwriting the cost of the food. 3. Pepsi Company is providing beverages. 4. The Garces Calypso Band is providing music. 5. Walker Lewis Rents is providing tables, serving utensils and other items. Tickets to this event cost $50 per person or $300 for a table (8 tickets) and may be purchased through the Recreation & Parks Department at 326-3866 or Holly Larson at 326-3150. B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM May 20, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM' Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager ~ SUBJECT: Transportation of Youth from Closed Pools to McMurtrey Aquatic Center The Recretion and Parks Department will be providing transportation from closed city pools to McMurtrey Aquatic Center this summer. Attached is the transportation method we will use at three different locations. This information will be pr6moted at MLK Center, McMurtrey, and at neighborhood schools in the coming weeks. The transportation program will last throughout the pool season (June 14th - August 13th' B A K E R S .F I E L D RECREATION AND PARKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TRANSPORTATION SCHEDULE FROM CLOSED POOLS TO MCMURTREY AQUATIC CENTER We will utilize three 7-passenger vans; two City-owned vehicles and one rental vehicle. Transportation will be available Monday through Friday. Each van will have two pick up locations, and if necessary, more than one trip will be made. The beginning times are staggered for possible help, if more than one trip is required. All return trips will begin at 3:30 p.m. and will return in the reverse order from what is listed below. Van #1 Planz / WaysideBegins at Planz at 12:45 p.m. Planz: The pick up location will be in the north parking lot. The route will proceed north on H Street, then east on Ming Avenue to Wayside Park. Wayside: The pick up location will be in the west parking lot next to the tennis courts and proceed to McMurtrey Aquatic Center. Total estimated trip time: 12 minutes Van #2 Saunders / Lowell Begins at Lowell at 12:30 p.m. Saunders: The pick up location will be in the north parking lot behind the pool. The route will proceed east on Palm to Lowell Park. Lowell: The pick up location will be at the corner of 4th and P streets. The route will proceed north to McMurtrey Aquatic Center. Total estimated trip time: 10 minutes Van #3 Siemon /Jastro Begins at Siemon at 12:15 p.m. Siemon: The pick up location will be in the east parking lot. The route will proceed west on 178, then to Oak Street and Truxtun Avenue to Jastro Park. Jastro: The pick up location will be on the east corner of Myrtle and Truxtun Avenues. The route will proceed east to McMurtey Aquatic Center. Total estimated trip time: 15 minutes This story is taken from Politics at sacbee.com. Volunteer work bill advances By 3im Sanders -- Bee Capitol Bureau - (Published May 27~ 2004) The Assembly approved legislation Wednesday designed to ensure that unpaid volunteers can assist on public works projects. The issue arose recently when college students in Redding got academic credit rather than pay for assisting in a Sulphur Creek restoration project. A local labor organization complained, and the state Department of :Industrial Relations found that state prevailing-wage laws required payment to the students for some of their work. AB 2832 would allow such volunteerism, provided that participants assist for civic, charitable or humanitarian reasons. A volunteer cannot be someone paid for any aspect of the project or someone employed by a profit-making firm engaged in the project. AB 2832, which now goes to the Senate, would apply retroactively to January 2002. Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, proposed the measure. The bill received bipartisan support, 66-0, in the Assembly. Go to: Sacbee / Back to story Contact Bee Customer Service Ad.y~is.e. Online I Pri~a~;y. Policy I Terms of Use I I-I~!p I S. ite..~ap News I Sp.o~s I B_u.si.o.es.s I .R.Q.!i~iCs I QpinJp.n I E~te.[tpi_n .mep~ I l-[f~e.s~y!e I Tr~av_el I .W. pme.n~ Classifieds I Homes I Cars I .lobs I Shopping GUIDE TO THE BEE: I Subscribe I Contacts I Advertise I Bee Events I Community [nvolvement [ Sacramento Bee Web sites ] .Sacbee..com I SacTicket.com I Sacramento.corn Contact sacbee.com This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use. The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852 Phone: (916) 321-1000 Copyriqht © The Sacramento Bee DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: May 25, 2004 TO: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager Rhonda Smiley, Office Administrator/Public Relations FROM: Sally Ihmels, Recreation Superintendent RE: Beale Band Concerts We have been contacted by Randy Fenerick with the Bakersfield Symphony Orchestra, who indicates they have received sponsorship money this year to host three Beale Band Concerts. Therefore, Bakersfield Symphony Orchestra, not the City, will be organizing and staffing the concerts this year. Symphony representatives are still soliciting and collecting funding for the remaining four concerts that were held last year to end up with the traditional seven concerts. The three concerts scheduled to date will be held on June 20th, July 4th and July 11th at the Beale Park Amphitheatre. Recreation Division staff has reserved the park, will get supplies to the park storage area and give a prototype & instruction on creation of the programs to Randy. The supplies included in the storage area are chairs, flags and a sound system. One Symphony representative will be issued a key to the storage unit so they may set-up and conduct the events. cc- Allen Abe, Assistant Director 15 A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM May 25, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ -"~ FROM: John W. Stinso~;-/[ssistantVCity Manager SUBJECT: Discontinuance by County of Proposition 90 Property Tax Relief Program On May 11th the County Board of Supervisors approved discontinuance of Kern County's participation in Proposition 90 Property Tax Relief Program for select homebuyers relocating to Kern County. The Proposition 90 was passed in 1988 and followed the enactment of Proposition 60. Proposition 60 allows homeowners to transfer their existing factored base year value of real property used as their primary residence to a replacement home within the same county under the following conditions: · The homeowner is over age 55 · The purchase is made within two years of selling their old home · The replacement home is of equal or lesser value than the home being replaced. Proposition 90 expanded this option to permit homeowners to transfer their existing values from homes in another county to a replacement home in a county which the Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance agreeing to participate in the program. Kern County is one of only nine counties who participate in the program. The County estimates a fiscal impact of $293,644 county-wide for FY 2004-05 in lost tax revenues and administrative costs of the program. This amount increases annually to $777,838 thru FY 2008-09. The County indicates that due to rapid population growth, high housing demand, and unmet public service needs such as roads and transportation, public safety and other public services continuation of the Proposition 90 tax subsidy and the related property tax loss is difficult to justify. Additionally, the fiscal impacts of the State budget crisis on local governments further support the justification to eliminate this program. S:~JOHN\KC\Proposition gO.doc T~e elimination of the PropOsition 90 program does not eliminate the Proposition 60 program which would still allow for transfers of value within Kern County. The change in the valuation process is to be prospective, so properties that have previously been in the program would not be reassessed. In speaking with staff in the County Administrative Office this change is not likely to have an immediate financial impact the City of Bakersfield. The amount of estimated additional property taxes for the City of Bakersfield is estimated to be about $5,500 for FY 2004-05 increasing annually to about $15,000 for FY 2008-09. In the short term this does not amount to a great deal of money. However, over time it will become an increasingly significant amount. The Board of Supervisors directed County Counsel to prepare the required Ordinance to discontinue the program. It is anticipated it will be brought back to the Board for action in the next week or two. S:~IOH N\KC\Proposition 90.doc B A K E R S F I E L ~ MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ,/ FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRE DATE: May 27, 2004 SUBJECT: LETTER TO SIERRA CLUB Council Referral No. REF000773 COUNCILMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED STAFF SEND A LETTER TO THE SIERRA CLUB PROVIDING INFORMATION ON A VOLUNTEER PROGRAM CONCERNING AIR POLLUTION MITIGATION. The attached letter has been sent to the Sierra Club concerning air pollution mitigation. Awaiting a response from Gordon Nipp. JH:djl Attachment BAKERSFIELD Development Services Department Jack Hardisty, Director Dennis C. Fidler Stanley C. Grady Building Director Planning Director (661) 326-3720 Fax (661) 325-0266 (661) 326-3733 Fax (661) 327-0646 May 27, 2004 Gordon Nipp Sierra Club Kern-Kaweah Chapter P. O. Box 3357 Bakersfield, CA 93385 Dear Mr. Nipp: The City Council has considered a concept that would help improve air quality and hopefully reduce litigation involving subdivisions. The idea is to identify city owned equipment and facilities, which if replaced or improved, could serve to mitigation air pollution below 10 tons/year and result in no net increase in pollution. Preliminarily, the list of equipment would include such things as engine driven vehicles, heavy and light equipment, generators and green waste grinders. There are also certain street intersections which if improved could result in less idling time and improved levels of service which could serve as mitigation. These are existing situations which are not attributable to future development and which would not be covered by traffic impact fees since new development can only be held responsible for mitigating its proportionate share of impacts. For example, there are several intersections that operate below Level of Service "C'. If a subdivision were to impact one of those it would be required to mitigate its traffic impacts so as not to worsen its service level. However, additional mitigation could be applied to that intersection or others that would result in improvements above those required. Since the Sierra Club has recently commenced litigation over subdivisions which don't mitigate their air pollution emissions to zero, the City Council is interested in learning if the Sierra Club would agree not to sue over air quality issues if subdivider's were to mitigate emissions to no net increase. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. I look forward to hearing from you. ' ,~'Jac~'Zrely' " Development Services Director JH:djl P:~letters~air p_o ut on litigation.doc City of Bakersfield · 1715 Chester Avenue ° Bakersfield, California · 93301