HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/04 B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
June 4, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager /~7"/.,,,/
SUBJECT: General Information
1. Next Monday, we wrap up the special meetings for budget presentations. On
Wednesday, we celebrate the opening of the McMurtrey Aquatic Center and hold a
Council meeting.
2. The "grand reopening" events for the Beale and MLK pools have been scheduled.
The Beale event will take place on Monday, June 14th at Noon, and the MLK event
will be on Tuesday, June 22nd at 10:00 a.m. Recreation and Parks staff is working
on the details, and we will have more information for you next week.
3. The State Legislative Analyst's Office has issued an assessment of the Governor's
local government proposal. John Stinson prepared a report that describes the
recommendations and the potential impacts on the City. The LAO's
recommendations do not change the Governor's proposal, but they may be taken
into consideration by the Governor and the Legislature during budget deliberations.
Both documents are enclosed.
4. A status report is enclosed from the City Attorney on the proposed corrective
legislation that is being considered to address the use of volunteers in public
projects.
5. The Building Department has completed an update of unreinforced masonry
buildings in the city. Of the 205 URM buildings on our list, 179 meet the City's
ordinance, by having been retrofitted, demolished, determined to be non-bearing
wall structures, or converted to storage-only occupancy. There are 26 buildings
not in conformance and, in accordance with State law, signs have been posted at
their entrances indicating they may not be safe in the event of a major earthquake.
The report has been submitted to the State Seismic Safety Commission, so their
records can be updated. It is enclosed for your information.
6. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
Councilmember Benham
· Status report on possible grant funding for a "Community Prosecutions"
program;
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 4, 2004
Page 2
· Status report on staff action regarding DBA suggestions related to downtown
weekend safety issues;
· Update on repair to the railroad fence near Bakersfield High School;
· Graffiti clean up on both sides of Union between Highway 178 and Columbus;
· Replacement of trash toter defaced by graffiti;
· Status of citizen inquiry regarding repair of potholes on Oregon Street and
possible use of CDBF funds;
Councilmember Ma.q.qard
· Feasibility of requiring owners to clean up graffiti on their junction boxes and
mail boxes;
· Correspondence to GET requesting their financial participation in maintaining
roads near their bus stops;
Councilmember Couch
· Report on the function of fire districts;
· Draft resolution regarding notification to the railroad about repairs and
monitoring the process;
Councilmember Hanson
· Staff action regarding dead trees in Campus Park;
Councilmember Sullivan
· Status of patching potholes on White Lane, west of Ashe Road;
· Status of alley repairs behind Reeder Avenue;
Councilmember Salvaqgio · Repair schedule for the cement median on White Lane, west of Wible Road;
· Removal of graffiti on the masonry walls on the south side of South H Street
from Ming Avenue to Lemay;
· Code enforcement actions regarding roosters on Laurel Drive.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pam McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
B A K E R S F I E L D
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
May 28, 2004
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: John W. Stinso~,/~s~sistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Legislative Analyst's Assessment and their recommendations
regarding the Governor's Local Government Proposal
Attached is a copy of the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) assessment and their
recommendations regarding the Governor's Local Government Proposal. I have
included their recommendations and the potential impacts of their alternatives on the
City of Bakersfield based on information available at this time. These are only the
LAO recommendations and do not change the Governor's Budget Proposal,
however they may be used by the Legislature and the Governor in their budget
deliberations.
Recommendation 1:
Modify the local government finance protection provisions of the measure to protect
local government aggregate tax revenues, but not the specific allocations among
California's thousands of local agencies.
Impact: This recommendation could provide a means for the State to shift revenues
between local agencies in the future. For example: the State could realign state
programs to Counties and then shift "local tax dollars" from cities or other local
agencies to counties to fund them. So they would not technically be reducing local
revenues but would just reallocate them among local public agencies. This also
could result in Sales Tax distributions being changed from the current situs to
population distribution which could reallocate these revenues to "local governments"
such as the County or cities and counties in other areas of the state. These are
exactly the types of revenue captures and maneuvers we are opposed to.
Recommendation 2:
Reject the administration's VLF for K-14 property tax swap, unless the administration
provides a compelling policy rationale for this complex transaction.
Impact: This recommendation would have a positive effect on the City. The LAO
suggests there is a simpler solution and recommends the Legislature propose a VLF
backfill guarantee amendment in the State Constitution. The VLF tax swap takes a
S:~JOHN\Budget\LAO Assessment of Gov's Local Government Proposal.doc
revenue that grows more consistently with inflation (VLF) and replaces it with one
where growth is limited (Property taxes) to the financial detriment of the City over
time. The promise to provide a backfill with property taxes is no better or worse than
the promise to backfill the VLF capture with state general funds. We would prefer no
reduction to VLF revenues at all.
Recommendation 3:
Restructure the $1.3 billion property tax shift proposal to reduce the fiscal effect on
local government general purpose revenues, target those impacts on local
governments best able to bear them, and address the state's long-term budgetary
pressures.
Impact: This recommendation is more complex. The LAO suggests exempting
cities and counties from the shift of property taxes, but they would retain the
recommended shift of property tax revenues from Special Districts and
Redevelopment Agencies. In addition, they recommend eliminating Special
Subventions such as the COP's program. For the City of Bakersfield this would
mean an ongoing permanent reduction in COP's funding of about $400,000 annually
vs. the two year capture of property taxes of $3.2 Million each year. The City's loss
of Redevelopment property taxes would remain the same only shifting property
taxes for a two year period. Special Districts would have an ongoing shift of their
property tax revenues. The LAO also recommends the repayment of the VLF gap
loan over a three year period beginning in FY 06-07 instead of the lump sum that
year proposed by the Governor.
Recommendation 4:
Maintain two major provisions of the administration's mandate proposal (automatic
sunset of unfunded mandates and elimination of the mandate suspension process),
but revise other elements of the proposal in order to increase accountability, r
Impact: The LAO recommendation similar to the Governor's proposal mandate
recommendations would have a positive effect on the City either being relieved of
unfunded mandates due to the sunset provision or not receiving payment required
by law due to the mandate suspension process. The repayment of past mandate
costs by the state would still occur over a five year period beginning in FY 06-07
consistent with the Governor's proposal.
S:~JOHN\Budget\LAO Assessment of Gov's Local Government Proposal.doc
May 24, 2004
LAO
60 YEARS OF SERVICE
/
-- ' ........... . EL ZABETH G. HILL · LEGISLATIVE ANALYST
The administration's local government pro-
posal would make far-reaching changes to
state-local finance. Our review of the pro-
posal indicates that it would greatly increase
the stability of local finance and increase
accountability in the mandate process. We
also find, however, that the proposal locks in
place the current flawed state-local fiscal
structure, imposes added fiscal stress on many
local governments, and is not structured in a
fashion that addresses long-term state fiscal
goals. For the Legislature's consideration, we
provide various recommendations to bring
the proposal into greater alignment with leg-
islative goals and state fiscal objectives. 1
AN LAO REPORT
This report was prepared by Mark Ibele and To request publications call (916) 445-4656.
Marianne O'Malley. The Legislative Analyst's This report and others, as well as an E-mail
Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office which [] subscription service, are available on the
provides fiscal and policy information and LAO's Internet site at www. lao.ca.gov. The
advice to the Legislature. LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
INTRODUCTION
In its May Revision, the administration provisions relating to local finance, and (3) reforms
proposes that the Legislature place before the to the mandate reimbursement process. Figure 1
statewide voters in November a constitutional summarizes the major provisions of the local
amendment to enact far-reaching changes to government proposal.
state-local finance and intergovernmental While the administration is still developing the
relations. Over time, the proposed constitutional constitutional language (and related statutory
provisions would significantly influence state Changes), the Legislature will need to begin its
decision-making regarding cities, counties, review shortly given the measure's link to the
special districts, and redevelopment agencies. 2004-05 state budget and the upcoming deadlines
(With the exception of provisions relating to a for placing a measure on the November ballot.
proposed tax swap, K-14 districts are largely Accordingly, to assist the Legislature, we provide a
unaffected by the measure.) summary and initial assessment of the proposal as
In general, the measure greatly restricts state described in materials provided by the
authority to reduce noneducation local administration and preliminary language provided
government taxes, except for a $1.3 billion shift
on May 21, 2004. (We note that some minor
from these agencies in 2004-05 and 2005-06. elements of the proposal have changed since our
The measure also includes a complex swap of
summary of the proposal in the Overview of the
vehicle license fee (VLF) "backfill" revenues for 2004-05 May Revision.) As additional information
K-14 property taxes and places into the State and specific language for the measure becomes
Constitution: (1) the current VLF rate of available, we will provide the Legislature with
0.65 percent, (2) certain existing statutory additional analyses.
Figure '1
Major Provisions of the Administration's Local Government Initiative
I Policy Area Provisions I
Protection of Major Local · State may not reduce the rate of the sales tax, or realiocate or delay any local
Government Revenues government's share of revenues from the property tax, sales tax, or vehicle license
fee (VLF), except as provided below under "State Fiscal Relief."
· Places the current VLF rate (0.65 pement) into the constitution as the maximum
rate.
State Fiscal Relief · Authorizes a $1.3 billion shift of local government revenues in 2004-05 and 2005-06.
VLF Backfill for Property · Shifts $4.1 billion of K-14 district property taxes to cities and counties as
Tax Swap replacement for VLF "backfill" revenues. (As a result, the state would have higher
spending on schools--to compensate for the property tax loss--and
commensurate lower spending on VLF backfill payments.)
Mandates · Unfunded mandates sunset automatically, unless they pertain to educational
programs or employee rights or benefits.
· Mandates may not be suspended in the budget.
· State pays backlog of noneducation mandates over five years, beginning in
2006-07.
· The process for determining noneducati0n mandates is expedited,
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 3
AN LAO REPORT
WHAT DOES THE GOVERNOR PROPOSE?
Two-Year Budget Relief California State Association of Counties,
Under the administration's proposal, California Special Districts' Association, and
noneducation local governments would California Redevelopment Association.
contribute $1.3 billion in 2004-05 and 2005-06
to their respective county Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund
(ERAF) accounts. County
Figure 2
auditors would allocate
Allocation of, $1.3 Billion Revenue Shift
these property tax
revenues to K-1 4 districts, j Allocation
which in turn would Cities-- · One-third of the $350 million reflects each city's
offset a comparable $350 Million proportionate share of statewide city vehicle license fee
(VLF) revenues. Another one-third reflects each city's
amount of state share of property taxes. The final one-third reflects
education spending, each city's share of sales taxes.
· Each city's reduction must be at least 2 percent--and
(Please see the appendix not more than 4 percent-of the city's general-purpose
for some background revenues.
information on ERAF and Counties-- · Each county's reduction reflects its proportionate share
other local government $350 Million of 2003-04 county nonrealignment VLF..Three small
counties (Trinity, Del Notre, and Lassen) are subject to
financial terms used in a smaller reduction. In general, the county allocation
formula is similar to imposing reductions on a
this report.) population basis.
Figure 2 provides
Independent Special · Enterprise special districts (largely water and waste
information regarding the Districts-- disposal districts) shift 40 percent of their property
proposed allocation of $350 Million taxes, up to a maximum of $225 million.
· Nonenterprise special districts with the exception of
the $1.3 billion across fire, police, healthcare, and library districts--shift
cities, counties, special 25 percent of their property taxes, up to a maximum of
$125 million.
districts, and · Fire police, healthcare, and library districts are exempt
redevelopment agencies, from the shift.
The administration · If this methodology fails to generate $350 million
statewide, the percentage reductions are increased
indicates that these proportionately.
methodologies were
Redevelopment · Half of the amount ($125 million) is allocated among
developed in Agencies-- redevelopment agencies based on their relative share
conjunction with the $250 Million of gross tax increment revenues. The other half is
allocated based on tax increment net of revenues
following local "passed-through" to other agencies. This formula is
similar to the ERAF methodology in cu trent law.
government statewide · If an agency fails to make its payment to ERAF, the city
associations: League of or county sponsoring agency makes the payment.
California Cities,
4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAO REPO'RT
Reduced State Authority ~ Eliminating the state's obligation to
Over Local Finance. appropriate funds to backfill local
Under current law and the California governments for the difference between
Constitution, the state has significant authority the 0.65 percent rate paid by vehicle
over the rate and/or allocation of most major owners and the original 2 percent rate.
local taxes, including the property tax, the ~ Modifying laws regarding the allocation
1 percent local "Bradley-Burns" sales tax, of VLF revenues.
optional local sales taxes, and the VLF. The
administration's proposal would greatly limit ~ Replacing city and county reduced VLF
state authority over local finance by preventing revenues with a portion of K-14 property
the Legislature from enacting laws that reduced, taxes.
delayed, or reallocated any noneducation local
Figure 3 (see next page) summarizes the tax
government's share of revenues from the VLF,
swap. As shown in the figure, VLF backfill
sales tax, or property tax. The measure also
payments would be eliminated, thereby
would preclude the Legislature from enacting a
reducing VLF fund revenues by two-thirds.
law to increase the VLF rate over its current 0.65
County health and social services realignment
percent rate.
programs would receive the same dollar amount
Finally, the administration also proposes to of VLF revenues as under existing law, but
place into the Constitution certain existing general-purpose VLF revenues to cities and
financial provisions or requirements relating to
counties would change significantly. Counties
local finance. These include requirements that
would no longer receive general-purpose VLF
the state (1) pay $1.2 billion in 2006-07 for the
revenues. Cities would receive the remaining
VLF "gap loan" (as discussed in the appendix), nonrealignment VLF revenues, net of the state's
(2) guarantee replacement property taxes during administrative costs, or about $227 million.
the period that part of the local sales tax is used
To offset these city and county VLF
to pay Proposition 57's fiscal recovery bonds (as reductions, county auditors would reallocate
discussed in the appendix regarding the "triple
property taxes from schools and community
flip"), (3) reestablish local government's full
cQIleges to cities and counties, with K-14 district
authority to impose a 1 percent Bradley-Burns property tax losses offset through increased
sales tax rate when the fiscal recovery period state education apportionments. (These
ends, and (4) pay the backlog of noneducation
property tax allocations from K-14 districts to
mandate claims in five installments, beginning in
cities and counties would be in addition to the
2006-07 (approximately $1.6 billion).
property tax allocation required under existing
law to replace reduced city and county sales
Complex Swap of VLF and
taxes under the triple flip.)
Property Tax Revenues
"Hold Harmless" Provisions. Any shift of
The May Revision proposes major changes this magnitude affects local governments
regarding city and county VLF revenues and
differently due to unique conditions and factors
K-14 district property taxes by:
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 5
AN LAO REPORT
in various communities. Seeking to maintain .the Significant Mandate Reform
current level of resources for all local The Constitution currently requires the state
governments and K-14 districts, the to reimburse local agencies (including K-1 4
administration proposes a wide variety of hold districts) if the state mandates a new program or
harmless provisions, including provisions to higher level of service. Under current law, local
exempt from the tax swap "basic aid" K-14 agencies file "test claims" with the Commission
districts (those districts that receive unusually on State Mandates. If the commission finds a
high amounts of property taxes), mandate, it adopts a mandate reimbursement
Figure 3
VLF for Property Tax Swap
(Do/la rs' in Bi/lions)
2004-05
VLF Paid by
· Curent Law Vehicle Owners ($2.0)
VLF Backfill
Paid by State
$6,1 VLF Funda $2~0 ($4.1)
Realignment
Programs Cities Counties
$1.5 $1.5 $1;8. i $0.2' $2~6 $0
Citiesb Countiesb
$1.6 $2.6
School
Property Taxes
Shifted to Localsc
aln addition to payments to cities and counties the fund supports various state administrative expenses.
bProperty taxes shifted to cities and counties would offset the loss in their ongoing VLF revenues. In 2004-05 and 2005~06. however, the property taxes
shifted would be less to provide state fiscal relief.
Cproperty tax shift is in addition to the shift required Under current law pursuant to the triple flip.
6 LEGISLAT VE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
methodology, and reports the mandate's associations submitted signatures to the
estimated statewide cost to the Legislature. Secretary of State to qualify "The Local
Because of the complexity of this process, it Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act"
takes several years for the commission to process a (LTPSPA) for the November 2004 ballot.
claim. In addition, although the Constitution Although the LTPSPA is similar to the
requires the state to reimburse local agencies for administration's proposal in many respects, the
mandates, the state does not incur any significant LTPSPA would rescind any state budget action
consequences if it defers reimbursements to a later taken this year that reduced noneducation local
date. Existing law also permits the state to avoid agency's property taxes. The administration's
incurring a mandate liability in any year in which proposal, in contrast, permits the state to
the Legislature suspends a mandate requirement in redirect $2.6 billion of local government
the budget act. property tax revenues over the coming two
Administration's Proposal. The years. The administration's measure also
administration proposes an array of changes that (1) places greater restrictions on state authority
would be applicable only to noneducation over local finance than does the LTPSPA and
mandates. First, the commission would have four (2) takes a different approach to reforming the
months to determine whether a noneducation mandate process. As part of the agreement
test claim constitutes a mandate. If the between the administration and the statewide
commission found a mandate, the Department local government associations, we understand
of Finance (DOF) would determine the that the associations have agreed to support the
reimbursement methodology and propose the administration's proposal instead of the LTPSPA
amount needed to reimburse local governments, if both measures appear on the November
If funding at the amount the DOF determines is ballot. If the administration's proposal does not
not provided in the next state budget or appear on the November ballot, the local
subsequent state budgets, the mandate would government associations have indicated that
terminate in 90 days, unless the mandate related they will support the LTPSPA.
to employee rights or benefits. The measure also Future State-Local Realignment. As part of
would preclude the Governor from vetoing a its proposal, the administration indicated its
mandate appropriation. Finally, the intent to propose additional state-local program
administration proposes to widen the definition realignment in 2006-07. As we discussed in the
of a mandate to include, among other items, 2003-04 Perspectives and Issues (please see
situations when the state transfers partial funding page 123), given the size and diversity of
responsibility for a joint state-county program. This California, we think realignment of some state
would limit state authority to alter existing cost programs could improve program outcomes.
sharing agreements, such as for mental health or We note, however, that the administration's
in-home supportive services programs, proposal to widen the mandate definition would
constrain the Legislature's flexibility in realigning
Other Elements of Proposal
the fiscal obligations for jointly financed
Other Local Initiative on Ballot. Earlier this
programs.
year, a coalition of statewide local government
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 7
AN LAC REPORT
LAO ASSESSMENT
Our review of the preliminary materials the California Legislature may enact laws to
provided by the administration indicates that the change the rate and/or allocation of the VLF,
proposed constitutional provisions would local sales tax, and property tax. Over the years,
increase the stability of local finance and the state has used this authority to address
increase accountability in the mandate process, policy concerns, such as changing (1) the share
The proposal also contains elements, however, of property taxes allocated to schools after the
that appear contrary to the Legislature's long- passage of Proposition 1 3 in order to increase
term policy objectives, lack obvious policy resources to cities, counties, and nonenterprise
rationales, or are not consistent with state and special districts; (2) the allocation of property
local fiscal interests. We summarize our taxes and VLF revenues to cities that had been
concerns in Figure 4 and discuss these matters assigned a very Iow share of the property t~xes
below, under tax allocation laws; and (3) the amount of
revenues required to be
: ................ passed-through" by
Figure 4 : redevelopment
Major Concerns Flegarding Administration's agencies to other local
Local Finance Proposal agencies. During
[ i periods of state fiscal
difficulty, however, the
~/Existing local finance system locked in place, state also has used this
~//Rationale for complex tax swap not clear, authority to transfer
~ Major local fiscal effect for short-term state relief, some of its fiscal
burdens to local
~/Mandate proposal shows promise, needs work. governments. For
example, in 1992-93
the state began shifting city, county, and special
EXISTING LOCAL FINANCE SYSTEM district property taxes to K-14 districts (via ERAF)
LOCKED IN PLACE as a means of offsetting state education costs.
The May Revision proposal highlights Because of the fiscal impact of these and other
tensions between two longstanding interests state actions, local governments have long
relating to local finance: (1) local government sought "protection" against future state changes
fiscal protection and (2) local finance reform. in local finance.
Protecting Local Government Revenues. In Reforming Local Finance. Over the last two
contrast to most other states, California law decides, the Legislature and administration have
gives state government, rather than local expressed interest in addressing concerns
governments or their residents, significant regarding local finance. For example,
authority over major local revenues. Specifically,
8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
Chapter 94, Statutes of 1999 (AB 676, Brewer), ~ The current "AB 8" methodology for
stated that: allocating property taxes among local
California's system for allocating prop- governments.
erty taxes does not reflect (1) modern
needs and preferences of local commu- ~ The VLF or sales tax rate, including sales
nities or (2) the relative need for fund- tax rate reductions in exchange for a
lng by cities, counties, special districts, broadening of the sales tax base.
redevelopment agencies, and schools to
carry out their mandated and discretion- We also note that while the measure
ary services. In addition, the current decreases the Legislature's authority over local
system centralizes control over property finance, the measure does not provide any
tax allocation in Sacramento and gives increase in local resident authority over local
the state full authority to reallocate prop- taxes. For example, residents would continue to
erty taxes to offset state education fund-
have virtually no authority over the allocation of
lng obligations. The Legislature wishes
lOcal property taxes. Thus, residents could not
to revamp the current system of prop-
erty tax allocation to do the following: decide to shift some local property taxes from a
(1) increase taxpayer knowledge of the water enterprise special district to their library
allocation of property taxes, (2) provide district. Similarly, residents of a county could not
greater local control over property tax decide to have a portion of their local sales
allocation, and (3) give cities and coun-
taxes allocated on a population basis, rather
ties greater fiscal incentives to approve than the existing point of sale (situs) basis.
land developments other than retail
developments. Instead, the measure locks the existing local
fiscal system in place, requiring future
As discussed further below, the administration's constitutional amendments any time change is
proposal would greatly limit the Legislature's needed or desired.
authority to reform local finance.
LAo Recommendation: Protect
How Does the Administration's Proposal Aggregate Local Revenues but
Address Fiscal Protection and Reform? Maintain Authority Over Local Finance
The administration's proposal offers
Given some past state actions to modify
significant protection to noneducation local local finance laws for the fiscal benefit of the
governments' revenues, but greatly reduces the
state, local government's interest in safeguarding
Legislature's authority to reform local local tax revenues is both understandable and
government finance. Specifically, our review of reasonable. The state, however, has an
the administration's proposal indicates that the
important interest in the viability of local fiscal
Legislature apparently could not change such affairs and a key role to play in state-local
basic components of local finance as: finance issues. The administration's proposal
~ The manner in which the local sales tax would curtail this role by freezing in place
is allocated among local agencies, current revenue structures. While this approach
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 9
AN LAO REPORT
provides certainty for local governments (and VLF backfill guarantee be amended into the
the state), it does so at the expense of placing Constitution.
severe constraints on the ability of state and Existing Land Use Incentives. California
local governments and their residents to work cities and counties rely on three major statewide
together to improve the shared fiscal landscaPe, taxes, the VLF, property tax, and sales tax, and
We urge the Legislature to consider policies some smaller, locally imposed taxes. When
that offer local fiscal protection, but still allow considering future land developments, cities and
the Legislature and local residents to modify counties typically consider their potential effects
revenue sources and allocations. Instead of on these sources of revenues. Local
placing restrictions on the ability of the state to governments usually report that they receive the
alter existing fiscal structures and institutions, we greatest revenues from retail developments and,
recommend the Legislature consider policies accordingly, face fiscal incentives to promote
that protect local revenue streams in the retail developments over other developments.
aggregate, yet maintain authority to alter these Local governments, in contrast, frequently
taxes and the allocation of these revenues among indicate that housing developments do not
local governments. This would insure that the state generate sufficient revenues to offset the costs
no longer used local funds for state fiscal relief, to provide municipal services to new residents.
No Obvious Improvement to Land Use
RATIONALE FOR COMPLEX Incentives. To give cities and counties incentives
TAX SWAP NOT CLEAR to approve a balance of land developments
The proposed shift of VLF backfill revenues (including housing), many local government
for K-14 property taxes is extraordinarily observers have suggested the state decrease city
complex. To date, the administration has not and county reliance upon the sales tax and
articulated a rationale for this swap, although increase their reliance on the property tax. The
others have attributed its purpose as seeking to: administration, however, proposes to trade VLF
(1) protect local government revenues against revenues for property taxes. Overall, we do not
possible future delays in state payment of VLF see why this swap would improve local
backfill revenues and/or (2) improve local government land use incentives. In the case of
government land use incentives. As we discuss housing developments, for example, cities and
below, the tax swap does not appear to be counties would receive higher property tax
justified by either of these rationales, revenues, but much of this increase would be
Swap Not Necessary to Provide Local offset by greatly reduced VLF revenues, a tax
Protection. In the current year, local allocated on a population basis. Moreover, we
governments sustained revenue reductions note that local governments do not receive
when payment of the VLF backfill was delayed, property taxes from public housing
If the goal of the proposed swap is to give local developments, whereas they receive VLF
governments protection against future delays Or revenues for the people residing in these
nonpayment of VLF backfill payments, there is a developments.
simpler solution: the Legislature could propose a
10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
LAO Recommendation: Unless Policy State Budget Relief Is Short Term. The
Benefit Is Evident, Reject Tax Swap administration's proposal offers substantial state
To date, we see no information suggesting budgetary relief for two years. As we discuss in
that the highly complex tax swap would be our Overview of the 2004-05 May Revision,
beneficial to the state or to local governments, however, the state's fiscal problem spans a
Absent evidence to the contrary, we much longer period. We note that in 2006-07,
after the temporary $1.3 billion relief from local
recommend the Legislature delete this tax swap
from this proposal. We note that the local governments ends, the state is scheduled to pay
government association initiative does not (1) the $1.2 billion VLF gap loan and (2) the first
Of five installments to reimburse local
include a comparable tax swap. As an
alternative, the Legislature could amend the government mandate obligations (a debt that is
Constitution to guarantee the annual VLF likely to total $1.6 billion by 2006-07). Together,
backfill, these local government-related obligations will
pose a significant challenge for the state
MAJOR LOCAL FISCAL IMPACT FOR beginning in 2006-07.
SHORT-TERM STATE RELIEF Potential Higher State Education Costs. The
For some agencies, the requirement to proposed reduction in property taxes for K-14
contribute their share of the $1.3 billion in districts could result in higher costs for the state
2004-05 and 2005-06 will pose significant than under current law. While it is difficult to
financial burdens. For example, certain predict how the property tax and VLF will
independent recreation and park districts would perform in the future, we note that property tax
lose more than 15 percent of their total growth over the last four years has been quite
revenues in 2004-05 and 2005-06. Cities and robust, averaging close to 8 percent annually.
counties-some facing considerable fiscal The VLF, in contrast, has grown at a rate closer
pressures of their own-also will sustain to 6 percent annually over the same period. To
the extent that the property tax continues to
significant reductions in general purpose
revenues. Finally, with the exception of grow at a rate faster than the VLF, local
enterprise special districts (which have broad governments would benefit, but the state would
authority to raise replacement revenues through experience increased education funding
user fees) local communities are likely to obligations. Assuming these growth rates prevail
experience service reductions during the two through 2006-07 (when the plan is fully
years that their property taxes would be implemented), this tax swap could result in
reduced. Given the fiscal effect of the higher state K-14 expenditures of almost
administration's measure on local governments, $200 million annually. This increased
it is important to assess the extent to which this expenditure obligation would continue to
proposal is structured in a manner that offers increase over time.
state fiscal relief while imposing the least harm
on local governments.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 11
AN LAO REPORT
LAO Recommendation: county boards of supervisors based on
Restructure Relief Package their review of independent special
In view of these factors, we recommend that districts' capacity to offset tax reductions
the Legislature consider altering the proposal in through user fees or efficiency improve-
order to restructure the burden on local ments. This special district property tax
reduction primarily would affect water
governments and, in the process, stretch out
state budgetary relief over a longer period of and waste disposal enterprise special
time. We recommend that the Legislature districts and is consistent with long-
consider (1) reducing revenue shifts from those standing statement of legislative intent
local governments that are less able to generate (Government Code Section 16270).
replacement revenues, (2) maximizing local
>- Special State Subventions. To maximize
control by reducing special purpose subventions local fiscal flexibility, our alternative
rather than general purpose revenues and would not reduce city or county prop-
authorizing some local decision-makin§ over
erty taxes, but instead eliminate special
property tax allocation, and (3) redistributing
purpose funding of $200 million that
state budget savings from 2004-05 and 2005-06 these local governments receive under
into future years, the Citizens' Option for Public Safety
Below, we present an alternative that and the Juvenile Justice Grant programs.
incorporates these features. The alternative
would maintain the administration's proposed >- Existing State Obligations. Our alterna-
$2.6 billion in budget relief, but restructure the tive would call for the state to repay its
proposal to redistribute the impact on local VLF gap loan in three equal $400 million
governments and provide state relief over a payments beginning in 2006-07, instead
longer period of time. It is important to note that of a lump sum of $1.2 billion in that year.
there are numerous other a!ternatives that could In addition, our alternative retains the
result in similar benefits for both the state and administration's proposed treatment of
local governments. Our suggested alternative mandates by reimbursing local govern-
consists of the following components: ments for these costs in five equal annual
>- Property Tax Shift. Our alternative installments beginning in 2006-07.
would exempt cities and counties from Figure 5 shows the state budget impact of
the property tax shift, but retain the the two proposals. The figure displays the
administration's proposed $2,50 million revenue impacts of the property tax shift and
reduction for redevelopment agencies in the reduction in special subvention payments, as
2004-05 and 2005-06. In addition, it well as the state's payment of existing local
would include an ongoing annual government VLF and mandate obligations. As
property tax reduction of $220 million shown in the figure, the administration's plan
for special districts. This special district would result in savings of $1.3 billion in each of
reduction would be implemented by the first two years, compared with the
12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
$670 million of savings in each of these years in ~ Cities and counties would not lose
our alternative. In 2006-07, however, the state general purpose revenues but would
would repay the VLF gap loan (pursuant to lose $200 million in resources annually,
current law) and make the first mandate due to the elimination of special pur-
payment (pursuant to the administration's pose subvention payments.
proposal) for a total of approximately
~ Redevelopment agencies would be
$1.55 billion. In conirast, our alternative would
treated the same as under the
require the VLF gap loan to be paid over a three-
administration's proposal.
year period and partially offsets these liabilities
by the ongoing property tax reductions for ~ Special districts' property tax shifts
special districts. The administration's mandate would be ongoing and locally deter-
repayment would be included in our alternative mined. During the first two years, our
as well. proposal would result in a lower prop-
The administration's proposal and our erty tax loss for special districts than the
alternative would result in identical total losses administration's proposal, but higher
for local governments from 2004-05 through losses thereafter due to the ongoing
2008-09, but the distribution of these losses nature of the shift.
would differ significantly. Specifically:
For the state, the alternative presented
above would provide
substantially lower
Figure 5 budget savings during
AlternatiVe StruCture.Could Ease State Fiscal Stress the initial two years,
Budget'Impacts of Local Govemment Proposalsa compared to the
(in Billions) administration's
proposal, but would
result in significant
1.0 · Alternate Plan budget relief in
.5 · AdminiStration's Proposal subsequent years. By
altering various
0 components of the
proposal (and making
-.5 changes to existing state
-1.0 obligations), our
alternative provides an
,1.5 easier fiscal transition in
2006-07.
-2.0
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
alncludes impacts of existing VLF gap loan repayment and mandate obligation proposal.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 13
AN LAC REPORT
~NDATE PROPOSAL SHOWS more broadly than the administration's
PROMISE, NEEDS WORK proposal.)
While critical details regarding the Ending Mandate Suspension Process.
administration's mandate proposal are still under Legislative actions to suspend mandates in the
development, two elements of the plan would annual budget frequently result in unreimbursed
sign'ificantly improve the state's mandate local costs because it makes it very difficult for
reimbursement process. We discuss these local agencies (or others) to understand the
elements, along with some concerns regarding requirements of state laws. As an example,
the proposal, below. Figure 6 explains the steps a local agency official
Tearing Up the Mandate Credit Card. would need to take to know how long a stray
Usually, when the state faces difficulties funding dog must be held at a shelter before it could be
a program, the state modifies or repeals the euthanized. In addition, local agencies often
program. In the case of mandates, however, incur unreimbursed local costs under the
state actions to defer mandates costs result in suspension process because it is difficult to
local agencies being required to implement change local policies immediately after a
programs without funding-representing mandate is suspended. In our view, the
essentially an involuntary loan from local administration's proposal to reform a system that
makes state laws difficult to understand and
governments to the state. In addition, state
actions to defer mandates costs tend to reduce imposes unreimbursed costs on local agencies is
the state's incentives to review and reduce appropriate and commendable.
mandate program costs.
In our view, adopting the ........................
Figure 6
administration's proposal
to sunset most unfunded Steps Required to Understand State Law
Regarding the Holding Period for Stray Dogs
mandates would
increase state
accountability regarding · Read Section 31108(a) of the Food and Agricultural Code: "The required holding
period for a stray dog impounded pursuant to this division shall be six business
mandates. (We also note days ..."
that legal challenges · Review annual Commission on State Mandates reports tothe Legislature to
relating to the state's determine if this requirement was found to be a state-reimbursable mandate. (In
this case, the requirement was found to be part of the "Animal Control"
failure to fund mandates mandate.)
are pending in lower
· Determine which state agency was assigned responsibility for the mandate. (In
courts and it is this case, the Department of Food and Agriculture.)
conceivable that future · Review state budget act appropriations for the affected state agency to
determine if the mandate has been suspended that fiscal year. (For 200:3-04, the
court rulings regarding Animal Control mandate was suspended.)
unfunded mandates
· If the mandate has been suspended, review the applicable code section as it
could constrain the stood before the revision was enacted that created the mandate. ( n this case,
the previous code sections were stricken from the codes, but they generally
Legislature's authority required a three-day holding period.)
14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
Concerns Regarding Administration's LAO Recommendation: Revise
Mandate Proposal. Based on the materials Mandate Proposal to Link
available at this time, we note several areas of Authority and Responsibility
concern regarding the administration's proposal. For about a year, the Assembly Special
Specifically, it: Committee on Mandates has been reviewing
:~ Further complicates the mandate reim- individual state mandates and the mandate
bursement system by creating a dual process. In April 2004, drawing from testimony
process for mandate determinations: the provided from a wide array of parties and our
existing, slow process for education previous mandate analyses, our office presented
mandates and an expedited process for a proposal for an accountable, expedited
city, county, and special district man- mandate process. Figure 7 (see next page)
dates, summarizes our proposal, which contains many
similarities to the administration's proposal, most
~' Does not explain why unfunded em- notably the establishment of an automatic
ployee-related mandates should con-
sunset requirement and the repeal of the
tinue to have the force of law while mandate suspension process.
unfunded public health, public safety, Other elements of our proposal, however,
elections, and all other mandates should differ notably from the administration's proposal,
sunset, including our common treatment of all
~ RuShes the mandate determination mandates (education, noneducation, and labor
process, making it difficult for the corn- relations), the assigned roles and responsibilities
mission to render mandate determina- of state agencies, and the process for
tions that meet the legal standards determining a reimbursement methodology. In
required by courts, general, while we find much about the
administration's proposal to recommend, we
~ Assigns the difficult and controversial think the conceptual approach outlined in our
responsibility of estimating mandate alternative offers significant advantages. These
costs to the Department of Finance. advantages are highlighted in Figure 8 (see page
Because of potential conflicts of interest, 17). Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature
this task is probably more suited to the substitute it for the administration's approach.
State Controller's Office.
CONCLUSION
The administration has proposed a fiscal interactions, and reform the mandate
significant local government package with process. Our review of the proposal indicates
provisions that help address the state's that it would increase the stability of local
budgetary difficulties, alter long-term state-local finance and increase accountability in the
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 15
AN LAO REPORT
Figure 7
A Mandate Reimbursement Process With Greater
Emphasis on Accountability and Results
Maximum
~;~ ~'~ Elapsed Time
Time ~rr~>
'~ Action
, . ~.~, (In Months)
The Legislature passes a law, a state agency promulgates a regulation, the
Governor signs an ex~utive order.
Up to 12 months Local agencies may file a claim up to one yea[ aEer (1) a mandate is created 12
or (2) they experience increased costs.
Up to 12 mOnths Reconfigur~ Commission on State Mandates (CSM) deliberates. State and 24
local agencies fund CSM a~ivities through reimbumements and fees.
Up to 4 months If CSM finds a mandate, the State Controller's ~ice (SCO), with a~istance 28
from an ongoing local agency adviso~ ~dy, develops a "ma~nable
mimbumement methodology' that balances accuracy with simplicity--and
specifies a futura date when mvbion to the methodology shall be considered.
Up to 2 mOnths The CSM reviews the proposed SCO reimbumement methodology. The CSM 30
may return the methodology to SCO.for revision if it finds the methodology
~nconsistent with the CSM mandate determination.
Up to 2 months If necessa~, the SCO reviews CSM comments and may make changes to its 32
methodology.
Up to 2 months The CSM either approves the SCO methodology or adopts findings identi~ing 30 - 34
its concerns with the methodology. The CSM repo~s the mandate, the SCO
methodology, and any concerns to the Legislature. and administration.
.Up to 6 months The Legislature funds the ma~ate (either in legislation or the budget act) and 36 - 40
specifies the reimbumement methodology. If the Legislature does not fund
the mandate, the SCO shall notify affected local agencies that the mandate
is invalid, pumuant to state statute. Legislative Counsel prepares
legislation for the chaim of the local government policy committees to
introduce to codify the repeal of the mandate.
Annually thereafter Local agencies submit claims for mandate mimbumement in the fiscal year after
costs are incurred. The Governor proposes and Legislature appropriates
funding for mandates in the annual budget bill, including any funding needed
to pay prior-year'mandate deficiencies. The annual suspension proce~ in the
budget bill is repealS. If mandate mimbumement is not provided, the
mandate is invalid. (As in above, the SCO will noti~ local agencies and
LegislatNe Counsel will prepare draft legislation for the chaim of the local
government policy commiUees to introduce to codify the repeal of the
mandate.) If a valid local claim is unpaid for mom than two yearn after
submi~al, a local agency may bring action in superior cou~ to have the
mandate declared invalid.
16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAC REPORT
~ Reject the
Figure 8 administration's VLF
Advantage of LAO Mandate Approach OVer
Administration's Proposal for K-14 property
~ ~.,~g~, I tax swap, unless the
, r~ ~ '~
' ~,,~,~ · . ' administration
~ Creates a single, expedited process for all mandates, provides a compel-
ling policy rationale
~/Greatly simplifies the mandate claiming process, for this complex
1//Avoids conflicts of interest in developing mandate cost estimates and transaction.
reimbursement methodologies,
~/' Strengthens the mandates determination process by ~ncreasing state ~ Restructure the
agency part c pation, restructuring the commission, and establishing $1.3 billion property
reasonable deadlines, tax shift proposal to
reduce the fiscal
mandate process. We also find, however, that effect on local government general-
the proposal lacks overall policy coherence and, purpose revenues, target those impacts
in exchange for short-term state fiscal relief, on local governments best able to bear
locks in place the current flawed state-local fiscal them, and address the state's long-term
structure, budgetary pressures.
Accordingly, we recommend the Legislature
review the proposal with the objective of ~ Maintain two major provisions of the
bringing it into greater alignment with legislative administration's mandate proposal
goals and state fiscal objectives. Specifically, we (automatic sunset of unfunded mandates
recommend the Legislature: and elimination of the mandate suspen-
sion process), but revise other elements
~ Modify the local government finance
of the proposal in order to increase
protection provisions of the measure to
accountability.
protect local government aggregate tax
revenues, but not the specific allocations
among California's thousands of local
agencies.
LEGISLAT VE ANALYST'S OFFICE 17
AN LAO REPORT
18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
AN LAO REPORT
APPENDIX
Vehicle License Fee (VLF) repaid to local governments in 2006-07. By
The VLF is an annual fee on the ownership executive order, the current administration
of a registered vehicle in California, levied in lieu returned the rate to 0.6,5 percent in
November 2004.
of taxing vehicles as personal property.
Revenues from the VLF are dedicated to local ERAF
governments. The fee is based on the
In 1992-93, the state directed each county
depreciated value of the vehicle according to a
auditor to establish an Educational Revenue
set schedule. Vehicle owners currently pay a
0.65 percent rate, with the difference between Augmentation Fund (ERAF) and annually transfer
to this fund property taxes that otherwise would
this and the former 2 percent rate paid by the
be allocated to cities, counties, and special
state General Fund (see "VLF Backfill").
districts. In 1993-94, the state increased the
VLF Backfill annual amount of property taxes shifted from
these local agencies. In 2003-04, the amount of
In 1998, the Legislature adopted a schedule
property taxes deposited to ERAF totals about
of VLF rate reductions, which resulted in the rate
$5 billion. The state's original purpose in
falling from 2 percent to 0.65 percent by 2000.
In conjunction with these VLF reductions, cities creating ERAF was to allocate the property tax
funds to K-14 districts, thereby offsetting state
and counties continued to receive the same
education spending. As part of the "Triple Flip"
amount of revenue that they would have under
the 2 percent rate, with the reduced VLF agreement discussed below, however, the state
revenues from vehicle owners replaced by pledged to use some ERAF revenues to replace
General Fund revenues or backfill. Under transferred city and county sales tax revenues.
current law, the backfill for 2004-05 is estimated Triple Flip
to be $4.1 billion.
The state's Economic Recovery Bonds,
VLF Gap Loan approved by the voters in March 2004, are
secured by a pledge of revenues from an
The previous administration made a
increase in the state's share of the sales and use
determination in June 2003 that there were
tax of one-quarter cent beginning July 1, 2004.
insufficient funds for the state to continue
The share of the tax going to local governments
making General Fund backfill payments to local
will be reduced by the same amount and, in
governments. The backfill ceased and the VLF
exchange, local governments will receive an
rate paid by vehicle owners increased to
increased share of the local property tax (and
2 percent approximately three months later. The
K-14 districts a reduced share) during the time
"gap" period between when the backfill ceased
the one-quarter cent is being used to pay off the
and the increased VLF rate occurred resulted in
bonds (estimated to be between 9 and 14 years).
a loss in local revenue of $1.2 billion, essentially
This shift in revenues between the state and local
representing a loan to the state scheduled to be
governments is known as the "triple flip."
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE 19
AN LAO REPORT
20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST'S OFFICE
RECEIVED
JUN- I 2004
M E M O R A N D U M cITY MANAGER'S F-
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
June 1, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORN
SUBJECT: VOLUNTEER/Prevailing Wage
Please find attached a recent update on the volunteer/prevailing wage situation.
VG:ls
S:\GG\M EMO\Volunteer.doc
MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
May 26, 2004
TO: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATI'ORNEY
FROM: ALAN D. DANIEL, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: AB 2690
USE OF VOLUNTEERS IN PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS
Because of certain problems which have arisen from the legislative enactments
involving the definition of volunteers and the new definitions of public works projects, the
Legislature has proposed an amendment to Section 1720.4 of the Labor Code. The bill
would amend the section to exclude volunteers, as defined, from having to be paid
prevailing wage on "public works" projects.
One of the best parts of the bill is it would apply retroactively and cover work
concluded on or after January 1,2002.
The bill is being supported by the California Water Shed Network, Adoptive
Water Shed and the Urban Creeks Council.
ADD:dll
Attachment
S:\Public Works\ME MOS\Voiuntee rsM mo3.SB2690.doc
AB 2 90 AS mbly Bill - ANENDED Page ! of 3
BIlL NUMBER: AB 2690 AMENDED
· ~ BILL TEXT
AMENDED INiASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 26, 2004
'AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 12, 2004
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Hancock
FEBRUARY 20, 2004
An act to ~ ~~ ~n ~ ~ ~n ~
repeal and ad~ Section 1720.4 to the Labor Code, relating to
public .works.
.LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2690, as amended, Hancock. Public works: funds.
Existing law defines "public works," for purposes of ~egulating
public works contracts, as, among other things, construction, .
alteration, demolition, installation, or rePair work done' under
contract and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds.
· Otherwise covered work that meets certain criteria,
including work ~hat is performed entirely by volunteer labor, is
excluded from ~his definition of "public works." Pursuant to
existing law, all workers employed on public works shall be paid not
less ~han the general prevailing rate of per di~ wages for work,
except for public works projects of $1,000 or less.
.This bill would exempt from .these provisions any work that is
performed by a volunteer, a volunteer coordinator, or by me~ers of
~he California Conservation Corps or of certified Co--unity
Conserva t i on Corps.
The bill would apply this exemption retroactively ~o otherwise
covered work concluded on or after January 1, 2002, to the extent
perm~ed by law.
Vote: · majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal co~ittee: yes.
State-mandated local progr~: no.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
http://www.~eginf~.ca.g~v/pub/bi~/asm/ab-2651.27~/ab-2690-bi~-2004~52~-amended-asm.ht~ 5/24/2004
AB 2'~90 A~sembly Bill -' AMENDED Page' 2 Of 3
SECTION l. Section 1720.4 of the Labor Code is repealed.
(d) The vmrk i~ ~rcvcd ~' tkc Dircctcr cf ~n~u~tria! Rc!~ticn-
SEC. 2. Section 1720.4 is added to the Labor Code, to read:
1720.4. (a) This chapter shall not apply to any of the following
work:
(1) ~y work perfo~ed by a volunteer~ For purposes of this
section~ "'volunteer" means an individual 'who performs work for civic,
charitable, or h.~anitarian reasons for a public agency or
corporation ~alified under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue.
Code as a tax-exempt organization, without promise, e~ectation, or
receipt of any compensation for work performed.
(A) ~ individual shall be considered'a volunteer only when his or
her services are offered freely and without pressure and coercion,
direct or implied, from an employer.
'(B) ~ i'ndividual may receive reasonable meals, lodging,
transportation, andincidental e~enses or nominal non-monetary
awards without losing volunteer status if, in the entire context of
the situation, those benefits and pa~ents are not a substitute form
b.f .compensation for work performed.
(C) ~ individual shall not be considered a volunteer 'if the
person is otherwise employed for compensation at any time (i) in the
construction, alteration, demolition, installation, repair, or
maintenance work on the s~e project, or (ii) by a contractor, other
than a corporation ~alified under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue.Code as a tax-exempt organization, that is receiving pa~ent
to perform construction, alteration, demolition, installation,
repair, or maintenance work on the s~e project.
(2) ~y work perfo~ed by a volunteer coordinator. For purposes
of this section, "volunteer coordinator"' means an individual paid by
a corporation ~alified under Section 501 (c)(3) of. the Internal
Revenue as a tax-exempt Organization, to oversee or supervise
Vol un t eers.
. (3) ~y work performed by me, ers of the California Conservation
Corps or of Co, unity Conservation Corps certified by' the California
Conservation Corps pursuant to Section 14507.5 of the Public
Resources COde.
(b) This section shall apply retroactively to othe~ise covered
work concl'uded on or after January 1, 2002, to the extent permitted
by .law.
b~p://wwwJeg[nfo.~.GoWpub/b[H/asm/ab_2651-2700/a~2690 b~H 200405203mended3sm,L,. 5/24/2004
AB L:Y69OA~sembly Bill - AMENDED Page 3 of 3
purcu=_nt tc Section 1~_597.5 of the ~"~ ;~ ~ ......... '"^~
1720.~. To the extent that ~ub!ic fund~ zrc ~-:zi!zb!c cr mz~~
c~cn~cd to ~rcscrvc tkc zbi!ity fcr citizcnr tc vc!untccr zn~ ?zcrk
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2651-2700/ab_2690 bill 20040520_amended_asm.k.. 5/24/2004
B A K E R S F I E L D
M E M O R A N D U M RECEIVED
June 2, 2004
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager /..~/_
FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Dir~~/
SUBJECT: Un-reinforced Masonry Building Update
I about 'un-reinforced
A couple of months ago there was an artic e - masonry buildings in
Bakersfield. The story cited a California State Seismic Commission report indicating that there
were still many more URM buildings in Bakersfield than I thought. The Building Department has
concluded its review of URM buildings and a summary of its findings is attached. We will be
sending a copy to the State Seismic Safety Commission to correct its records.
JH:djl
Attachment
PAMemos\URM buildings.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
MEMORANDUM
.lune 2, 2004'
TO: ]ack Hardisty, Development Services Dir~.~
FROM: Jack Leonard, Acting Building Director ~~'
SUBJECT: URM Update
We have concluded our update of the City's URM list. Of the 205 URN buildings on the
list, 179 meet the City's ordinance having been retrofitted, demolished, determined to
be non-bearing wall structures, or converted to storage only occupancy. The remaining
26 not meeting the requirements of the ordinance have been declared "non-
conforming" URN buildings. Due to state law, a sign has been posted at the entrance
of each of these non-conforming URM buildings stating; "This is an un-reinforced
masonry building. Un-reinforced masonry buildings may be unsafe in the event of a
major earthquake."
The following is a summary of the current URN list:
Build/nas fvleetin_q URN Ordinance Reouirernents:
125 Retrofitted - Buildings strengthened to resist earthquake loads, 30 Demolished - Buildings knocked down and removed.
18 Non-Bearing Wall Structures - Buildings that do not rely on
un-reinforced masonry walls for structural support.
6 ~LG.~gg_O_n~ - Buildings meeting the storage exempUon
requirements of the municipal code,
179 Sub-total
Buildin_qs Not I~leetin_q URfil Ordinance Requirements:
Occupied - Conducting business (URM Sign Posted).
7 Vacant- Non-occupied and secured (URM Sign Posted).
26 Sub-total
205 Total
We will send this update to the State Seismic Commission.
MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
June 1,2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORN~
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY PROSECUTION
COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 791
Councilmember Benham requested the City Attorney work with her for possible grant
funding of a "Community Prosecutions" program.
The City Attorney has contacted a source at the District Attorney's office to
schedule a meeting concerning this issue. The City Attorney will keep Councilmember
Benham updated with subsequent memos regarding progress.
VG:ls
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
S:\COUNClL\Referrals\Com m unity Prosecution.doc
M~tastorm e-work client Page 1 of 1
Requestor: I~'~; B~,,,h,,,a,? Ward: i~ Referral Created:
Req. Completion Date: i~O~ Meeting: ...........
Initial Referral Information
Shod Description:
COMMUNITY PROSECUTION
Long Description:
~**REFERRAL TO CITY A~ORNEY***
COUNOILMEMBER BENHAM REQUESTED THE CITY A~ORNEY WORK
WITH HER FOR POSSIBLE GRANT FUNDING OF A "COMMUNITY
PROSECUTIONS" PROGRAM. , A~achmentA
A~achment B
A~achment C
Lead: Assigned To: Response?
Reassigned To: Response?
R3
Optional 6itizen Contact Information
Na~o: Namo:
Address: Address:
Phone: Phone:
http ://ework/scripts/eWeb.dll/FolderPage?Page=Referral%2524Display&FolderlD=EWORK$ 6/1/2004
MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
June 1, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ 'd~
°,
~lJa-'ALLEN M. SHAW, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN SAFETY
COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 001)777
Councilmember Benham requested the City Attorney, Police Chief and appropriate
staff meet to discuss suggestions made by the DBA to address downtown weekend
safety issues.
In response to the referral from Councilmember Sue Benham, the City Attorney's
Office met with Lieutenant David Haskins and various staff members and discussed the
issues raised by Councilmember Benham. Another meeting has been scheduled for
June 9th. The City Attorney's Office will work with the City Manager's Office and have
the matter calendared with the Legislative and Litigation Committee as soon as
'possible.
VG/AMS:Isc
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
S:\COUNCIL\Referrals\DowntownSafety.doc
~ECE~VED
JU~' I 2004
M E M O R A N D U M
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
June 1, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /'~ .
FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNE~;~)tJ I.~'~ ~
ALAN D. DANIEL, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEy,_..~/
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ISSUES AND FENCING AT BHS- UPDATE
COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 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.
As of May 25, 2004, Code Enforcement has reported the railroad fence along
California Avenue which had been struck by a vehicle has been repaired. ,
VG/ADD:dll
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement Officer
S:\COUN ClL\Refe rrals\BHS.RR Fencing3.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR J~
SUBJECT: GRAFFITI CLEAN UP ON UNION
Council Referral #788
Councilmember Benham requested staff perform graffiti clean up on both sides of
Union between Highway 178 and Columbus.
The Anti-Graffiti crews have started the clean-up of this 1,5 block area and expect to
have it completed by June 9, 2004.
G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~004\05-26\788 - GS.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
.*u,
SUBJECT: REPLACEMENT OF TOTER FOR CITIZEN
Council Referral #789
Councilmember Benham requested staff contact citizen regarding the replacement
of brown toter which was defaced by graffiti.
The citizen was contacted and the container was 'replaced on Friday, May 28th.
G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~004'~5-26~78~ - SW.~oc
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO .,~1..,.~._..~
SUBJECT: OREGON STREET POTHOLES
Council Referral #790
Councilmember Benham requested staff contact citizen regarding repairing of
potholes on Oregon Street. Citizen would also like to find out if CDBG funds are
available for sidewalk installation.
The citizen was contacted by Luis Peralez, Street Superintendent, on June 2, 2004.
She was advised by Mr. Peralez that the potholes on the street in front of her property
would be repaired before June 18, 2004. She was satisfied with the response.
In addition, Mr. Peralez informed her that he would notify someone in the Economic and
Development Department to call her so they could answer her question concerning
funds for sidewalk installation.
G:\GROUPDA~Referrals~004\05-26\790 - Streets.doc
MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
June 2, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER I I .'
· * ~_z.;~) ~v~
FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CiTY ATTORNEAr-~
,b~t~LLEN M. SHAW, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
· SUBJECT: GRAFFITI ON MAIL BOXES AND JUNCTION BOXES
COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 000801
Councilmember Maggard requested staff look into requiring owners to clean up
graffiti on their junction boxes and. mail boxes.
The Bakersfield Municipal-Code concerning graffiti and abatement of public
nuisances grants the City power to compel an otherwise innocent owner to "clean up"
graffiti on his or her property, which includes junction boxes and mail boxes.
However, there are some practical issues to be considered. First, there are legal
'complexities when property, such as an easement for a junction box, has multiple
owners, such as defining which owner is responsible and to what percentage. Second,
there is the perception of penalizing the "victim." Third, in order to have a successful
cost recovery effort against the owners, Staff would need to thoroughly document each
clean up project in its "before state," its "after state," and. the actual cost of labor and
· materials. When the budget was .reduced, the support staff responsible for putting this
information together was eliminated. Staff's primary concem at this point is to simply
clean the grafitti.
VG/AMS:Isc
· cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
S:\COUNCIL\Refen'als\GraffitiMailboxes.doc
Jb~,! - 3 2004
MANAGER'S
B A K E R S F I E L
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~,~..,~..._~.~..~.
SUBJECT: G.E.T. ASSISTANCE FOR ROAD REPAIR
Council Referral #802
Councilmember Maggard requested staff send a letter to Golden Empire Transit
district enlisting their assistance in maintaining roads near their stops. Respond
back to Council.
Staff has sent the attached letter to Golden Empire Transit requesting that they
participate in funding a project to maintain the pavement at their stops.
G \GROUPDAT~Referrals~004\05-26~802 - Arnold.doc
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT .
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301
.f661) 326-3724
RAUL M. ROJA~. DIRECTOR. CITY ENGINEER
June 2, 2004
Chester Morland - · .
Golden Empire Transit . ."
1830 Golden state Avenue '
Bakersfield,' CA 93301
Re: DeteriOration of Pavem ,ms at.Bus Stops.
Dear Mr. M°rland: .' '" ~' '"
At the May 26, 2004, City Coun(~il'Meeting, City Council Member Mike Maggard requested that City
staff contact Golden ErnPi.re. Tia.i~Si~:.(GET) regarding assistance from GET in funding a pavement
rehabilitation / repair.capital imPrOVement project. The portion of this project in which GET would
participate will address.the deteriorated pavements at bus stops throughout Bakersfield. That
degradation is due in part to the starting and stopping activity and .weight of the buses. It is the
City's position that a portion of the Transportation Develop Act Article 8 funds that GET receives for
your operations could be directed to this roadway maintenance project.
Many bus stops around town' not only have failed pavement at them, but alsO broken curbs whict~
result in poor drainage. Th'ese' conditions often' require GET passengers to walk through water
puddles in order to board the bus. Your'agency's participation in this project will benefit both' GET
and its customers bY mpr0v, ng..the passengers' access onto and out of the buses.
Please discuss th'is ..... '...~'v...:.~. ~ · '
reques~'w~h .'Y~i'O¢ S~tff. and then inform us as to your'agency's willingness to
participate in this projeCt:. ~..~ · .... ·...
If you have any questions ab0U'{: this 'Pi'°jcct:· Please call Arnold Ramming at 661-326-3591.
Very truly yours,
RAUL M. ROJAS
Public Works Director
-//~_~_/q~les R. LaRochelle '. ' -. ' ....
/ / ,~s~istant Public Works 'Director
~ Mike Maggard , .
Alan Tandy
Arnold Ramming
Reading File
S:\PROJ ECTS~ARNOLD\GET 060204.doc
BAKERSFIELD
FIRE' DEPARTMENT C~TY MANAGER'S
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: 'Ron Frame, Fire Chief'-~A~
DATE: May 26, 2004
SUBJECT: Response to Councilmember Couch's request for information on fire
districts
Fire districts are independent, special purpose governmental units formed by the people
within the district. Fire districts are funded by taxes imposed on the property owners.
They may provide fire protection, rescue, emergency medical, ambulance, and hazardous
materials services.
Fire districts are neither good nor bad until placed in a specific context. There are
benefits to form a district for small or rural communities with weak governments or
funding limitations. However, a disadvantage to the City would be a case much like the
bright lights at Liberty High School wherein the City cannot control the park district,
even though City residents are affected by the park district's decisions. '
Once the fire district lines are drawn, they are set. For example, if district lines were
drawn surrounding Bakersfield, future City annexations into the district area would not
change the fire protection for those residents.
The City of Bakersfield does not fall into the area normally associated with fire districts.
Larger cities, like Bakersfield, rarely give up control of primary services. A Fire District
would result in a loss of control for City government over the quality of emergency
services.
It is my opinion that our Joint Powers Agreement offers the best of both worlds. We save
money by sharing resources such as our Training and Dispatch facilities. We maintain
control over fire protection services without duplicating services by providing the closest
fire station response. It appears that if changes need to be made regarding fire protection,
then the Joint Powers Agreement should be modified.
S/susan/memos/fire districts
MEMORANDUM
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
June 2, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: VIRGINIA GENNARO, CITY ATTORNI~-~
ALAN D. DANIEL, DEPUTY CITY ATT~E~Y ~.~
SUBJECT: RAILROAD CROSSING REPAIRS NOTIFICATION
COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. 803
Vice-Mayor Couch requested City Attorney prepare a Resolution, for Council
approval, outlining the process for notifying the railroad of railroad repairs and
monitoring the progress.
Pursuant to Vice-Mayor Couch's request, the City Attorney's Office has prepared
and is attaching a draft of "A Resolution Setting City Policy for Processing Complaints
Concerning Substandard Railroad Crossings" for the City Council's review and
consideration for approval.
VG/ADD:dll
Attachment
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
Jack LaRochelle, Assistant Public Works Director
Nick Fidler, Civil Engineer III
S:\COUNCIL\Referrals\04-05 Referrals\RRXingReso.docS:\COUNClL\Referrals\04-05 Referrals\RRXingReso.doc
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION SETTING CITY POLICY FOR
PROCESSING COMPLAINTS CONCERNING
SUBSTANDARD RAILROAD CROSSINGS.
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield desires a consistent approach to railroad
crossing repairs within the corporate limits of the City of Bakersfield; and
WHEREAS, the City has experienced significant delays in achieving the repair of
substandard railroad crossings in recent years; and
WHEREAS, the City desires the adoption of a policy with the goal of obtaining a
consistent approach and better results in repair of substandard railroad crossings; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to achieve the repair of substandard railroad crossings in
order to protect the health, safety and welfare of its citizens and -the traveling public so
as to prevent the loss of life or property damage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the .Council of the City of
Bakersfield as follows:
The foregoing recital is true and correct and incorporated herein, by
reference.
2. The City of Bakersfield adopts the following policy for the investigation,
follow-up and, if necessary, filing a formal complaint with the California
Public Utilities Commission for the repair of substandard railroad
crossings. This policy shall be implemented by the City Manager. The
City Manager may, after consultation with the City Attorney, deviate from
this policy, but shall report 'such deviations to the City Council by
memorandum.
3. 'After the receipt' of a complaint of substantial deterioration to a railroad
crossing, the City Attorney's Office will initiate an investigation which will
include the City's outside insurance investigator (if any), and the Traffic
Engineering Division of Public Works.
4. The Traffic Engineering Division shall cooperate with the 'outside
investigator to complete an investigation Which will include Photographs,
complaint received, an investigative report of the particulars concerning
the substandard crossing, and statements from the outside investigator
and the City Traffic Engineer, or designee, detailing problems with the
crossing. The report will then be sent to the City Attorney's Office.
S :\COUNCIL\Resos\04-05 ResosLRRCrossingsReso. DOC
-- Page 1 of 3 Pages --
5. The City Attorney's Office will review the report and then send a letter to
the appropriate railroad company demanding a repair of the crossing. The
letter will include the City's investigation and will be mailed by certified
mail, return receipt requested with an additional Copy to be directed to the
California Public Utilities Commission. The City Attorney's Office will
calendar a sixty (60) day response date after mailing the letter.
6. During the sixty (60) day time period after the mailing of the demand letter
for repairs, an assigned member of the Public Works staff will make
telephonic contact with,the railroad company to discuss the letter and ask
whether or not the' railroad company intends to go forward with the repairs
of the crossing. The employee making contact will memorialize the
conversation in a'memorandum and forward it to the City Attorney's
Office.
7. Should the railroad company fail or refuse to repair the crossing, the City
Attorney will send a second letter again demanding the repair of the
crossing and clearly stating that a failure to respond within thirty (30) days
will result in a filing with the California Public Utilities Commission to
achieve the repair of the offending' crossing. This letter should be sent by
certified mail with return receipt requested and a copy sent to the
CalifOrnia Public Utilities commission.
8. Should the railroad company who owns the offending crossing continue to
fail and refuse to repair the crossing the City will take steps to file a formal
complaint with the California Public Utilities Commission demanding that
the railroad crossing be repaired. Thereafter, the City will follow the
California Public Utilities Commission procedures and attempt to have the
matter heard as soon as possible so as to effectuate' the necessary
crossing repairs.
9. 'The City Attorney is authorized to settle the dispute prior to a final decision
by the California Public Utilities Commission as long as the Settlement
results in a repair to the crossing.. The settlement maY include
cooperation, by the City in helping the railroad repair the offending crossing
and the City Attorney, after consultation with the City Manager, is
authorized to offer assistance in upgrading the crossing in such a manner
so as to prolong the life of the crossing.
10. Either the final decision by the California Public Utilities Commission or'the
settlement shall be reported to the City Council by memorandum.
.......... 000 ..........
S:\COUNCIL~R. esos\04-05 Resos~RCrossingsReso. DOC
-- Page 2 of 3 Pages --
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the fOregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by
the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on
by the.following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBER COUCH, CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, HANSON, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO
NOES: COUNCILMEMBER
ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
APPROVED
By
HARVEY L. HALL
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
VIRGINIA GENNARO
City Attorney
By
ALAN D. DANIEL
Deputy City Attorney
ADD:dll
June 2, 2004
S :\COUNCILLResos\04-05 Resos\RRCrossingsReso.DOC
-- Page 3 of 3 Pages --
DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS
DATE: June 1, 2004
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Alan Christensen, Director Recreation and Park
SUBJECT: DEAD TREES CAMPUS PARK
Ref000792 ( WARD 5)
Councilmember Hanson requested staff address the issue of some dead trees in Campus Park
North for removal and replacement.
Staff has inspected the various trees at Campus Park North and have found several
trees of concern. There is a Tulip tree on the northwest side of the park that has been
pronounced dead. We will go through the "posting notice" process and the tree will be
removed in about two (2) weeks and then another tree will be replanted. We have found
a tree in the west side of the park and two (2) trees on the east side of the park that will
require special care over the next several months. If this care does not bring these
trees back to full health then they will be removed and new trees will be planted.
S:\Council Referrals 2004\RefO00792.doc
May 28, 2004 (8:43AM)
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR .~/~,.._./
SUBJECT: POT HOLES ON WHITE LANE
Council Referral #794
Councilmember Sullivan requested staff repair pot holes in the right hand lane of
White Lane, west of Ashe Road.
Street crews will be patching potholes on White Lane between Wilson Road and
Gosford Road on Monday, June 7, 2004 and Tuesday, June 8, 2004.
G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~004\05-26\794 - Streets.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO~
SUBJECT: ALLEY BEHIND REEDER AVENUE
Council Referral #795
Councilmember Sullivan requested staff look into the feasibility of repairing the
alley behind the homes on Reeder Avenue. The alley is the only access the
homeowners have to their garages, and is in bad need of repair. Contact
Councilmember Sullivan after review of alley.
There are several potholes in the alley, located behind the homes on Reeder Avenue.
A pothole patching crew will be assigned repair the pothe!es during the week of June 7,
2004.
G:\GROUPDA~Referrals~2004\05-26\795 - Streets.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR .~~.,~ ~
SUBJECT: MEDIAN REPAIRS - WHITE LANE WEST OF WIBLE
Council Referral,#798
Councilmember Salvaggio requested staff repair the end of a cement median on
White Lane, west of Wible Road.
Permanent repairs of the median island on White Lane will be added to the Street
Division's concrete repair list.
In the meantime, during the week of June 7, 2004, a temporary repair will be made to
the median island.
G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~004\05-26\798 - Streets.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 3, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM' RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~
SUBJECT: GRAFFITI ON SOUTH H STREET- MING TO LEMAY
Council Referral #797
Councilmember Salvaggio requested staff remove graffiti on masonry walls on the
south side of South H Street from Ming Avenue to Lemay.
The Anti-graffiti team completed the removed this graffiti on Wednesday, June 2, 2004.
G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~004\05-26\797 - GS.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager //~J
FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Di/ffctor~~.
DATE: June 1, 2004
SUBJECT: Roosters on Laurel Drive / Referral No. 800
Councilmember Salvaggio requested staff address Linda Porter's concerns regarding roosters in
her neighborhood at 2900 Laurel Drive.
On May 28, 2004, code enforcement made contact with the property owner at 2900 Laurel Drive.
The owner stated she would have the chickens and roosters removed within seven days. A
notice was also mailed to reassure compliance. A re-inspection will be conducted on Friday,
June 4, 2004.