The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/24/00 / BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 24, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. It is that "exciting" time of year when staff is tied up in departmental budget reviews. 2. Ray Bishop has come up with what seems to be an excellent idea to improve safety at both the City airpark and Meadows Field. It involves an FAA action to make the full area Class C air space and puts the Meadows tower in charge of the airpark traffic. We are investigating and plan to pursue as rapidly as possible. 3. One of the lessons we are learning from the conversion of temporary employees to an outside service is that, in some cases, it would be better for us to convert some part-time positions to full time. We are analyzing how to do that on a cost neutral basis and will approach Council before too long on some conversions. 4. Our quarterly sales tax distribution shows that we have a very healthy economy, as it was well over budget estimates. 5. We continue to work on the suite addition concept at the Garden and will have a status report at the next Council meeting. 6. I will be taking vacation next Thursday and Friday, March 30th and 31st. John Stinson will be in charge during my absence, and the office will be able to reach me if needed. 7. A recent study done by California State University in Fresno regarding business and industrial parks in Central California contained several inaccuracies regarding Bakersfield. The Economic Development Director sent the attached letter to the author of the study noting the inaccuracies and requesting that corrected information be sent to the original mailing list used when the study was released. 8. Regarding Vice Mayor Carson's previous request to obtain information on funding sources for economic development grants, EDCD has received replies from several more local agencies, which are enclosed. Honorable Mayor and City Council March 24, 2000 Page 2 9. Information is enclosed from the recent National League of Cities Congressional Conference. 10. Attached are charts developed by the Vision 2020 group which they are using as part of their fact finding process. 11. An update on the March 16th meeting of the Southeast Bakersfield Project Area Committee is enclosed. 12. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: DeMond · Graffiti problem on vacant house at Robinson and Niles Streets; · Prepare follow up letter to Princeton and Panorama Drive residents requesting feedback on parking permit situation in their area; · Award program to recognize excellence of high school academic teams. Maggard · Graffiti problems in areas of Alta Vista at Green Frog Market, Siemon Park and the Oswell area; · Investigate issue of the reason University Baptist Church had to pay a fee for parking signs. · In response to the request that the City send a letter in support of reducing the excise taxes on gasoline, staff has researched the issue and prepared some background for the Council to consider. Included is a report from the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure which was provided by Congressman Bill Thomas' office and suggests that the proposed repeal of the 4.3 cents per gallon fuel tax would not likely result in lower prices for consumers, would not address the root causes of the increase, i.e. the reduced oil supply, and would have a devastating impact on highway and other transportation programs. The state is also considering a possible elimination of a portion of the gasoline sales tax for the summer months. Reductions in either the federal or state gasoline related taxes could directly affect road monies received by the City for resurfacing of streets and major road projects. Honorable Mayor and City Council March 24, 2000 Page 3 Couch · Review options in the next annual investment policy update; · Advise when traffic signals will be installed on Jewetta, between Brimhall & Rosedale Highway and increase traffic patrol in area; · Repair road at: Jewetta between Hageman and Snow Road and Coffee Road between Olive Drive and 7th Standard Road. Respond to ward resident. Salvaggio · Prepare letter to citizen regarding fees related to code enforcement issues at 503, 505, 507 N Street. AT: rs cc: Mayor-Elect Harvey Hall Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM March 23, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direct(~r c~t)~" SUBJECT: Central California Futures Institute - Inv~tory of Business and Industrial Parks in Central Valley Cities Recently a study authored by Scott Houser, PhD, Department of Economics, California State University, Fresno was released by the Central California Futures Institute. The study detailed information on the availability of industrially zoned property in seven Central Valley cities including Bakersfield. With respect to the City of Bakersfield, the study identified 24 (with a total of 3,358 acres) of industrial parks located within our city boundaries. The study then made several statistical analyses utilizing various factors including Bakersfield's population, amount of total industrially zoned'property. Unfortunately the study's conclusions and the ensuing rankings are flawed in that while the study uses a correct population count of 220,800 (as reported by the Demographic Unit of the California Department of Finance as of January 1, 1998) for the City of Bakersfield, it also overstates the number of industrial parks (24 vs 12) that are actually located within city boundaries. Thus, while the study is specifically based on city population and industrial parks located within the City, the data utilized is in error by a significant amount. Attached to this memorandum is a letter sent under my signature to the study's author. At the conclusion of my letter I do ask that corrected information be disseminated to the original mailing list utilized in the study's release. In closing, I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of my correspondence to the business editor at the Californian. Please call if you have any questions. RECEIVED dlk:P:klWS\ccfi memo.wpd .CI IVIANAGER~ OFFICE BAKERSFIELD March 20, 2000 Scott Houser, PhD Department of Economics California State University, Fresno 5245 N Backer Av PB 20 Fresno CA 93740 Dear Professor Houser, I have had a chance to read your "Inventory of Business and Industrial Parks in Central Valley Cities" prepared for the Central California Futures Institute. I regret to inform you that, based upon inaccurate data and assumptions, the conclusions your survey has drawn about Bakersfield are incorrect. While the Bakersfield business and industrial parks referred to in your study have Bakersfield mailing addresses, not all of them are located within Bakersfield's city limits. In fact, based upon the data you were provided about Bakersfield's business and industrial parks, · only 12, or 50%, of the 24 parks that your study indicated were in Bakersfield are actually within Bakersfield's city limits; · Bakersfield's business and industrial parks have 1,586 total acres, or 47%, of the 3,358 total acreage attributed to Bakersfield in your study; and · the vacancy rate of those parks within Bakersfield's city limits is 48%, not 67% as stated in your study. Because your study seeks to examine relationships between industrial parks within cities, and the size of the cities' populations, these changes significantly affect the conclusions drawn in your report. I have listed some of the major points below: 1. Page 1, third bullet; Page 2, last paragraph; and Page 3, Table 1: Using 1,586 acres, Bakersfield would rank 5th in the distribution of total acreage, rather than 2"d. 2. Page 1, fourth bullet: The vacancy rate of Bakersfield's parks is 48% (a revised Table 5 provides detail on this figure, based upon the data you were provided about Bakersfield's business and industrial parks). City of Bakersfield · Economic and Community Development Department 515 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield ° California 93301 (661) 326-3765 ° Fax (661) 328-1548 · TDD (661) 324-3631 Professor Scott Houser March 20, 2000 Page 2 3. 'Page 2, second paragraph: "... Kern County has 42 industrial parks with over 6, 000 available acres; however, only 12 of these parks with 12. 6°.4 of the available acres are located in the City of Bakersfield." (This was calculated by dividing Bakersfield's 756 vacant acres by 6,000.) 4. Page 3, Table 2: In this table showing the proportion of vacant business and industrial parks, Bakersfield would rank 4th, with a 48% vacancy rate, not 7'h as shown. 5. Page 4, Table 3: In this table ranking cities by developed acreage, Bakersfield would continue to be ranked 4th, although Bakersfield's total developed acreage is 830 acres (1,586 total acres less 756 vacant acres). 6. Page 5, Table 4: Assuming the study used a population figure for Bakersfield of 220,800 (based upon January 1, 1998 figures provided by the Demographic Unit of the California Department of Finance), Bakersfield's current acres per resident would be 0.007. Thus, the median value would be Manteca at 0.008 acres per resident. 7. Page 7: a. The map referred to in the study is published by the City of Bakersfield, not Kern Economic Development Corporation. b. The repOrt notes that of the industrial parks in Bakersfield, "many... have at least some of their land inside an enterprise zone." In fact, only four of Bakersfield's 12 industrial parks are located within our enterprise zone, and also lie within a newly-created redevelopment area. c. When comparing the number of Bakersfield's industrial parks to other cities included in this study, Bakersfield would not have a relatively large number of business and industrial parks. d. "The 12parks range in size from 16 to 640 acres, with a median of 64 acres." e. Bakersfield's business and industrial parks do not have a relatively high level of vacancy. "Average vacancy is 48%." f. "Only two of Bakersfield's 12 parks have vacancy rates less than 25%, and only four have vacancy rates less than 50 percent." 8. Page 8, Table 5: a. A correct table, showing only those parks within the city limits of Bakersfield, is shown on the next page. The following parks are listed in your report but are located outside Bakersfield's city limits: · Airport Commerce Center · Bakersfield Airport Business Center · Breckenridge Industrial Development Professor Scott Houser March 20, 2000 Page 3 ·Coffee Road Business Park · Fruitvale Industrial Park · Industrial Trade Center · Meadows Field Commercial Properties · Miller Industrial Park · Rosedale Business Park · Sagebrush Industrial Park · Seventh Standard Industrial Park oTejon Industrial Complex b. Please note that the data shown on the corrected table below was taken from Table 5 in your report and I cannot confirm the accuracy of the figures relative to total and vacant acreage. Table 5. Bakersfield business and industrial parks Name of park Total Acreage Vacant acreage % vacant 1 Bakersfield Business Port 40 40 100% 2 East Planz Industrial 16 8 50% 3 Enterprise Business Park 135 ' 135 100% 4 Freeway Business Park 50 44 88% 5 Freeway 58 Business Park 20 5 25%** 6 Gateway Business Park 94 74 79% 7 Oswell Industrial Park 78 50 64% 8 Rio Mirada Business Park 160 59 37% 9 River View Business Park 24 2 8%** 10 Stockdale Industrial Park Phase IV & V 640 26 4% 11 Stockdale Industrial Park Phase VI 295 295 100% 12 Woodmere Industrial Park 34 18 53% Total 1,586 756 48% **These figures are different than those shown in your report. They were determined by dividing the vacant'acreage in the individual park by the park's total acreage. Professor Scott Houser March 20, 2000 Page 4 I am confident that you place as high a premium on accuracy as I do. In an effort to ensure that all interested pa[ties have in hand the most accurate information, I am hopeful that you would forward the corrected information regarding Bakersfield to all of those individuals and organizations that received your original study. Your assistance is very much appreciated. Sincerely, t{ ~'~"~~ ~ John F. Wager, Jr. Economic Development Director cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Kern Economic Development Corporation dl:\SSJAKE\Response to CCFI ind park survey.wpd BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM March 22, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ff~~ FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development DirectOr ~ ~ 2 SUBJECT: Responses from Other Agencies regarding~ayor Carson's request for Economic Development Grants On January 20, I provided you a memo regarding our efforts to follow-up on Vice Mayor Carson's request for economic development grants. In that memo, I mentioned that we had requested information from a variety of other local agencies. We have since received written responses from all agencies except one. I have enclosed responses from the following: John Nilon, Executive Director, Employers' Training Resource Kathleen M. Irvine, Director, Kern County Department of Human Services Tom,is A. Arciniega, President, California State University, Bakersfield Pamela J. Sanders, Director, Community Connection for Child Care Chester Moland from Golden Empire Transit has indicated that GET has not applied for these funds and has no plans to apply for them in the foreseeable future. In addition, our staff is exploring three separate grants mentioned in the Natelson Report. enclosures dI:P:~ED Strategy~Follow up memo to AT re ED grants.wpd RECEIVED hlAR :,TY M*N,A, GEW$ O~:7ICE_I '~ 02,"~.8,,'00 FRI 10:48 FAX 1 808 336 6888 E)IPLYRS TRNG RES ~.001 lNG RESOUP, CE February 25, 2000 John F. Wager, Jr. Ec©nomic Development Director City 0£ Bakersfield 515 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 ETR ACTIVITY WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS Dear Mr. Wager: As requested in yo~lr letter of January 20, 2000, we llave reviewed o~lr activity in the funding sources listed in the Weteison F~mding Feasibility Study. Employers' Training Resource, in its primary role as a workforce investment deliverer, is typically funded through the U.S. Departmen5 of labor (DOL) and the California Employment Development Department (EDD) . We actively compete for appropriate fundin~ from these sources and seldom qualify or pursue funding from other State and Federal agencies. Funding has no~ beerl requested under any. of these sources iisued as Program Planning and Evaluation. It is our understanding that must Research and Developmen~ projects are operated a~ the stase level. Under Employment Trai~%ing and P!lacement, we receive most of our funding. The largest source is ~12-Job Training ParUnership Ac~ - soon to be Title I of the Workforce Investment Act {WIA). This source serves the entire county but allows us to offer many services onsite in southeast Bakersfield. Also received are funds under ~9 - Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker funds and $13 Welfare to Work Grants. Together these three grants provide s~gn~_~cant impact by providing training, placement and facilitating employer recruitment in S.E. Bakersfield. Vms ~ Om'mt ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~% ll05g~Tm~Av 1~75~1 ~eC"P~A~ ~.O.~2969 J6loJ"~ P.O.~582 F~ (~) 3~59 F~ (~) 7~-~J8 F~ {~) ~510~ F~x (7~) 9~-~3 t F~ (7~) 871-~ P~ (7~) 93l-5287 ~-', .~o,00 FRI 10:49 FAX 1 $05 336 6858 E~IPLYRS TRNG RES [~002 -2- We have also helped prepare an application for a regional collaborative under ~11 Job Training Pilot & Demonstration. This would not directly involve S.E. Bakersfield but would provide additional mechanisms for labor market information, communication and coordination throughout the valley. We are not currently pursuing any of the other potential sources. Let us know if we may be of further assistance. very truly yours, /,~/John Ni!on Executive. Director JN:BM:eln JEDDBE23 DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES KATHLEEN M. IRVINE ,~ P.O. Box 511 Director ~ Bakersfield, CA 93302 TTY Relay 1-800-735-2929 January 26, 2000 J/tN 2, 8 200~7 John F.. Wager, Jr., Economic Development Director City of Bakersfield Economic & Community Development Department -------~ -=-51§-T--ru~un-Avenue .... .-~ ..... - ...... _. ~_ - _ -- --~ ~_ ~ Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear~ I received your letter of inquiry dated January 20, 2000 regarding the funding feasibility study completed by the Natelson Company. The Department of Human Services has not applied for additional funds through any of the listed grant programs, nor are we planning to utilize any funding outside of our current Federal & State allocations. We are very interested in the revitalization of the Southeast, not only to bring in jobs, but to ensure children have access to programs that enhance their health, education and cultural growth. In the spirit of this, we provide funding to the Kem County Network for Children for technical assistance to the Southeast Neighborhood Partnership. We are also a partner in the network of Career Services Centers and soon a new facility to house the Career Services Center partners will be built in the 'Southeast: ~The ~Department is also funding CalWORKs service grants-for the purpose of building healthy and self-sufficient families. I believe Vice Mayor Irma Carson received the information on this. I will keep your request in mind and if I leam of grant opportunities, I will forward them to you. Kathleen M. Irvine Director Office of the President California State University, Bakersfield 9001 S~ockdale Highway Bakersfield, California 933114099. 661/664-2241 FAX 661/664-3188 .February 3, 2000 Mr. John Wager, Jr. City of Bakersfield Economic and Community Development Department 515 Truxtun Avenue 'Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Wager: This is in response to your letter of January 20, 2000 requesting information regarding our participation in the funding sources mentioned in the Natelson Report. Specifically, you asked if (a) CSUB applied for funding from these sources, (b) whether CSUB plans to apply for such funds, and (c) if there were additional funding sources to which CSUB is applying 'that maY-have potential benefits specifically to southeast Bakersfield. Unfortunately, at the present time the answer is no to each of the above questions. However, future campus plans include development of an Engineering Program, including general engineering, computer engineering and computer science as well as plans for optimizing our business programs, and the addition of a new state of the art building to house oUr School of Business and Public Administration. In addition, various University research centers are increasingly focusing on the community and its economic development. With this said, please be assured that California State University, Bakersfield stands ready to collaborate in the design and development of innovative projects that can improve conditions in our community. - JX Tom~sA.:Arciniega- .. :XL - "~' ""-: -" The California State University - Bakersfield- Channel Islands- Chico - Dominguez Hills - Fresno- Fullerton - Hayward -Humboldt- Long Beach- Los Angeles- Maritime Academy 'Monterey Bay - Northridge - Pomona- Sacramento- San Bernardino - San Diego- San Francisco- San Jose- San Luis 0bispo - San Marcos - Son0ma - Stanislaus TION February 8, 2000 FEB 0 g .2000 Mr. John F. Wager, Jr. Economic Development Director CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department 515 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Wager: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your recent requeSt for information related to child care noted in the Kern County Economic Development Strategy ("The Natelson Report"), specifically highlighting funding sources that may be available for southeast Bakersfield. Please note the following responses to your questions in relationship to CCDF and CSBG funds: 1 - Community Connection for Child Care administers several contracts source- . funded by CCDF which allow the agency to assist income-eligible families with child care costs. These funds are targeted for working families and families where the adults are attending school, and assistance is provided on the basis of greatest financial, need, with no consideration to geographic location within the city of Bakersfield. These contracts are renewed annually. 2 - CCCC is not an agency that actually operates child care programs; through state and federal funds, CCCC provides financial assistance to families who are financially eligible for subsidized child care. CCCC also provides resource.and referral to families seeking licensed child care, and provides a variety of training opportunities for child care providers. In addition, CCCC administers a child care food program, providing reimbursement to family child care providers who provide snacks and meals to children in their care. I have included an agency brochure which explains in greater detail the programs administered by CCCC. 3 - A number of agencies within metropolitan Bakersfield do operate publicly funded child development and state preschool programs - these include Kern County Superintendent of Schools, Kern County Economic Opportunity Corporation, Bakersfield City School District, Bakersfield College and Kern High School District. Among that group there may be interest in accessing some Of these funds for southeast Bakersfield. The contact for KCSOS - Child Development is Linda Hudson, who can be reached at 835 - 7284. 2#th Str~et~ $'uite ~00~ Bakersfield~ CA 9330~ ~29 East Ridgee'r~st B/vd.* ~i-t-e-Ai Ridg~Crest, CA 93555 -5200 roll ~ree~'. 877-8(~ 1~$20O' ~AX: 667-86 ~ ' 526 ~. e~one: 760-3 75~3234 - ro//~ree: 877-3 75-3 :~ 34 ~AX: 760-375-3678 4 - Finally, CCCC does not at this time anticipate seeking any funding which would specifically target southeast Bakersfield; CCCC does, however, currently provide services to CalWORKs families at the South Union Career Services Center. I hope that this information is helpful; if there is additional information I can provide, _~ at 861. - 5267. ple_7_ __[.'t[esitate to call me SinCerely,I / /) man~ela J.. ~ander~, Director Cc: Wendy Wayne, KCSOS - Division Administrator, Child Development and Family Services Linda Hudson, KCSOS - Director, Child Development Services BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 20, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: John. W. Stinso~, ~Jssi~stant City Manager SUBJECT: National League of Cities Congressional Conference Information Attached are several documents I obtained at the recent National League of Cities Congressional Conference. They include a Special Legislative Report which details current federal legislation; the League's 2000 Action Agenda; an update on Intemet tax issues; and a packet of"2000 Hot Issues" which include Public Safety Funding, Electric Deregulation, Federalism, and other issues of interest to cities. S :~lOltNWlemo Template,wpd National 'League of Cities This five point Action Agenda defines the major federal priorities of the nation's cities and towns for 2000. It was adopted by the National League of Cities Board of Directors on March. 11, 2000, to guide NLC's advocacy efforts this year. In addition to the five federal priorities listed here, the National League of Cities is launching a national effort to challenge and mobilize municipal officials across the country to take action against racism in America. NLC calls on Congress and the Administration, individually and collectively, to join in this effort. #1 Electronic Commerce Equity Currently there is no equity in the retail sector. The federal government allows an exemption on sales and use tax collection for remote catalogue and Internet vendors while local brick and mortar stores must collect sales taxes on all their transactions. This inequity puts traditional retailers at a competitive disadvantage. And, it will reduce revenues, making it difficult for state and local governments to fund essential services. To eliminate this inequity, Congress must pass legislation that gives states and local governments the authority to collect legally due use tax on all remote retail purchases. To achieve this goal, NLC: · Supports legislation that will protect Main Street businesses from unfair competition. · Opposes any federal action that usurps state and local authority to maintain revenue for citizen services. · Opposes any federal action to extend or make permanent the existing moratorium on new, multiple, or discriminatory taxes on Internet transactions. · · Supports joint state and local efforts to develop fair and equitable sales and use tax collection strategies. 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue., N.W. · Washington, D.C. 20004 · (202) 626-3000 · www. nlc.org #2- Preemption of Local Authority Preemption has become the successor to unfunded federal mandates. Cities and towns are facing multiple challenges to local authority from federal regulators and Congress. It is time to restore the balance in the intergovernmental system and protect traditional local authority. To achieve this goal, NLC: · Opposes major threats to local authority including the Religious Liberty Protection Act (RLPA) and takings legislation, and will pursue a Senate hold on RLPA. · Opposes any federal action on telecommunications or electric utility deregulation that is adverse to cities. · Supports passage of federalism legislation which preserves local government authority: - by.ensuring consultation with local governments on any rule that preempts state and local laws; by assessing the impact of any proposal to preempt 'local authority; and :~. by requiring Congress to state its intention to preempt local laws and require the courts to rule in favor of local laws when no express intent is stated. #3 Housing, Community and Economic Development With the current federal budget surplus, it. is time to address the nation's failure to ensure adequate credit oppoi'tunities in. low- and--rhoderate-i~ome' communities, to support production of affordable housing, and to provide funding and incentives for community and economic development in communities that have been left behind by today's booming economy. To achieve this goal, NLC: · Supports increased flexibility in the implementation of Department of Housing and Urban Development programs. · Promotes smart growth initiatives in all federal laws and regulations to facilitate linking jobs, transportation and housing; encourage comprehensive regional planning; and support the elimination of federal barriers to smart growth. · Supports increased credit opportunities in low- and moderate-income communities through an expanded Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and other credit enhancements. · Supports the repeal of the 1997 budget caps and balancing increased spending with fiscal responsibility. · Supports expanding the supply of affordable housing with increased federal assistance and a variety of federal tax credits including: - increased housing production of rental and homeownership properties; - lease-to-own programs; - mixed-income developments; and - an affordable housing supply for special needs populations. · Supports increased federal funding for community and economic development including: - funding for brownfields assessment, remediation, development, and the elimination of local liability; - creation of new investment tax credits such as the "New Markets" initiative; - targeted hiring incentives in distressed communities; - designation of local Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities; and 7~: the elimination of the growing. "digital divide" that exists in poOr, minority communities. #4 Investing in Children and Families The income gap between rich and poor families continues to grow, and America's poorest families have not benefited from the current economic boom. All children and families must have the opportunity to enjoy safe, livable communities and a good quality of life. To achieve this goal, NLC: · 'Supports expanding federal funding to supplement state and local efforts to ensure equal access to quality 'education for all Americans while respecting home rule. · Supports adequate federal assistance to ensure that children and families have good healthcare, access to safe and affordable childcare, affordable housing, employment training, and public transportation to jobs to help them achieve self-sufficiency and a better quality of life. · SupPorts federal efforts that help local governments eliminate school violence and domestic violence and ensure safe neighborhoods and communities. //5. Public Safety All Americans want to live in safe, livable communities. The federal government must help our cities and towns meet multiple public safety challenges. To achieve this goal, NLC: Supports full flexible funding to cities and towns of the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. · Supports comprehensive funding Programs for fire safety. · Seeks adequate funding for disaster preparedness and emergency response, as well as counter terrorism. · Supports flexible funding for local crime prevention programs that address youth violence, prevent gun violence, and promote gun safety by supporting the development of "smart gun" technology. · Supports improved federal standards for truck safety, for both domestic and foreign vehicles, and increased federal funding for enforcement of driver and equipment regulations. · Promotes smart growth initiatives in all federal laws and regulations to facilitate linking jobs, transportation and housing; encourage comprehensive regional planning; and support the elimination of federal barriers to smart growth. · Supports increased credit opportunities in low- and moderate-income communities through 'an expanded Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and other credit enhancements. · Supports the repeal of the 1997 budget caps and balancing increased spending with fiscal responsibility. · Supports expanding the supply of affordable housing with increased federal assistance and a variety of federal tax credits including: - increased housing production of rental and homeownership properties; - lease-to-own programs; - mixed-income developments; and - an affordable housing supply for special needs populations. · Supports increased federal funding for community and economic development including: - funding for brownfields assessment, remediation, development, and the elimination of local liability; - creation of new investment tax credits such as the "New Markets" initiative; - targeted hiring incentives in distressed communities'; - designation of local Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities; and :': . 7~:~ the elimination of the growing. "digital divide" that exists in poOr, minority communities. #4 Investing in Children and Families The income gap between rich and poor families continues to grow, and America's poorest families have not benefited from the current economic boom. All children and families must have the opportunity to enjoy safe, livable communities and a good quality of life. National LeaKue of Cities Congressional City Con£erence March 10- J4, 2000 UPDATE ON INTERNET TAX ISSUES - Lobbying Guidance - TrCee political landscape continues to shift as Intemet taxes have become a campaign issue and the Advisory ommission on Electronic Commerce moves into the home stretch on its deadline for submitting commendations to Congress. Con~ressionM Inidatives There are three bills pending in Congress right now: · A bill introduced in the Senate (S. 1611) by presidential candidate Senator John McCain (R-Arizona.) which would totally preempt state and local authority to impose and collect sales and use taxes on any sales made over the Intemet (remote or local), make the moratorium permanent, and deliver a devastating blow to sales and use taxes as a major revenue source for state and local governments. · A bill similar to the McCain bill introduced in the House (H.R. 3252) by Representatives John Kasich (R-Ohio) and John Boehner (R-Ohio). · An identical bill introduced in the House and Senate by Rep. Chris Cox and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon), entitled the "Internet Non-discrimination Act" to establish a permanent ban on new, multiple, and discriminatory taxes on Intemet transactions. Although less onerous than the McCain and Kasich bills because it does not apply specifically to collecting sales and use taxes on Internet transactions, these bills could have long-term ramifications as technology changes. If "new" taxes are prohibited by a permanent moratorium, it would be impossible for cities to adapt their tax systems to fit changes in the delivery of telecommunications services. In addition, New Hampshire Republican Senators Judd Gregg and Bob Smith are 'expected to try to insert an Intemet tax measure in the Republican budget resolution, and if this fail they will try to attach such a measure to other legislation as the session progresses. NLC is working with Senators George Voinovich (R-Ohio), Bob Graham (D-Florida.), and the seven state and local public interest groups (Big 7) to circulate letters announcing the Senators' intentions to place holds on S. 1611 or any similar legislation. Once each letter is signed by five Senators, they will be delivered to the respective Republican and Democrat leadership in the Senate. A hold prevents 'a bill from being considered. Adviso.rv Commission Update The Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce, established by the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998, is deliberating on its final recommendations to Congress due on April 21, a month after its last meeting in Dallas, Texas. Several factions have emerged within the commission, and each has submitted proposals designed to help the commission reach consensus at its March 20-21 meeting. · The five industry representatives on the commission have submitted a proposal calling for an extension of the moratorium, commitment to tax simplification by state and local governments, a federal commission to oversee the adequacy of the simplification, changes in definitions that determine whether a remote seller must collect taxes, and recommendations on consolidation and simplification of telecom taxes. This proposal drew a strong, negative reaction from the Big 7. · The anti-tax coalition, led by the commission Chairman Governor James Gilmore of Virginia, has submitted a series of resolutions and proposals designed to block collection of any taxes related to Intemet activity. · A coalition of traditional retailers - a group not represented on the commission - has submitted a proposal calling on Congress to mandate an expanded duty to collect sales and use taxes on remote transactions right away. It is very difficult to determine whether any consensus will emerge from the commission to allow for the 2/3rds majority required for a joint recommendation to Congress by April 21. NLC has worked closely with our able and committed representative on the commission, Mayor Ron Kirk of Dallas, Texas, who has spent countless hours seeking to forge an agreement with the commissioners from the business community. Wfiat Could Happen Ttffs Year There are confusing signals coming from the House and Senate leadership on whether they will promote the Internet bills described above. Suffice it to say that Senator McCain is the Chairman of the Commerce Committee where his bill awaits hearings and mark up, and Representatives Kasich and Boehner are part of the House leadership and could push to move their bill. The leadership may try to move an extension and expansion of the current moratorium on Internet taxes if they fail to get their priority tax cuts through Congress this year. NLC Position There is no indication that the Advisory Commission will recommend anything to Congress that would protect sales and use taxes as revenue sources for states and localities. Therefore, NLC believes that the best course of action for the moment is to: · Oppose any congressional action that would interfere with state and local governments' authority to collect legally due taxes or to define future tax policy in an ever changing environment, particularly in the Internet and telecommunications world. · Support joint state and local efforts to simplify sales tax systems and implement a new model for collecting use taxes on remote transactions such as the "zero burden" proposal developed by the National Governors' Association. · Support efforts by traditional retailers to ensure e-fairness in this changing economy with a level playing field for all retailers whether selling in bricks and mortar stores or on the Internet. · Support amending the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution to provide state and local governments with an expanded duty to collect use taxes from remote vendors. In the current political climate there is no support for this in Congress. · Support Mayor Ron Kirk's negotiations with the commissioners from the business community to reach a harmonized agreement with 2/3rds of the Advisory Commission's members. A CTION REQ UESTED! · Voice strong opposition to your congressional delegation on any move in Congress that would adversely affect state and local authority to collect sales and use taxes or to extend the current moratorium on Intemet access, new, discriminatory, and multiple taxes on Intemet transactions. There's no need to alter the current moratorium; it does not expire until October 2001. * Please urge your Republican Senators to sign Senator George Voinovich's (R-Ohio) hold letter and Democrats to sign Senator Bob Graham's (D-Florida) hold letter. Kristine Simmons is the contact in Senator Voinovich's. office, and Sara Hall is the contact on Senator Graham's staff. · Provide examples to your delegation of what would happen in your city or town if Congress takes any action to limit the collection of sales and use taxes on Internet transactions. · If your congressional delegation has members on the House Ways and Means, Commerce, Judiciary, or Commerce Committees, or the Senate Finance, Judiciary or Commerce Committees, please make sure they hear from you regularly on Intemet issues. These are the committees of jurisdiction that will consider legislative proposals on Intemet taxes before they are considered by the full House or Senate. · Write letters and make phone calls, often, opposing the McCain and Kasich bills and any other legislation that would adversely affect the ability of state and local governments to collect legally due sales and use taxes. (NLC will furnish sample letters if you need them.) We urge you to join our Campaig for E-FaLrness on the HHI March 14 from 8:30- Noon. NLCwill open Intemet Central on the Hill for NLC delegates Tuesday morning March 14, from 8:30 a.m. until Noon, #340 Cannon House Office Bldg. on the House side. We urge you to join our Campaign for E-Fairness and deliver a strong dear message to your delegation while you are in Washington. Drop by Intemet Central before your visits if you want more information and/or inspiration. Stop by after your visits with your delegation to report to NLC lobbyists on how your visits went and suggest follow up. A continental breakfast will be served. After your return home, when you visit in district offices, please contact Cameron Whitman at the National League of Cities and let her know how your Intemet discussions went. Let her know if you think NLC should follow up with the staffs of your delegation. Always send copies of your letters to Cameron. You c~m call~ fax, or e-mail Cameron Wldtman at: Tel: 202/626-$020 Fax: 202/626-$045 E-mail: W~'traan~Mc. org Nation League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Public Sa&tX Funding' Bacl?round NLC Po~cy. NLC supports direct federal crime .prevention funding to cities and towns, and believes froe first session of the 106th Congress that federal assistance, which enables local nsidered various public safety bills ranging governments to improve public safety services, will om gun control to juvenile justice and always be key in reducing crime, planning for and appropriations for justice programs such as the Local predicting disasters, and responding to emergencies. Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG). As Congress begins its second session, many public ~Action: Letyour congressional delegation safety issues remain unresolved. This hot issue paper know the importance T.L~BG Fandingin your covers multiple areas of public safety funding that are commuM~y andgive them examples on howyou currently being addressed in the juvenile justice have utilized your grants. Urge your delegation legislation (H.R. 1501 and S. 254) which has been sent to work to get the LLI~.BG authorized at $750 to a House/Senate conference committee. You will ~illion pet yeat £ot ~ve yeats witl~ no find synopses of these current legislative issues, changes. followed by summaries of NLC's policies and positions, and suggested actions for advocating your Gun Control [ Juvenile Justice: Gun control city's position on these issues, measures were debated by the Senate last May after several incidents of school violence (with passage of Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG): the Violent and Repeat Juvenile Offender NLC was successful in securing funding for the Accountability Act, S. 254). This debate heated up IJ.EBG for FY2000 at $523 million. However, after again in February when the Senate voted on a .38 percent across-the-board funding cut in 2000 amendments to bankruptcy legislation. Senator Carl federal appropfiarions was agreed to by the President Levin (D-MI) introduced an amendment that would and Congress in January, the IJ.EBG, like many other allow cities to collect damages for gun violence from programs, was cut. We expect this year's debate over firearms manufacturers that file bankruptcy because the LLEBG's 2001 funding to focus on the of municipal lawsuits. Even though this amendment differences between cities and counties on disparate failed, NLC supports the concept and will urge allocations and formula changes. Current grant Congress to reconsider it. The two juvenile justice requirements designate the Attorney General of each bills (S. 254 and H.R. 1501), now in conference, state to settle grant funding differences between dries would impose greater eligibility mandates on localities and counties. Problematically, the Administration is that receive funding, and would impose greater not supportive of the LLEGB, and is not expected to sanctions for juvenile offenders. Other provisions in request any 2001 funding for the program, these bills would reauthorize and streamline the Juvenile Justice and DeLinquency Prevention Act and NLCPosi~otz. NLC supports a five-year would make the records of juvenile offenders authorization of the LLEBG program at $750 million committing violent crimes available via the NCIC per year w/th no formula changes, system which is shared by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Such records would be treated COPS Reauthorization: With the Office of the same as adult criminal records within a state. Community Oriented Policing Services authorized one additional year beyond its expiry date, Senator NLC Policy: NLC urges all levels of government to Joseph Biden (D-DE) and Representative Anthony adopt statutorY, regulatorY, and policy actions to Weiner (D-NY) have introduced legislation (S. 1760 confront, curb, and eventually eliminate the firearms and H.R. 3144) to reauthorize the program for an violence in America. additional five years. NLC supports federal assistance to establish and N£C Po~.: NLC supports community policing operate youth courts to ensure swift and appropriate efforts along with direct federal anti-drag and anti- sanctions. NLC supports direct, flexible funding to violence funding to cities and towns that can be municipalities for local juvenile justice and directed towards community policing efforts, anti- delinquency prevention initiatives with strict limits on crime and violence activities, and rural enforcement administrative costs. NLC supports continued federal programs. technical assistance to train local government personnel regarding how to apply for federal funds NLC Position: NLC supports community policing, administered through states. NLC supports federal but would like to change the program's structure efforts to establish and maintain a national system to which mandates employee retention after the federal track juvenile criminal records and assistance to states COPS grant period when there is no further federal and localities to update their record keeping assistance. Additionally, the program procedures, suffered recent appropriations cuts in technology and technical assistance which cities and towns need to NLC believes decisions regarding the transfer of augment their equipment and training needs. violent juveniles to the adult criminal justice system should be left to state and local governments, and the ~Action: I£your city or tom wouldlike to federal government should not pass laws or have the COPS program reauthorized, contact regulations that significantly hinder the ability of local your congressional delegation andprovide governments to develop and implement alternative examples o£how your commmaiOr has benetgted sentencing programs for juveniles. 6'om additional oBffcers and traini~gprograms. However, please note that £or this success to NLC Positiotz. NLC opposes the juvenile iustice continue, more assistance is needed £°rpublic provisions in the pending conference bills because of safety teclmology and ~ahaing; andmore funding the federal mandates that would be imposed and the is needed to cont~ue employing o~ffcers al}er the funding changes which would be directed away from grant periods end to help communities absorb cities to states. There are provisions in these bills that the long-term costs of COPS funded o~cers. would benefit localities such as more funding for public safety technology, school safety, and domestic violence. All of these warrant further review. For more information contact: ~3~Actiolz. Contact your congressional Deborah Rigsby delegation and urge them to push for a Senior Legislative Counsel conference committee meeting to lffnalize the Center for Policy & Federal Relations juvenile justice legislation (H.R. 1501 and S. 254) (202) 626-3020/Fax: (202) 626-3043 be£ore the 10(f~ Congress adjourns. Ask your E-mail: Rigsby~NLC.org members, in their conlmunications re]th the conferees, to emphasize the importance to cities o£ dicect, ilexible funding to local cdme prevention programs that presez;re local authority and federaJfsm, j:2000 Public Safety Funding National League of Cities 2000 Hot Issues Takings & "The Religious Liberty Protection Act" Baclc~ozmd regulating private property or requizing additional compensation beyond the continually evolving judicial Two takings bills, aimed specifically at local government interpretations of the Fifth Amendment of the United authority, would permit landowners to bypass state and States Constitution." (National Municipal Policy ~ 1.060). local courts and procedures and take their land use Local elected officials adopt ordinances, approve building grievances directly into federal court. The bills are H.IL permits and grant zoning variances, not for the purpose of 2372, "The Private Property Implementation .&ct of 1999," infringing on property fights, but rather for the opposite introduced by Rep. Canady (R-FL), and S. 1028 "The reason, to protect the property rights of all members of Citizens Access to Justice Act of 1999," introduced by Sen. the corranunity. Hatch (R-UT). Both bills would permit an award of attorney's fees to any prevailing plaintiff. In a nutshell, Because the bills propose bypassing of local procedures these bills seek to federalize land use law because, if and state court review, there would be an adverse impact enacted, local land use decisions would be made on local governments. First, there would be more increasingly by the non-elected federal judiciary, not by frequent and more expensive litigation against local local communities, governments because, by circumventing administrative procedures at the local level, land use disputes would be in This legislation would also overturn existing law which court at a far earlier point in the process. In addition, the requires that state courts review local land use decisions bills would force local governments to defend challenges before a case is "ripe" for federal court. This rule of law to their land use decisions in distant and more expensive was first laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of federal courts. This would result in an enormous financial WiRiamson Coun .ty Planning Commission v. Hamilton burden on smaller communities that do not have the Bank of Johnson City in 1985. The Williamson County resources to allocate to costly federal court litigation. In case stated that in order to present a ripe taking claim in sum, these bills place a huge unfunded federal mandate on federal court, a taking claimant must: (1) present a "final dries and towns across America. Second, this legislation decision regarding the application of the regulations to the would seriously undermine the ability of local elected property at issue" from "the governmental entity charged officials to protect public health and safety, safeguard the with implementing the regulations"; and (2) demonstrate environment, and support the property values of all that the claimant requested "compensation through the residents of a community. By granting developers a procedures the State has provided for doing so." In other number of significant new procedural advantages in land words, a property owner must first make every effort to use litigation, the bills would provide developers and other resolve land use disputes through the local public hearing, Claimants greater leverage to challenge local land use review and appeals process before going into federal court, planning regulations. Local elected officials would be The proposed legislation would essentially eliminate both forced into the position of either having to approve a prongs of this established Supreme Court ripeness test. project or face daunting legal expenses. Developers would have little incentive to resolve their disputes with the neighbors or negotiate for a reasonable settlement outside NLC Position and Polio_ of the courtroom. N C has specific policy which "opposes federal Finally, the proposed legislation would circumvent the egulafions, statutes or amendments which place careful and open processes that have been established restrictions on state and local government actions under state law to assure that other property owners have an opportunity to make their case, and that all the facts of the situation have been thoroughly examined. By-passing the local heating and appeals process would effectively NLC PoH~_ a~d Posiffoo undermine the ability of interested citizens to comment upon and influence land use decisions which are important to the futate of their communities. [ ~, ] traditional local government authority such as ,i. · zoning and land use. H.K. 2372 has survived a markup and vote in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and is From a municipal perspective, tLLPA would essentially awaiting full Judi~ia,y Committee action. The Senate is exempt religious practices from a wide variety of state and watching the House bill's progress and therefore has not local laws regarding child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse scheduled S. 1028 for action, but this bill will move quickly enforcement, jail inmate restrictions and employee safety if the House bill receives a favorable vote in the House requirements. It would also preempt local zoning and land Judidary Committee. use laws, an axea traditionally within the purview of state and local governments, by providing religious institutions ~Actio~! with preferential treatment for their structures and activities. Under RLPA, religious facilities would be effectively immune from most local laws. Conversely, a Please ~rgeyo~r congtesMonal delegation not to co- seo_fiar entity would not enjoy such immunity. RLPA sponsor or support in any way H.R. 2372 or $. 1028. would also force dries to permit religious facilities to Pofi;t out to your congressional delegation that the disregazd local fire and safety codes, and open space existfi;gpublic beating and appeals process is requirements regardless of that city's zoning requkements. In addition, the Religious Liberty Protection Act permits RLPA claimants to bypass local appeals processes and state "The Religious Liberty Protection Act of 1999" courts, allowing them to file cases directly in federal court. The resulting increase in federal court suits means that Bac~otmd: H.R. 1691, "The Religious Liberty state and local taxpayers will face an increased fmandal Protection Act of 1999" 0LLPA), seeks to replace the burden each time a religious claimant is unhappy with a Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) which state or local law. was rifled unconstitutional by the U. S. Supreme Court in ~3~AcC~ol;! the 1997 case of the City ofBoeme v. Flores. In Boerne the court held that no intent to discriminate is found in local ordinances that are generally_applicable to the RLPA (I-I.R. 1691) is currendy awaicfi;g action fi; the population at large. In explaining its ruling, the Supreme SenateJu&'ca'ary Committee. It is reft important that local elected ot~cials contact their Senators and urge Court said in Boerne that neutral, ordinances, such as zoning and land use regulations, fire and building codes, them to oppose anyRLPA because iris an local historic preservation and environmental laws, and tmconstieutional £ederalpreemption o£1ocal local laws protecting the health, safety and welfare of women and children are not an improper exerdse of a local government's authority when applied to religious Proffde your Senators fifth concrete examples o£bow institutions because they only burden one's religious your coramzmiO~ and its rel~'ous fi;sffr~tions bare beliefs in an inddental manner: worked together fi; the past fi; the area o£zo~d~g and land use. Sbow your Sematurs that there bas not been In addition, a recent National Congregations Study (a any selectire or non-ne-eral &'$cdrrd~ation fi; your survey of a nationally representative sample of commtmio~ aimed at rel~'ous institutions and congregations) shows a distinct lack of discrimination practices. toward religious organizafi0ns by local governing bodies. Only five congregations, out of the 450 congregations surveyed nationwide, had their zoning and land use permit requests denied by local authorities. Of the five, two For more information contacv. stated the outcome of the request had not yet been Susan Pamas, Senior Legislative Counsel determined and three stated that they had received an Center for Policy & Federal Relations actual "no." (202) 626-3020/Fax: (202)626-3043 Email: Pamas~NLC.org j:2000 Takings & ILLPA National LeagUe of ....... Electric D ere gtda tion Backswound Pdwte Use Issue T aditionally, electricity utilities operated as Publicly owned electric utilities are currently subject egulated monopolies, with specific areas to to very strict federal "private use" tax rules that serve. Under the Energy Policy Act of 1992, control what they can do with the proceeds of tax- deregulation responsibility was divided between the exempt bond offerings. In a regulated electric utility Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and market, these rules are cumbersome, but manageable. Congress. FERC has jurisdiction over wholesale As states deregulate, however, the private use rules wheeling, which is the selling of electricity in the are threatening many public power communities with wholesale market. In .April of 1996, the FERC issued significant financial penalties if they expand their an order to deregulate the wholesale market, which services to compete outside their current boundaries. required utilities to open access to their transmission In effect, abiding by the law shuts publicly owned lines. Congress has jurisdiction over retail wheeling, utilities out of competing in a new deregulated market which is selling electricity to the electricity and expansion outside their traditional service customer--the person who turns on the light, boundaries jeopardizes their ability to issue tax- Simultaneously with many proposed congressional exempt municipal bonds. initiatives affecting deregulation, the maiority of states (29) have either begun or completed steps to Congressional StatZlS deregulate the electricity industry without federal authority. The Administration and some members of Congress are calling for quick passage of electric utility Soon consumers, businesses, and cities will have a deregulation legislation. Last year, Representative Joe choice in deciding from whom to buy electricity. A Barton (R-TX), Chairman of the House Commerce consumer will be able to buy from a number of Subcommittee on Energy and Power, introduced competitors offering different services at different legislation to promote a national restructuring plan. prices. However, having a choice does not necessarily The Electricity Competition and Reliability Act of translate into lower electricity prices because only the 1999 (H.R. 2944) was approved by Barton's generating portion of the electricity bill would be Subcommittee last October. The measure includes deregulated, roughly twenty five percent of the total the Bond Fairness Act (H.R. 721) to help deal with costs. Also, large users, such as manufacturing the pfvate use issue for public power cities. House industries, may reap the benefits rather than Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R- municipalities and their residents. Furthermore, VA) has indicated his intention to rewrite the regions of the country that already have low electricity subcommittee bill. Bliley and Ranking Member John prices may actually see a price increase in their Dingell (D-Mi) are still discussing whether national electricity bills. Finally, "undesirable" service areas restructuring legislation is needed at all, and if so, may have no company that wants to sell them what that legislation should contain. On the Senate electric/ry, side, Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, circulated a discussion draft bill last fall which he Tax Reform: Absent changes in tax laws, plans to introduce early this year. The Murkowski competition is likely to reduce local tax revenues, proposal does not contain private use language, but including franchise fees for the use of fight-of-way, does includes a provision which would grandfather sales and use taxes, and property taxes. Unless current state restructuring plans passed before the enactment tax regulations are changed, electric utility Of the new law. Although hearings and discussions deregulation could take away the tax-exempt status of are expected to continue this year, Congress will likely current and future municipal public power bonds. v vt be able to complete work on a comprehensive electric restructuring package. To date, there is little Aggregation: Federal electricity utility deregulation agreement in Congress as to what an ideal legislation could bar local government authority to restructuring package would entail, aggregate Ooin together) to purchase power at lower prices. NLC Posi~oo and PoH~_ Action! NLC opposes federal preemption of local government authority regarding rights-of-way and fontact your congressional delegation and urge revenue authority. Cities and towns should have the [them to oppose any electric utility ..... · aty to become aggregators. The policy emphasizes ~,--~deregulation legislation. Let them know that t~zc any restructuring program should result in all federal utility deregulation means: consumers receiving benefits. · Federal intrusion or preemption of local NLC opposes federal electric utility deregulation government authority and revenue sources; · Reliability of the power supply will be jeopardized legislation. Congress should leave this issue to states and local governments. Such federal legislation could by a competitive market; preempt traditional and historic land use and zoning · Both public and private power authofities will be authority or franchise and equitable tax authority, financially devastated by stranded costs unless NLC urges the Administration and Congress to broad provisions for grandfathering ate made; ensure municipal authority to issue municipal bonds · State legislation already passed and pending will for the provision of essential public power, be preempted from applying solutions that work specific to their situations; and Specific issues affecting local governments that · The potential loss of tax-exempt status for Congress should consider: municipal bonds would cause electric rates in ciries across the country to dramatically increase. Preemption: Federal reform of the utility industry could preempt local land-use, zoning and rights-of- way authority. For more information contact: Melissa White and Jennifer Pike Grandfather Provisions: Cities and states stand to Legislative Counsels lose substantial ground if their work at the state level Center for Policy and Federal Relations is not incorporated into a national restructuring bill. (202) 626-3020/(202) 626-3043 The federal government should not preempt state Email: White@NLC.org / Pike~NLC.org energy laws, but should pass legislation that will compliment state and local measures. Reliability: A recent Depa~ctr~ent of Energy report wams that as the industry deregulates, reliability of electric supply may be compromised. Furthermore, consumers in certain areas may be underserved in a competitive market, as providers target only the most profitable areas for power distribution. Nation Asset For£eiture Baclc~roumd --~e passage of the Civil Asset Forfeiture in situations where local and federal authorities share eform Act (ILl{. 1658) by the House of in the distribution of seized assets. Asset forfeiture is epresentatives last June marked a threat to a powerful anti-crime tool for local law enforcement; local law enforcement's ability to seize property in and local police depa~x~xents across the country rely criminal cases. The bill would establish new rules on on property from asset forfeituxe cases to fund how the federal government can confiscate cars, budgets for anti-crime activities. Such measures houses, boats, cash, and other properties where the would affect both local authorities' ability to fight government would have 1) to notify owners before crimes and local budgets for crime prevention. seizing property, and 2) provide "clear and convincing" evidence of an owner's criminality, rather than alleged connection(s) to a crime. The bill also ~ Action .t extends the period in which property 'owners can challenge a seizure in court from 10 days to 30 days. H.l{. 1658 was sent to the Senate Judiciary Please contact your congressional dele~adon and Committee, which is also considering two other asset urge them to reconsider le~slaHon that wo~dd forfeiture bills (S. 1701) introduced by Senator Jeff a~eectyourpoHce depactmeBt's authority to seize Sessions (R-AL), and S. 1931, introduced by Senator prope~ commected fifth ~llegal drug acffv~Cg and Onfin Hatch (R-U~. other c~al cases. Desczdbe how civ~l asset £ocffeiture has helped pro~de needed resources For c~e prevendon, and how these proposed NLC PoMdon and PoH~. cha~ges would threaten £ederal, state, amd local .drug con~ol effoxts a~d other crfi~e prevention N LC supports seizing the assets of individuals acidifies. convicted for involvement in illegal drug activity. These funds should go to the local law enforcement agencies for anti-drug activities and For further information contact: to fund a special fund for victims of drug-related Deborah Pdgsby crime. Senior Legislative Counsel Center for Policy & Federal Relations The passage of such legislation (H.R. 16S8, S. 1701, 202/626-3020 Fax: 202/626-3043 and S. 1931) would limit the power of police and Email: Rigsby~__~NLC.org prosecutors to seize property in narcotics cases and j:2000 Asset other criminal cases. Despite this, H.R. 1658 would no~ affect state forfeiture laws; however, the possibility of preemption is problematic, particularly Hot Broadband Baclcgrou~d the Telecommunications _&ct of 1996, and not a B }y all accounts, the "open access" fray has been "cable service." If these approaches become law ~one of the most expensive, hotly contested (either through legislation or through arguments in · li po 'cy disputes since the passage of the litigation like the Portland appeal), cities could lose Telecommunications _&ct of 1996. The City of millions in future cable franchise fees. For the Portland, Oregon led the way in the spring of 1999 immediate future neither Congress nor the FCC is when authorities there voted to require _&T&T to moving quickly, and the entire debate in Washington open its cable network to Intemet competitors. In is enveloped in a heated ideological and rhetorical response, AT&T sued the city and lost in federal fog. court in June. The case is now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. W1;stis Broadband? The question AT&T has raised is whether local "Broadband" technology offers a high-speed digital governments have the legal authority to pass connection to the Intemet that is "always on" -- a mandatory open access ordinances. The National permanent connection from your home or office to League of Cities, in conjunction with other local the Net that will make going online more convenient organizations, has submitted an amicus brief in than ever before. Broadband technology will allow support of a local government's authority to decide users to download more information, including new whether to place such a condition on businesses multimedia applications, and eventually video operating within its jurisdiction. More recently, programming similar to current television and cable authorities in Broward County, Florida, St. Louis, services. It will be up to one hundred times faster Missouri, and Cambridge and Weymouth, than today's dial-up modems. The largest beneficiary Massachusetts voted to require open access, while of this system has been AT&T, which controls about cities like Sacramento, California, rejected it. 60 percent of America's cable lines and has required The struggle over open access, however, will likely be anyone who wants to use them to channel their resolved at the federal level, through litigation, Intemet traffic through Excite~Home. legislation, or rule making by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Currently, For cities and towns across the nation to remain there are numerous proposals in Congress that are competitive, affordable broadband access will be either for or against "open access." essential. Currently, less than a mill/on subscribers have cable Intemet service, and about 650,000 Measures are being considered that would require customers have digital subscriber lines. But the cable open access -- but in a way that would deprive broadband market is expected to grow rapidly, local governments of cable franchise fees on cable reaching more than 11 million households by the end operators' Internet access revenues. These measures of 2002. Over the past year, anticipating the may seek to "clarify" that broadband access over commercial potential of broadband, AT&T has spent came systems is a "telecommunications service" under more than $100 billion to acquire two of the largest cable companies, TCI and MediaOne, giving it direct connections to some 16 million homes (one-fourth of assure universally available communications and all cable households) and, through various information technology through municipally partnerships and affiliations, access to many more. It initiated development and by working with the is unclear, whether a single company will, in fact, be private sector in negotiating, franchising, licensing permitted to dominate what is likely to be the nation's or any other prudent means. most important communications medium in the twenty-first century. Until the AOL/Time-Wamer merger, AOL had been one of AT&Ts chief critics. As an Intemet service provider and not a cable company, AOL had mainly ~ ontact your delegation and urge them to sold its customers access to the lntemet over phone ~ oppose any federal intrusion or lines. And, as more and more consumers began using preemption of local governments' cable to connect to the Intemet--lines to which AOL authority and revenue sourcing in setting cable- lacked access--the company faced potential franchising agreements. extinction. Not surprisingly, AOL spent much of the past two years demanding that AT&T provide open Municipal elected officials should meet with their access to its cable lines to all Intemet service key city officials involved with Internet senrices to providers. AOL applauded cities like Portland, discuss and determine the current and future Oregon, that passed open-access laws, and called on needs of their cities so they can advise their the FCC to make open access a national requirement. Congressional delegations regarding the best steps But AT&T denounced AOL for seeking a "free ride," Congress could take to make universal broadband and the FCC refused to act, contending that the free access available in a timely manner. market would one day solve the problem. By purchasing Time-Warner, AOL acquired the second- Contact the FCC and Congress and make Clear largest cable company in America, and now controls that municipalities must retain authority t° act in 20 percent of the nation's broadband Lines. Now the interest of their citizens; especially where AOL has a chance to put its principles into practice: there is no competition or where affordable. Will it allow other Interact providers access to Time service, or any service, does not exist. The FCC's Wamer's cable lines, as AT&T has not and at what web site is http://www.fcc.gov. price? AOL executives, who face antitrust hearings in Congress and must win approval from the FCC and the Justice Department for their merger. They insist For further information contact:: that consumers who live in cities, wired only by Time- Juan Otero Warner, will not face the same problem as those who Senior Legislative Counsel live in cities wired only by AT&T. Center for Policy & Federal Relations (202) 626-3020 Fax: (202) 626-3043 Email:Otero~nlc.org NLC Position & Policy ' j:2000 Broadband Nof C supports the rapid universal deployment broadband information technologies. LC further believes that, in addressing broadband access issues, the federal government should reserve existing local government authority to regulate cable television or telecommunications entities. NLC urges the federal government to recognize longstanding municipal authority to FEDERAL ISM Bac~oand appropriate state and local officials to determine "whether federal objectives can be obtained by other / ederal preemption of local laws is a prevalent means." The Order also requires each agency to and serious problem affecting Americats cities, designate an official to oversee the implementation Examples of such proposed federal of the Order. The Order also requires that agencies preemption abound in pending private property rights "consult" with state and local elected officials or their legislation (Takings), telecommunications, and of national representatives prior to issuing a notice of course the taxation of sales over the Intemet. As a proposed rulemaking with federalism implications. result, this past year marked the beginning of NLC's This new Executive Order, although not law, aggressive legislative push to require the federal represehts an important first step toward achieving government to examine the preemptive impact of greater federal sensitivity to state and local federal legislation and regulations on state statutes preemption concerns. and local ordinances prior to enactment or finalization. The following represents some of NLC's 2. NLC has been instrumental in helping to draft major achievements in this critical area and outlines and promoting the passage of two bipartisan where we need to go from here. federalism bills - H.R. 2245, "The Federalism Act of 1999" and S. 1214, "The Federalism Accountability NLCPosi~oo ~ndPo~cy Act of 1999." H.R. 2245 passed out of subcommittee and is ready for full committee action. taC policy opposes the federal preemption of S. 1214 was passed by the Senate Government ate and local authority. NLC supports the Reform Committee by an overwhelming 12-2 vote ssage of federal legislation which would last summer. Despite the early success of both bills, make Congress and the federal agencies more strong opposition to the bills has surfaced. Both S. accountable to state and local elected officials when 1214 and H.R. 2245 have great benefits to cities for either seeks to preempt state and local authority, the following key reasons: 1. Last summer, with input from NLC and the · The bills contain a requirement for increased other state and local government interest groups, the consultation with state and local officials and President signed a new Executive Order on their representative national organizations prior Federalism (E.O. 13132). The new Order states that to the promulgation of federal regulations which federal regulations may preempt state and local laws would interfere with, or intrude upon, historic only when Congress expressly dictates they do so or and traditional state and local rights and giVes an executive agency clear authority to responsibilites. The bills also require an analysis supercede state and local government. In cases of any federal legislation that addresses the where there are significant uncertainties about federal preemption of state and local laws to be whether national action is authorized or appropriate, contained in every committee or conference the new Order requires agencies to consult with report. · The bills contain a "role of construction" which ->-Actioz ! ' provides that if Congress intends to preempt state and local law, it must expressly state its intent to -~t is critical that your congressional delegation hear ~ preempt in the federal legislation. Any you how important it is to local elected ambiguities regarding this intent shall be resolved off~cials that federal officials examine the against the federal government and in favor of preemptive impacts of federal laws and rules on cities state and local law. before they are enacted. · The bills contain a "fix" to the Unfunded Federal · Invite your congressional delegation to your city Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) so that the to demonstrate specific problems and concerns mandates law will cover the nafon's largest with the federal preemption of state and local entitlement programs to ensure that they are laws subjeCt to the same laws as all other federal programs affecting state and local governments. · Urge your federal delegation to support S. 1214 3. NLC is also working to secure passage of the and H.R. 2245, which make Congress and the "Regulatory Right to Know Act"(S. 59, H.R. 1074). agencies more accountable for their legislative and administrative actions. This bill would require and annual aggregate accounting of costs and benefits of maior regulations with over $100 million in economic impact on state and local governments. The bill would give state and For more information contact: local governments the oppommity to comment on the comprehensive annual regulatory report prepared Susan Parnas by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Senior Legislative Counsel and to have action on those comments disclosed. Center for Policy & Federal Relations The OMB report would include the impact of federal (202) 626-3020/Fax. (202) 626-3043 regulations on state and local governments, the Email: Parnas @NLC.org private sector and the national economy, j:2000 Federalism · National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Special Legislative Report 106th Congress - 2nd Session Center for Policy & Federal Relations March 10 - 14, 2000 Legislative Report Table of Contents OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... A PRESIDENT'S BUDGET AT-A-GLANCE ................................................................... A1 COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HUD Budget Request ...................................................................................................................... 1 Authorizing Legislation ................................................................................................................... 3 Stafford Act Reform ........................................................................................................................ 4 ENERGY~ ENVIRONMENT~ AND NATURAL i~ESOURCES E]ec~c Utility Deregulation ........................................................................................................... 6 E?A Budget Request ....................................................................................................................... ? Urba~ Wet ~eather Priorities ....................................................................................................... 10 ~u~c~;o~ficlds .................................................................................................................. FINANCE; ADMINIST~TION AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RE~TIONS Ba~c~ ~o~ ~cgi~iafio~ .................................................................................................... ~4 Cc~us ~000 ................................................................................................................................... ~4 ~;~o~o~cs ~a~d~s ................................................................................................................... HUMAN DEVELOPMENT ~abo; Bu~;c~ ~c~ucs~ ................................................................................................................... INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATIONS Tc]cco~cafiom Ac~ o~ ~ ................................................................................................. O~c~ ~cccss~omcd ~cccss .......................................................................................................... ~ ~ PUBLIC SAFE~ AND CRIME PREVENTION T~NSPORTATION INF~STRUCTURE AND SERVICES Overview This is a presidential election year so 2000 will see increased partisan bickering among all the players in Washington and lots of rhetoric on the primary and campaign trails to define the differences between Republican and Democrat philosophies and their accomplishments during the 106th Congress. To date, the 106th Congress has made little progress on addressing critical national issues such as the reform of the Social Security, Medicare, health care and health insurance systems, gun safety, dealing with budget .~ surpluses, whether and how to cut taxes, and reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. Partisan differences in the remaining months of the 106th Congress are expected to intensify, and there is little optimism about the possibility of building the consensus needed to reach significant agreements on issues important to cities and most Americans. The only certain action will be the passage of the 13 appropriations bills before Congress adjourns in early October to hit the campaign trail. The first session of the 106t~ Congress focused a great deal on the different approaches the tw° parties have on tax cuts. The Republicans attempted to pass a $792 billion 10-year tax cut. They based their proposal on the major cuts that would have been imposed on city priority programs if the 1997 budget caps had been enforced. If the President had not vetoed their tax proposal, city priority programs would have been slashed causing great harm and massive interruptions in local projects funded, for example, by the Community Development Block Grant program. The White House made a more modest $350 billion tax cut proposal which didn't progress due to Republican opposition. The President's $1.84 trillion budget request for next year, announced in early February, proposes: · Abandoning the 1997 budget caps and features; · Using the $2.2 trillion Social Security surplus to pay down the debt; · Applying the non-Social Security Surplus to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare; and · Investing in education and expanding health care coverage for working families. There are modest funding increases proposed for most city priorities, and most future funding is pegged to inflation. The budget includes a tax cut proposal of around $250 billion. However, since the budget was announced, the cut has been diminished by some $130 billion due to mathematical and technical errors made by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) when developing the proposal. A more detailed analysis of the President's FY 2001 budget proposal is included in the Legislative Report under Tab 11. The Republican leadership would prefer to: · Freeze most domestic discretionary spending at this year's level for next year; · Pass targeted tax cuts to eliminate the marriage penalty and death taxes; and 2001 PRESIDENT CLINTON'S BUDGET A T-A-GLANCE What it means to the Nation's Cities DEFICIT REDUCTION - Projects a 10-year budget - Reduces costs and pressure - Supports'reduction of ENTITLEMENT surplus of $746 billion, on municipal capital federal debt, opposes any tax borrowing; enhances local cuts unless focused on long- REFORM _ Proposes to set aside 86% economies, term investment. of the surplus for Social 1~ Security, Medicare, and debt - Elimination of the debt would - Supports human and public reduction and would increase free up billions of federal capital investment. solvency of Social Security, dollars for human and capital and Medicare. However it investment. - Supports immediate federal does little to address the action to control the cost of structural issues that are at federal entitlement spending. ~ the root of the problems in these programs. - Proposes paying off debt by 2013 which would eliminate the interest burden and free ) up resources for a variety of federal investments. PUBLIC SAFETY - LLEBG would be eliminated. - Provides direct funding to - Supports direct, flexible Local Law Enforcement cities for local crime federal assistance for all prevention efforts, hiring public safety purposes. NLC Block Grant additional police officers,.and opposes the elimination of the non-hiring law-enforcement LLEBG. '~' needs. Community Oriented - Would continue COPS - Provides direct funding to - Supports direct, flexible Policing Services (COPS) funding through 2005, hiring cities to hire additional police federal assistance for all up to 150,000 police officers, officers. 3ublic safety purposes. NLC urges greater flexibility in the use of these funds for law ~ enforcement purposes in addition to hiring. Juvenile Justice - Juvenile Accountability - Provides funding - Supports direct, flexible Incentive Block Grant would opportunities for localities withfederal assistance for all be eliminated with funding some assistance to local public safety purposes. NLC redirected for reducing prosecutors and federal, urges the federal government ~ juvenile gun violence, school state, and local law to provide implementation safety and crime prevention enforcement partnerships, funding for any current or programs, and juvenile future mandates. offender transition support program. Public Safety Technology - Provides assistance to - Provides some assistance to - Urges the federal ~ localities for public safety cities' growing need for government to assist cities technology purposes federal funds to acquire public and towns in acquiring including wireless safety technology. Funding modern technology and communications and access would be provided to help training for law enforcement to equipment, cities address communi- and emergency cations interoperability communications needs. problems within the law ~ enforcement community, I upgrade criminal records systems and ballistics systems, and provide training opportunities. Counterterrorisrn - Provides more direct - Continues "first responder" - Supports federal assistance assistance to cities for training programs including to local authorities for training equipment needs, local bomb technician training and equipment needs to .~ along with outreach efforts prevent and respond to acts through the National of terrorism. Domestic Preparedness Office. Expands the First Responder Equipment Acquisition Program for local fire, and EMS needs. ENVIRONMENT -Decreases funding for - Reduces assistance to - Supports funding to assist wastewater treatment from municipalities to comply with municipalities in meeting $1.35 billion to $800 million, federal mandate, federal Clean Water Act mandates. - Increases funding for - Assists municipalities in drinking water SRF from providing safe drinking water. - Supports funding to assist $820 million to $825 million, municipalities in meeting - Maintains the pace of federal Safe Drinking Water - Proposes slight increase in cleanup of hazardous waste Act requirements. funding for cleanup of sites in communities. hazardous waste sites. - Supports revisions to current -Maintains municipal ability to liability provisions of - Proposes level funding for redevelop abandoned and/Or Superfund as means to Brownfields. underutilized industrial areas, reduce and contain costs. - Supports federal assistance for redevelopment of abandoned industrial sites. TRANSPORTATION & - Highway spending increased - Increased highway and - Supports highway and INFRASTRUCTURE to $30.5 billion from $28.7 transit funding would help all transit increases. billion to $30.5 billion, cities deal with traffic congestion. - Supports continued Amtrak - Mass Transit spending funding. increased from $5.8 B to $6.3 - Increased spending on billion, smart growth initiatives, clean - Supports increased' AlP air programs, and trade funding. - Amtrak funded at $521 corridor routes would help million, with an additional cities develop cleaner and - Supports increased funding $468 million for high speed more efficient transportation for truck safety enforcement. rail development, systems. - Airport Improvement - Ending the general fund - Opposes ending the general Program (ALP) increased from support for aviation programs fund contribution to FAA $1.9 billion to 1.95 billion, and funding the entire FAA programs. budget from the Aviation - Newly created Motor Carrier Trust Fund could jeopardize Administration increased to airport infrastructure $279 million from $181 million investment levels. for the old office. HEALTH & HUMAN - 10-year, $110 billion - Cities are often the safety - Supports coordinated care SERVICES initiative to'expand health net for the uninsured and are efforts and federal assistance care access and coverage by: forced to cover to finance and provide care increasing eligibility and uncompensated costs for for the uninsured and Healthcare enrollment in Medicare, care. This initiative would underinsured. Medicaid, and SCHIP; relieve some of this financial providing funds to allow states pressure on municipalities. to cover children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants; and strengthening programs that health care services ' to the uninsured. Children & Families - $817 million increase in - Affordable and accessible - Supports the federal Child Care Development child care is essential to govemment increasing its fund, which provides child parents' employment stability, commitment to the nation's care services for Iow income Federal support for quality children and families. working families and for child care will alleviate parents moving from welfare poverty-relating challenges to work. facing cities. - $1 billion increase in Head - Increased resources will - Supports strengthening the Start funding and $3 billion alleviate strain placed on entire early childhood care increase over five years for municipal budgets by child and education system. the Early Learning Fund, care support and enforcement which supports programs activities. aimed at improving early learning and the quality and safety of child care for children thro~ e five. Fathers Work & Families - $255 million proposed. - Subsidies and other - Supports programs that help Win - $125 million is authorized for incentives to assist the the unemployed enter the grant programs to help absent unemployed gain employment workforce. fathers either get jobs or earn will ease the burden on city higher wages to pay child services. LABOR - Clinton proposed $39.8 - Subsidies and other - Supports allowing persons billion in budget authority, incentives for employers to with handicaps to achieve the Establishes a new assistant hire individuals with maximum degree of self secretary in the Office of disabilities will mean that city sufficiency. Disability Policy, Evaluation services will be less and Technical Assistance, burdened. funds it at $43 million. Goals to work with employers to encourage job training and opportunities for individuals. with disabilities. ;EDUCATION - Clinton's fiscal 2001 budget - Improved local school - Supports initiatives designed calls for $4.5 billion in new systems mean' better quality to improve education budget authority for Education of life for cities and their outcomes for children and Department discretionary residents. This translates into youths. programs, a $12.6% increase higher property values. over fiscal 2000 HOUSING & - Increases CDBG by $119 - If the Administration's $4.9 -Supports maintaining CDBG COMMUNITY million and reduces set- billion proposal passes it funding at the current level asides to achieve a net would ensure level funding and opposes set-asides. DEVELOPMENT increase of $250 billion, with an increase for inflation. CDBG - $50 million increase. Does - Actual grants to cities could - Supports full funding. HOME not keep abreast with be slightly decreased, inflation, reducing resources for HOMELESSNESS - Increase assistance by $96 - This would help cities meet - Applauds this increase but million. Adds 18,000 Section homeless needs and provide awaits consolidation of the 8 tenant-based vouchers to additional permanent housing McKinney homeless be covered under the funding for the chronically homeless, programs to allow more local '. level of $1.2 billion, flexibility in use of the money. - $18 million increase in - This would help cities meet - Applauds the funding Continuum of Care funding to homeless needs and provide increase, but awaits a program total of $1.2 billion additional permanent housing consolidation of the McKinney and creation of 18,000 new for the chronically homeless, homeless programs to allow vouchers for permanent more local flexibility in use of housing the money. PUBLIC HOUSING - Provides $2.955 billion - Underfunding will lead to the - Opposes failure to Capital Fund underfunds maintenance deterioration of this affordable adequately maintain this needs by $400 million, housing. There is no money taxpayer investment of $90 for new construction. This billion. could impose greater homeless burdens on cities. Operating Fund - Provides $3.192 billion - Limited funding continues to - Supports adequate funding which underfunds needs by make Public Housing of operating costs. $400 million, assistance a dependable resource. J:2000 Clinton Budget Chart LEGISLATIVE REPORT This report provides an in-depth review of federal legislation and regulatory action monitored by NLC's Center for Policy and Federal Relations with particular emphasis on action taken since the 1999 Congress of Cities. COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HUD BUDGET REQUEST Housii~ and Community Development (HUD) Secretary Andrew Cuomo reported at a FY 2001 budget briefing that HUD funding for next year "will increase from this year's level of $26 billion to $32 billion with increases in every program." While the proposed HUD budget provides good news for cities and towns, the President's proposed budget is only the first step in a long process. The President's budget proposes increasing the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program by $250 million taking into account the actual requested increase of $119 million and the reduced number of set-asides requested by the agency. If accepted by Congress, the CDBG level would be $4.9 billion, $120 million more than this year's level. The Administration's request for the HOME Investment Partnership Grant program is $1.65 billion, $50 million more than this year. This barely keeps up with next year's -. anticipated inflation level. According to the agency, this funding level would assist approximately 103,000 households, by providing 45,000 rehabilitated housing units, 25,000 newly acquired units, 22,000 newly constructed units, and rental assistance to 11,000 families. The request seeks $14 billion to fully fund Section 8 vouchers set to expire in 2001 and $690 million for 120,000 new vouchers that would be distributed in the following way: · 60,000 for "fair share" vouchers which will be distributed based on the size and need of families on waiting lists throughout the country; · 32,000 for people moving from welfare to work; · 18,000 for homeless persons and families; and ~.~. · 10,000 linked with Low Income Housing Tax Credits and FI-IA's multi-family insurance tO help secure the construction of new units for extremely low-income renters. The President's budget strives to provide cities with maximum flexibility to address their particular homeless needs while empowering mainstream programs such as Medicaid, TANF, and Substance Abuse Block Grants which provide supportive services to the homeless. If approved by Congress, the President's budget will help cities address the homeless challenge with:. · $1.083 billion, a slight increase over last year's $1.020 billion, in Continuum of Care grants to fund the outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing, permanent housing, and permanent supportive housing needs specific to each community; · $105 million to fund 18,000 new homeless vouchers, will be renewable through the Section 8 program; for those who have graduated through the Continuum of Care program and need safe, affordable housing; · $37 million for the annual renewal of Shelter Plus Care contracts that provide housing for homeless people with AIDS, mental illnesses, or chemical dependencies; · A $28 million increase in funding for Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) program to meet an increased demand for affordable, hOusing and services for persons living with AIDS; · · A $9 million increase in funding for housing for persons with disabilities (Section 811) for facility construction grants and rental assistance tailored to-disabled individualS; and · $10 million in new grants to help states improve access to and coordination between mainstream assistance programs beginning with competitive grants awarded to a maximum of seven states. The President's proposal includes $2.955 billion for the public housing capital fund, which is $86 million above last year's level, and $3.192 billion for the operating fund which is $52 million more. than provided this year. While Secretary Cuomo described ~ this' request as "full funding," the three national organizations that represent the nation's public housing agencies do not think the requested levels will be sufficient to address backlogged and current maintenance needs and 'actual operating costs. Their request to the Administration called for $3.5 billion for the capital fund and $3.55 billion for the operating fund. According to the public housing advocates, both programs are underfunded by approximately $400.million. The HOPE VI program would be funded at $625 million, $50 million more than this year. This program awards competitive grants to local housing authorities to address the physical, social, and fiscal problems of poor-quality public housing. This funding would pay for demolition of distressed public housing units and replace them with mixed- income garden-style apartments. The goal is to reduce the concentration of poverty and provide services to help improve quality of life for tenants and to help them find and 2 ?! retain employment. There is also $266 million to support additional Section 8 vouchers for tenants displaced by the HOPE VI program and to provide enhanced vouchers for those threatened with rent increases and displacement when Section 8 landlords decide to terminate their Section 8 contracts. The Administration is seeking major funding increases for its signature Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities program. This is an economic development program aimed at designated zones in cities, counties, and rural areas that have competed successfully for special federal designation and funding. An extensive planning process is required which brings the business community to the table with ideas and major funding which is combined with federal funds to address economic development needs. The budget proposes $1.4 billion in mandatory, grant funding for the remaining nine years for the 15 selected Round II Urban Zones, and $120 million for mandatory grant funding for the remaining eight years of the five Rural Zones and 20 Rural Enterprise Communities. The budget also requests new tax measures to extend and improve economic growth in the 31 existing round I and round II Empowerment Zones. The Administration is also calling for a third round of ten new Enterprise Zones which would have a tax expenditure level of $4 billion over ten years to cover a wage credit until 2009 and to cover Rounds II and 111. To reduce further the cost of small business investments in these designated zones, the budget seeks an additional $35,000 above the current level of small business investment deductions. The proposal would also allow local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of Empowerment Zone businesses and to permanently extend the Brownfields Tax Incentive in Empowerment Zones. NLC Position. N-LC supports full funding and new creative funding for housing, · .,7 community and economic development programs. AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION One heating has been held in the House Banking Committee's Subcommittee for Housing and Community Opportunity on legislation to increase homeownership opportunities. Other hearings may be scheduled to consider legislation to reauthorize the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the HOME program. Cities await action in the House on H.R. 1073, a bill that would consolidate the Homeless Assistance Grants (McKinney programs) into a single block grant program. The bill was marked up and submitted to the Committee on Banking and Financial Services in last April, but nothing has happened since then. In its present form, the bill creates a block grant program with a 30 percent set-aside for a competitive program for permanent housing for the chronically homeless, In the Senate, the Banking Committee's Housing Subcommittee staff is consulting with stakeholders to draft legislation to reauthorize the McKinney Homeless Programs. 3 NLC Position. NLC supports consolidating all McKinney Homeless programs into one formula-driven block grant and opposes setting aside any amount just for permanent l~l, housing. NLC believes localities should have the flexibility to address their unique needs and not have the federal government dictate addressing problems they may not have. STAFFORD ACT REFORM More than two years ago, in an attempt to reduce federal costs for covering disaster damage to pubic facilities and infrastructure, Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for the Veterans Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies (VA/HUD and IA), began attaching cost-cutting measures to the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Senator Bond has also called on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to cut costs through regulations including developing disaster declaration criteria, and most recently demanding that FEMA develop a role requiring public facilities to carry insurance in order to be eligible for federal disaster assistance. NIX2 has opposed Senator Bond's cost-shifting proposals and worked with a large coalition of stakeholders to eliminate them from past FEMA appropriations. Working with a Stafford Act Coalition, NLC has been assisting House and Senate authorizing committees to develop a FEMA reform package that would spend more money on mitigation, streamline FEMA programs, and reduce the cost of disasters. The Stafford Act is the federal statute that determines what eligible public facilities and infrastructure, and private property losses the federal government will assist in disaster recovery and what can be spent to mitigate potential disaster risks. Last year, the House passed the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 1999 (H.R 707), sponsored by Rep. Tiltie Fowler (R-FL) and James Traficant (D-OH), who are the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the House Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Emergency Management of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This year, NLC has been working closely with Senators James Inhofe (R-OK) and Bob Graham (D-FL), who are the chair and ranking member respectively of the Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, to develop companion legislation, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 1999 (S. 1691). Both the House and Senate bills attempt to reduce disaster costs by investing in pre- and post-disaster mitigation activities. The Clinton Administration has also introduced a bill setting out FEMA policy direction on Stafford Act reforms. The purpose of the Fowler/Traficant bill (H.R. 707) is to authorize pre-disaster mitigation activities and federal funding to ensure after a declared disaster: · Continued functioning of critical facilities and public infrastructure; · Reduced loss of life and property, human suffering, economic disruption, and future '~ disaster-assistance costs resulting from natural hazards; · Streamlined administration of disaster relief; and · Control over federal costs for disaster assistance. This legislation would establish state mitigation programs, with the ongoing cooperation of local governments, which would include provisions for prioritizing mitigation measures. Authorized funding would be $25 million in 1999 and $80 million in 2000. The Senate legislation would attempt to achieve the same goals. The Senate bill does not, however, set an authorization level for the pre-disaster mitigation program, but would allow the appropriators to set the level each year. The Senate bill also follows the House lead in increasing funds for post-disaster mitigation programs, whereby localities can use FEMA funds to complete mitigation projects after a declared disaster. The legislation Would also set guidelines for FEMA's proposed rule to require that insurance be carried on all public buildings. FEMA issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in February and will continue to work with stakeholders and Congress to develop the insurance requirements. In February, the Senate bill was approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, but is expected to meet with some opposition before going to the Senate floor. Senator Bond indicated during the markup that while he does not believe the bill will significantly increase FEMA spending, he also does not think it would produce adequate savings in federal disaster costs. Senator Bond has asked the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to review the bill before he decides whether he will let the measure proceed. I~ll.¢ I~osition. NLC supports reducing disaster costs for all levels of government and will work to ensure that any final Stafford Act reforms do not simply shift costs to state and local governments as a way to reduce federal costs. NLC also supports the concept of insuring public facilities to protect against disasters, but believes FEMA must continue to look at the private insurance market to assess the availability and affordability of insurance so that localities are not strapped with unreasonable mandates in order to protect their property and citizens. 5 ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, AND NATURAL RESOURCES ELECTRIC UTILITY DEREGULATION The Administration and some members of Congress are callin~ for quick passage of electric utility deregulation legislation. Last year, Representative Joe Barton (R-TX), Chairman of the House Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power, introduced legislation to promote a national restructuring plan. The Electricity Competition and Reliability Act of 1999 (H.R. 2944) was approved by Rep. Barton's Subcommittee last October. The measure includes the Bond Fairness Act (H.R. 721) to help deal with the private use issue for public power cities. House Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-VA) has indicated his intention to rewrite the subcommittee bill. Representative Bliley and Ranking Member John Dingell (D-MI) are still discussing whether national restructuring legislation is needed at all and, if so, what that legislation should contain. On the Senate side, Senator Frank Murkowski (R-AK), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, circulated a discussion draft bill last fall which he plans to introduce early this year. The Murkowski proposal does not contain private use language, but does includes a provision which would grandfather state restructuring plans passed before the enactment of the new law. Although heatings and discussions are expected to continue this year, Congress is not likely to complete work on a comprehensive electric restructuring package. To date, there is little agreement in Congress as to what an ideal restructuring package would entail. Specific issues affecting local governments related to federal action on electric utility deregulation include: Preemption. Federal reform of the utility ~industry could preempt local land-use, zoning and rights-of-way authority. Grandfather Provisions. Cities and states stand to lose substantial ground if their work at the state level is not incorporated into a national restructuring bill. The federal government should not preempt state energy laws, but should pass legislation that will compliment state and local measures. Reliability. A recent Department of Energy rePort warned that as the industry deregulates, reliability of electric supply may be compromised. Furthermore, consumers in certain areas may be underserved in a competitive market as providers target only the most profitable areas for power distribution. Tax Reform. Absent changes in tax laws, competition is likely to reduce local tax revenues including franchise fees for the use of right-of-way, sales and use taxes, and property taxes. Unless current tax regulations are changed, electric utility deregulation could take away the tax-exempt status of current and future municipal public power bonds. Aggreg~ation. Federal electricity utility deregulation legislation could bar local government authority to join together to pumhase power at lower prices. NL¢ Position. NLC opposes federal electric utility deregulation legislation. Congress should leave this issue to states and local governments. Federal legislation could preempt traditional and historic land use and zoning authority or franchise and equitable tax authority, as well as cities' ability to become aggregators. Further, NLC urges that the Administration and Congress ensure municipal authority to issue municipal bonds for the provision of essential public power. EPA BUDGET REQUEST For the consecutive third year, the Administration is requesting cuts of 40 percent in funding for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). The CWSRF provides grants to states, which, in turn, offer loans to cities to finance their municipal wastewater infrastructure needs including mandates for combined and sanitary sewer overflows. The Administration is also asking for a $5 million increase in funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), a program similar to the CWSRF but targeted to municipal drinking water system infrastructure needs. Programs proposed last year, but rejected by Congress - Better America Bonds (BABs) and the Clean Air Partnership Fund - also resurfaced at proposed funding levels slightly above those in the FY 2000 budget proposal. Of the total $9.5 billion being requested for EPA, $2.2 billion is earmarked for the Better America Bonds, which essentially means no increase in EPA funding. Water Infrastructure Wastewater. The Administration is again proposing to reduce funding for municipal wastewater infrastructure from $1.35 billion to $800 million. In presenting the budget to the press; EPA Administrator Carol Browner indicated that "clean water isn't about sewers anymore." She justified the funding reduction by indicating that the Administration has met its commitment to municipal wastewater needs, since $2 billion annually is currently available in the revolving loan program. No mention 'was made of the EPA-projected city needs over the next two decades in excess of $380 billion to maintain, expand, and rehabilitate existing municipal wastewater systems. Funding for local wastewater infrastructure could be reduced even further if the Administration is successful this year in convincing Congress to set aside up to 19 percent - down one per from last year's proposal - of the municipal CWSRF for nonpoint (mn-off from farms, ranches, forests, mines, etc.) source and estuary 7 management projects. The budget proposes to allow states to distribute the funds as grants of up to 60 percent of project costs. In addition, the FY 2001 EPA budget proposes to eliminate the Congressional set-asides for specific municipal projects, except for $13 million proposed by the Administration to be set aside for wastewater needs in Bristol County, MA, and New Orleans, LA, and $15 million for Alaska native villages. The budget also proposes a 50 percent increase (for a total of $100 million) in funding for water infrastructure projects along the U.S./Mexico border. Drinkin9 Water. EPA's 2001' budget proposals-calls for a modest increase - to $825 million (+$5 million) - for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), a loan program similar to the CWSRF, providing financial assistance for municipal drinking ~-' water infrastructure. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 allow a portion of these funds to be made available as grahts to economically disadvantaged communities, as defined by the state. WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS Program FY 2000 FY 2001 Change Water Infrastructure $2.569 billion $1.753 billion -$816 million CWSRF 1.345 billion 800 million -$545 million DWSRF 820 million 825 million +$ 5 million Special Needs Projects 354 million 28 million -$226 million Mexican Border Projects 50 million 100 million +$ 50 million Clean Water Action Plan. In its efforts to focus more attention on non-point. sources of pollution to the. nation's waterways, the Administration is requesting $762 million, an increase in funding over last' year's request of $651 million, for the Clean Water Action PIan (CWAP). The plan calls for over 100 specific actions by EPA and other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Agriculture and Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdminiStration, that "have responsibilities or activities that have an impact on water quality." Included in this budget request are proposed matching grants to the states for development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and a new Great Lakes initiative. To assist with expeditious development of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements, EPA is proposing to increase grants to states by $45 million. To. receive the additional funds, states would be required to provide a 40 percent match. The TMDL program, for which EPA recently proposed regulations, requires specific pollutant reductions in all the nation's impaired waterbodies. The funding proposal would assist States in assigning pollutant load reductions to individual sources on the targeted waterways. A new initiative of $50 million is being proposed to restore and protect the Great Lakes. Cities on the Great Lakes will be eligible for grants for water restoration and protection activities. HL¢ Position. NLC supports adequate funding to assist municipalities in meeting federal wastewater and drinking water mandates. The Administration's proposed budget for these programs falls short of this goal with respect to wastewater requirements. While NLC supports greater investments in addressing pollutants from nonpoint sources, NLC opposes shifting funds authorized to assist municipalities in complying with wastewater requirements to other purposes. NLC supports increased funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF). Hazardous Waste Sites Supergund. The proposed budget includes a modest increase of $50 million in funding for Superfund, a program to cleanup the nation's worst hazardous waste sites. EPA expects to complete cleanup at 75 sites across the nation in the coming year, bringing the total to 900 remediated sites. Cleanup activities are underway at 1,412 sites. In addition, the Administration is requesting $150 million to pay costs attributable to parties at Superfund sites who no longer exist or who have no resources. Brownfields. Funding for cleanup of abandoned or underused industrial or commercial sites, which are frequently contaminated and usually located in urban areas, will remain constant at $92 million. These funds are available to assist cities in site assessment and characterization and to determine the existence and extent of contamination so the sites may be reused for appropriate purposes. NLC Position. NLC supports expeditious cleanup of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites as well as federal financial assistance for remediation and reuse of brownfields. Clean Air State and Local Grants. Grants to state and local governments for implementation of Clean Air Act standards are proposed to increase to $215 million, $5 million over current funding levels. Despite the significant progress the country has made in the past decade in reducing air pollution, "approximately 59 million people" live in counties that have not met national standards. The funding proposed here is to help state and local governments make steady progress in achieving attainment. Clean Air Partnership Grants. Once again, the Administration is proposing to establish an $85 million Clean Air Partnership Fund to "provide resources to states, 9 cities, and tribes to help reduce pollution." The new partnership would be funded by grants to states, cities and tribes to join with the private sector and/or the federal government in the development of new techniques and/or technologies to reduce air pollution. This year's proposal is significantly more modest than the $200 million. proposed in the 2000 budget which was not approved by Congress. NLC Position. NLC supports the goals and objectives of the Clean Air Act and appropriate federal assistance to assure progress in meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NLC has taken no position on the Clean Air Partnership Grants: Better America Bonds The President is again proposing a new initiative of tax credits, called Better America Bonds (BABs), administered through EPA to assist cities in addressing issues involved in urban sprawl. The FY 2001 bUdget proposes $10.75 billion in bonding authority over the coming five years for investments by local communities in preserving green space, creating oi: restoring urban parks, addressing threatened water quality, and redeveloping brownfields. Under the BABs proposal, EPA will evaluate and approve - in conjunction with the Vice President's Community Empowerment Board and other agencies - local proposals authorizing the use of tax credits to finance such activities. Preference will be given to proposals that "reflect collaborative planning by neighbOring communities, particularly partnerships among cities, suburbs and rural areas." In place of interest payments on bonds issued by local governments under this program, investors will receive "approximately $1.5 billion in net tax credits over the 15 year life of the $2.15 billion in proposed 2001 bond authority." NLC Position. The Finance Administration and Intergovernmental Relations (FAIR) and Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (EENR) Steering Committees reviewed the Better America Bonds proposal last year and decided not to endorse it. The committees expressed significant reservations about the parameters under which funds would be made available, the proposed tax credit prOvisions, and the limited amount of funding given the needs to be addressed. NLC has no formal policy position on this proposal. URBAN WET WEATHER PRIORITIES The Urban Wet Weather Priorities Act of 2000 (H.R. 3570 was recently introduced in the House by Reps. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) and Bill Pascrell (D-NY). The proposal, designed to address critical urban wet weather issues such as combined and sanitary sewer overflows and municipal stormwater programs, was initiated by a coalition of local government organizations, including NLC. The measure would codify EPA's current combined sewer overflow (CSO) policy, .require consistent requirements for sanitary sewer overflows, clarify the issue of numerical effluent limits for municipal stormwater discharges, and authorize' a three-year $3 billion grant program to help finance municipal wet weather initiatives. Combined Sewer Overflows EPA's current policy, with respect to combined sewer overflows (CSO), was developed in conjunction with affected municipalities and other stakeholders and promulgated in 1994. That policy is now being threatened by inconsistent interpretations and increasing reluctance to apply its provisions by federal and state regulators. Cities have already spent significant resources to implement CSO projects consistent with the policy and now need the force of law to protect their investments. H.R. 3570 would provide that protection by codifying the 1994 policy, including granting cities up to 15 years to complete compliance with CSO requirements. Sanitary Sewer Overflows The measure would also set basic parameters for any federal requirements for dealing with sanitary sewer overflows (SSO). In the absence of a national policy on SSOs, cities confront widespread inconsistency between and among regions on SSO requirements. While EPA convened a federal advisory committee and is working on national roles, the existing framework of the Clean Water Act severely limits the agency's ability to develop a workable policy. H.R. 3570 would set parameters within which the agency would develop appropriate regulations, including protections for cities from citizen suits for certain unavoidable overflows. As with the CSO policy, the measure would provide 15 years for cities to complete compliance with any new rules. Stormwater H.R. 3570 clarifies Congressional intent with respect to municipal stormwater discharges by re-emphasizing that cities are required to use best management practices (BMPs) to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), and not to meet numerical discharge standards. The measure also defines MEP to exclude construction of facilities to treat urban stormwater runoff. Funding The Urban Wet Weather Priorities Act of 2000. authorizes two funding streams for municipal wet weather programs: · $1 billion and $1.5 billion for fiscal 2001 and 2002, respectively, in grants to cities for planning, design, and construction of facilities to intercept, transport, or control flows from separate storm sewer systems or combined and/or sanitary sewers; planning and implementation of wet weather control measures and management practices; and development and implementation of urban watershed management plans; and · $45 million over the next three years for implementation of wet weather demonstration projects. NLC Position. NLC supports codification of the 1994 CSO Policy and the development of workable policies with respect to SSOs. While supporting programs to reduce pollutants in urban runoff, NLC also believes Congress should clarify current program requirements with respect to numerical effluent limits. NLC supports adequate funding to meet these requirements. SUPERFUND/BROWNFIELDS Legislation to reauthorize the nation's Comprehensive Environmental Response, CompenSation and Liability Act (Superfund) and address many of the liability concerns involved in restoring brownfields (abandoned or underutilized industrial sites, usually located in cities) continues to have rough sledding. While a bi-partisan measure, H.R. 1300, was approved by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Representative Bud Shuster (R-PA) on a vote of 09-2, alternative proposals have fared less well in other committees. The issue is all but dead in the Senate. NLC Position. NLC supports reauthorization of the Superfund program, including clarification of municipal liability issues. NLC also supports legislation, which would facilitate more rapid reuse of urban brownfield properties by resolving the uncertainties created by liability issues. PHASE II STORMWATER PROGRAM In October, EPA Administrator Carol Browner signed final rUles regulating stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) that will become effective in early 2003. The regulations, which would require municipalities with less than 100,000 population to implement six minimum best management practices (BMPs), are similar to those proposed for comment by the agency in January 1998. The preamble and final regulations for the Phase II municipal stormwater program were published in . the Federal Register on December 8, 1999. Of principal concern to cities are the linkages established between the stormwater regulations and the proposed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations. Such a linkage means that cities may well be required to meet numerical effluent limits in their stormwater discharges - a requirement that, given the absence of any known technology to accomplish this objective, cannot be met. ~l~ The six minimum measures that will be implemented through a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit are: · Public education; · Public involvement in the development of local stormwater programs; · Elimination of illicit discharges to storm sewer systems; · Erosion and sediment control programs at construction sites; · Post construction stormwater management in new and redeveloped areas; and, Good housekeeping measures for municipal activities. The Phase II stormwater regulations were subject to a stakeholder negotiating process. Mayor Jim Naugle of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, represented NLC in the negotiations. NLC Position. The regulations, which were developed in consultation with local officials and other stakeholders, incorporate provisions that attempt to respond to municipal concerns. While a federal court has held that Congress did not intend for numerical effluent limits to apply to municipal stormwater discharges, it allowed for discretion on the part of the Administration to impose such requirements. Further efforts at clarifying the law will be necessary to resolve this issue. MICROBIAL/DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS A negotiated rulemaking process to develop Stage 2 Rules for contaminants in public drinking water supplies is now underway. The Stage 2 negotiation is reviewing new scientific data and the results of information collected by 380 large public water suppliers over the past 18 months to determine which contaminants actually occur in public drinking water supplies at levels of public health concern. This review has been undertaken to determine the necessity of further regulatory action with respect to disinfectants and disinfection by-products. Mayor Bruce Tobey of Gloucester, Massachusetts, represents NLC in the negotiations. NLC Position. NLC policy does not specifically address disinfection by-products but does call for the development of drinking water standards that protect public health; are based on sound science; address contaminants that actually occur in drinking water supplies; and take into account the reduction of risks and the costs of any new requirements. TOTAL MAXIMUM DALLY LOADS To enhance efforts targeted at restoring the 20,000 impaired waterbodies across the nation, the Clinton Administration announced proposed new rules for Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)k The proposed regulations2 will have a significant, and potentially negative, effect on the wastewater operations of the nation's cities. EPA received over 30,000 comments on the rule. Of major concern to cities are the provisions in the proposed regulations that will, in effect, significantly hamper major expansions, defined as a 20 percent or greater increase in the discharge of pollutants, or construction of new municipal wastewater facilities by mandating one to one-and-a-half (1:1.5) offsets for proposed discharges. This provision, more than any other in the TMDL proposal, would seem to interfere with any "smart growth" efforts by cities, either by shifting the financial burden for pollutant reductions from upstream nonpoint sources to local tax and ratepayers, by prohibiting growth and economic development of any magnitude within a city, or by halting conversion initiatives to bring septic systems into treatment facilities. These provisions will apply to cities with populations of 50,000 or more. And, it is the city's population that is the determining factor,' not the number of persons served by the publicly owned treatment works (POTW). EPA is also proposing to become far more intrusive into the permitting process. The proposal revises and expands the agency's authority with respect to the issuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, the basic mechanism authorizing discharges into the nation's waterbodies. The agency's current authority to review and object to discharge permits will be expanded to allow regional administrators to review and object to expired permits that have been administratively continued as well. NPDES permits are usually issued for a five-year period and must be renewed regularly, similar to an individual's driver's license. As EPA explains, "When a permittee [e.g., a municipal wastewater treatment plant] has submitted a timely application for renewal, but the State Director fails to act on the permittees' application before the existing permit expires, State law often provides that the existing permit continues in effect by operation of law." While clarifying that the agency plans to use this new authority "in very rare instances," the mere existence of the authority will either spur the state authorities to act 1 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) have been a requirement of the Clean Water Act since 1972. The TMDL provisions mandate permitting authorities (i.e., the State or EPA) to assess water quality problems and contributing pollutant sources in water bodies not meeting designated uses ('hfshable/swimable") and to assign the necessary pollutant reductions to those sources to assure attainment of water quality standards. A TMDL is a written quantitative assessment of water quality problems and contributing pollutant sources. It specifies the amount of a pollutant that needs to be reduced to meet water quality standards, allocates pollution control responsibilities among contributing sources in a watershed, and provides a basis for taking actions needed to restore a waterbody. A TMDL is the sum of the individual wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources (e.g., municipal and/or industrial wastewater treatment plant or stormwater discharges), load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources (e.g., runoff from farms, ranches, mines, forests), natural background (e.g., naturally occurring arsenic), plus a "margin of safety" (MOS). 2 There are two proposed regulations: Proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program and Water Quality Standards (WQS) Program Regulation; and Proposed Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation. within the 270 day time frame the proposal provides or put EPA in the driver's seat in developing the terms of municipal permits. While having a current, valid permit is clearly not objectionable, new ~permits issued after promulgation of the TMDL rule will, in all likelihood, ratchet down on permissible discharges from municipal facilities. The major "plus" for municipalities in the proposed new rules is that TMDLs will apply only to "pollutants" not to "pollution." The distinction is important because this limits the reach of the TMDL policy to actual, measurable contaminants found in waterbodies. If the proposal applies to "pollution," it would expand the jurisdiction of TMDLs to include land use activities, such as construction of new roads, homes, schools, that affect bodies of water by changing the volume or flow rates of rain or snow melt to the receiving waters, Council President William Nielsen of Eau Claire, Wisconsin - a member of the EENR Steering Committee who served as the only local elected representative on EPA's TMDL Advisory Committee - raised many of the concerns expressed above in recent hearings before the House Water Resources Subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, (R-NY). NLC Position. NLC supports efforts to enhance water quality and the role of TMDLs in meeting this objective. However, NLC also believes the proposed rules place an unwarranted and inequitable burden on municipalities to achieve and/or finance the preponderance of improvements necessary to attain these goals; will redirect growth and economic development away from urban areas; and obstruct efforts to comply with Clean Water Act wet weather mandates. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION, AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS FY 200t BUDGET REQUEST The President's FY 2001 budget request features debt reduction, funding .to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, resources for targeted investments in education, and expansion of health care coverage for working families and others who do not have access to health insurance currently. There are modest increases pegged to inflation, in most programs important to cities, and level funding in others. Detailed reports On programs important to cities can be found in other areas of this legislative report. This budget request clearly abandons the 1997 budget caps by requesting a 2.5 percent increase over last year's funding level of $1.79 billion. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, this budget proposal dedicates 86 percent of the total ten- year projected surplus to debt reduction. On the discretionary side of the budget proposal, the ten-year plan would use the 2000 level of budget authority as the base for future spending and would provide for annual increases based on projected inflation rates (2.6 percent) after 2001 through 2010. The Republican leadership in Congress does not agree with this policy of pegging discretionary spending increases to the rate of inflation. They would prefer a freeze at this year's spending level for next year, but they have not yet agreed on how to deal with out-year funding levels. Squeezing or cutting discretionary spending would hurt cities, but would provide for a larger surplus to facilitate a generous Republican tax cut. There is no agreement yet within the Republican caucus on whether to propose tax cuts similar to Presidential candidate George W. Bush's $483 billion five-year proposal. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that the non-Social Security surplus over ten years, 2001 - 2010, will be $746 billion, while the Congressional Budget Office provided three different estimates recently ranging from $838 billion to $1.9 trillion. Using assumptions similar to the Administration's, CBO estimates that the non- Social Security surplus will be around $838 billion over the ten-year period. Clinton would use $351 billion of the surplus for tax cuts. The Republicans have not come to Administrationagreement on theproposes.Size of a proposed tax cut but are expected to seek a larger one than the The President's proposal would apply all the ten-year $2.2 trillion Social Security surplus to paying down the debt and would dedicate $350 billion of the $746 non-Social Security surplus to debt reduction. The Republicans support dedicating the Social Security surplus to debt payment. The President seeks with this budget to maintain the existing commitment to Medicare and would add a prescription drag benefit. As with Social Security, the Administration proposes extending the life of the Medicare program through benefits from debt reduction and would apply $299 billion over ten years to extend the solvency of the program until 2025. Missing in these proposals to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare are comprehensive plans to address the structural problems and fundamental changes that will be necessary to deal with the country's changing demographics, retirement of the baby boomers, and an increase in our aging population which will produce an increasing number of retirees. According to a recent analysis by the Social Security Trustees, the program will begin to spend more money than it takes in. by 2014 and will face insolvency by 2034. Part of the debate on how to achieve fiscal soundness in. the Medicare program will have to include discussion of increased payroll taxes and other unpopular measures. The majority of the President's proposed spending increases would be dedicated to health insurance expansions which would cost $189 billion over ten years. · $91 billion would be dedicated over ten years to insurance for working parents and their children that do not currently have health insurance coverage. · $98 billion would fund a Medicare component for people aged 62 to 64 and displaced workers 55 and over so they can "buy in" to Medicare. Some Medicare and Medicaid savings are proposed to offset some of the costs of these health insurance proposals. The tax cuts proposed by the President would be $314 billion over ten years or $351 billion if the proposed refundable tax credits are treated as tax cuts. Because of errors announced in the calculations made by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) since issuance of the budget, the proposed tax cut would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. The Administration proposes offsetting its proposed tax cuts by closing tax shelters and loopholes, raising taxes on tobacco products, and reinstating some environmental taxes. Unfortunately, similar proposals in the past have not accomplished the saving sought, and like last year's proposed tobacco tax, have been rejected by the Republicans. The primary tax cuts proposed include: · Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and several other tax credits which would require refunding $37 billion over ten years. This would include expansion of childcare tax credits for families and for credits for businesses to expand their child care resources. · A federal subsidy of new Retirement Savings Accounts which would cost $54 billion over ten years. · Reduction in the "marriage penalty" which would cost $45 billion. · New health care tax credits which would cost $40 billion and are designed to help ~l~ taxpayers cover a variety of health care costs. These include long-term care, a credit for Medicare premiums paid under the proposed "buy-in" proposal, and a credit for those who pay to continue their health care insurance when they are between jobs. · Addressing the problems that have arisen from the absence of an adjustment for inflation in the Alternative Minimum Tax provisions. If not amended, middle class Americans could find themselves paying this tax which was designed to address wealthy taxpayers who have so many deductions that they might not pay any tax at all. The necessary changes would cost $33 billion in revenues. NLC Position. NLC supports the Administration's commitment to debt reduction, extending the Solvency of Social Security and Medicare, and the proposed investments in education, children and the health of families. NLC supports dispensing with the 1997 budget caps as long as surpluses exist and are used in fiscally responsible Ways. INTERNET TAXATION The political landscape continues to change with Internet taxes becoming a campaign issue for Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and getting national attention. Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) says he supports extending the current moratorium, which applies only to new, multiple, and discretionary taxes, to wait and see what develops, while Vice President A1 Gore seems to think the moratorium already covers sales and use taxes. The Advisory Commission on Electronic Commerce was established by the Internet Tax Freedom Act of 1998 to determine how to or whether to tax transactions on the Internet, and to make recommendations to Congress. It has met three times since last summer and will hold its final meeting on March 20 and 21, in Dallas, Texas. The Commission has received more than 35 proposals from intereSt groups seeking to influence the Commission's final recommendations to the U.S. Congress which are due ~, in April, 2000. In December, the Commission narrowed down to three.the primary ones. Governor James Gilmore (R-VA), chairman of the Commission, has proposed eliminating the collection of access fees on the Internet, prohibiting the collection of sales and use taxes on Internet sales, and eliminating the federal franchise tax on telecommunications services. Dean Andal, a commissioner and chairman of the California Board of Equalization, presented his proposal at the December meeting. It would redefine nexus in the interest of Internet and telecommunications companies and protect the industry from taxes on most Internet transactions, as well as other taxes that might apply in the future to the .incomes and assets of these businesses. The National Governors' Association (NGA) presented its Streamlined Sales Tax System for the 21st Century in San Francisco which seeks to simplify state tax collection systems, reduce the collection burden on retailers, and provide financial incentives to remote Internet vendors to voluntarily participate in use tax collection. Using tax compliance software, a "trusted third party" could let vendors know what the tax should be on each sale, and then vendors would remit the tax to the "trusted third party." Subsequently, the "trusted third party" would remit the taxes to states. Since the commission's December meeting, several other proposals have surfaced. The business representatives on the commission submitted a proposal in January to the commission which would provide special nexus "carve outs" for the telecommunications industry, prohibit taxing digital products sold over the Internet and their equivalents in bricks and mortar stores, and require reducing local taxes on telecommunications services as well as consolidating the administration of these taxes at the state level. NLC has expressed its strong opposition to these provisions in the business proposal through Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk who is the city representative on the commission. Negotiations continue between the business representatives on the commission and those representing state and local governments. It is not clear whether any agreement can be reached. 18 Late last week, the e-Fairness Coalition, with members from the state retail federations, commercial realtors, shopping center associations, Wal-Mart, J.C. Penny stores, and other large "bricks and mortar retailers", submitted a proposal calling on the commission to recommend, and Congress to pass, legislation requiring remote sellers to collect sales and use taxes on all transactions immediately. This coalition seeks a level playing field as soon as possible and believes they will see increasing losses in sales in their bricks and mortar stores until all sales, including remote Internet sales, have the same tax treatment. Congress and the Administration In both the first and second sessions of the 106t~ Congress, there has been mounting evidence of strong opposition to allowing tariffs and taxes on Interact transactions or Internet use. During the first session, there were repeated attempts in the Senate to attach amendments to appropriations bills that would extend or make permanent the moratorium on taxing sales made over the Interact. In August and September, both Republican Senators from New Hampshire, Bob Smith and Judd Gregg, were prevented from doing this at the eleventh hour. Since the second session opened in January, NLC has learned that these same Senators are planning to insert similar language in the Senate's 2001 Budget Resolution. This would not have the force of law but could establish a policy direction leading to legislative action in the Senate adverse to cities and states. On the day he announced his presidential candidacy, Senator McCain asked Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) to introduce his Interact tax bill S. 1611. It was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee chaired by Senator McCain. As the Republican primaries have progressed, Senator McCain has expressed his strong aversion to charging sales and use taxes on Interact transactions. The McCain bill would amend the Interact Tax Freedom Act to broaden its scope and make the moratorium permanent. It would prohibit collection of sales and use taxes for domestic and foreign goods purchased over the Interact, as well as for services acquired through electronic commerce. If passed, S. 1611 would effectively eliminate both sales and use taxes that provide, on an average, 45 percent of the tax revenues used by states and localities to fund education, public safety, and other essential services. If passed, the bill would eliminate the collection of sales and use taxes on any transaction when any part of a transaction takes place on the Internet. This would encourage bricks and mortar retail businesses to set up ordering kiosks and/or computerized cash registers in their stores which would allow their customers to avoid paying sales taxes. In the second section of his bill, Senator McCain proposes declaring, by a "sense of the Senate" resolution, that "U.S. representatives to the World Trade Organization, and any other multilateral trade organizations of which the U.S. is a member, should resolutely advocate that it is the firm position of the U.S. that electronic commerce, conducted via the Internet, should not be burdened by national or local regulations, taxation, or the imposition of tariffs." Commerce Committee staff say that Senator McCain plans to hold hearings on S. 1611 if and when he bows out of the Republican presidential primaries. He is not expected to try to attach it to some "must pass" legislation this year. Legislation in the House (H.R. 3252), similar to the McCain bill, has been introduced by Representatives John Kasich (R-OH) and John Boehner (R-OH). There are confusing signals coming from the House leadership on what action can be anticipated on this bill or other legislation affecting collection of taxes on Interact sales. Suffice it to say that Reps. Kasich and Boehner are part of the leadership and could push to move their bill. In early February, Representative Chris Cox (R-CA) and senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced companion bills in the House and Senate which would amend the Interact Tax Freedom Act of 1998 and make its moratorium permanent as it applies to new, multiple, and discriminatory taxes on the Interact. The Wyden bill is S. 2028, while the Cox bill, the Internet Non-discrimination Act, has not yet been numbered. In the current political climate, and with the campaign already in full swing, it is unlikely that Congress will amend the Commerce Clause to provide for an expanded duty to collect sales and use taxes, which is NLC's ultimate goal. There is also no indication that the Advisory. Commission on Electronic Commerce will recommend anything to Congress that would protect sales and use taxes as revenue sources for states and localities. The best course for the moment is for NLC to continue to work to prevent Congressional action, contribute to the evolution of the NGA Zero Burden proposal, and to cooperate with the E-Fairness Coalition to advance their efforts to establish a level playing field for all retail vendors whether they sell intra- or interstate. We have also reached out to Forrester Associates, the premier Boston-based Internet research firm, to withenc°urageall membersthem tOofSharecongress.the independent research they have done on Interact transactions Internet Advocacy Initiatives NLC has urged state leagues and their members to write letters opposing the McCain and Kasich bills. We have received copies of hundreds of these letters from the leagues and their members, and we use them when we visit congressional offices. In our visits on the Hill, we have targeted members of the Ways and Means, Commerce, Judiciary, and Finance Committees to make sure committee members and their staffs understand the implications of any action to limit the collection of sales and use taxes on Interact transactions. These are the committees of jurisdiction that will consider these legislative proposals before they are considered by the full House or Senate. In cooperation with the state and local public interest groups, we held two well-attended, Interact briefings for House staff on February 22 and 23 focusing on urging Congress to prevent movement of any legislation in the House or Senate that would amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act at this time. NLC is also Working with Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) and Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) to get Republican and Democrat hold letters signed by at least five members on each side so they can be sent to the leadership. A hold in the Senate keeps a bill from moving. NLC Position. NLC supports Congressional action to require remote vendors to collect sales and use tax on all transactions, opposes Congressional efforts to preempt state and local authority to collect legally due sales tax, and supports joint state and local 20 efforts to develop strategies for facilitating the collection of sales and use tax on remote transactions. MUNICIPAL BONDS The tax-exempt status of municipal bonds was called into question by an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed rulemaking regarding bonds issued for prepayment of public services such as natural gas. The proposed rulemaking questioned the issuance of such bonds alleging that municipalities were making substantial profits off of prepayments for long-term supplies of public commodities purchased at fixed (or lower- market) prices. NLC's response, along with other municipal gas/utility systems, was that municipal bonds issued for such purposes are: 1) Solely for the general health and welfare of all citizens; 2) The only viable alternative to purchasing commodities on a "pay-as-you-go basis" where priCes fluctuate and supplies could be interrupted; and 3) Not purchased for a profit as an investment-type property. The IRS held a public heating in January, and officials are reviewing comments filed on this notice of proposed rulemaking. Numerous bills on tax-exempt bonds and infrastructure are currently pending Congressional action. These legislative proposals include: · Better America Bonds proposed for protecting open spaces, developing brownfields, parks, and preserving water quality; · Forest conservation bonds that would allow local governments to issue tax-exempt bonds on behalf of nonprofit organizations for purposes of acquiring land designated for conservation and management; · Advance refundings to allow a second advance refunding of bonds originally issued to finance governmental facilities; · Private activity bond restrictions that question the tax-exempt financing for single- city convention center expansion projects, interfere with state and local financial decisions, and prevent tax-exempt financing for water utilities under certain conditions; · Sports facilities bonds that would be deemed private-activity bonds and would be prohibited from tax-exempt financing; · Volunteer fire and ambulance bonds would allow volunteer fire departments and ambulance companies to issue tax-exempt bonds to purchase emergency response vehicles and ambulances; · Flow control bills that would impose limits on the receipt of out-of-state municipal solid waste (MSW), authorize state and local controls over MSW, and allow counties and cities to reimpose flow control provided there is an outstanding debt remaining on old facilities; · Bond transparency legislation would authorize General Accounting Office (GAO), in consultation with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, to study transparency issues in the municipal market (such as information on bond pricing and competition); .~, · Public power bonds legislation that covers an array of areas to 1) free public power companies of federal private-use restrictions and grandfather tax-exempt debt under certain conditions, 2) prohibit tax-exempt bond financing for power generation and transmission, 3) promote state flexibility to implement electricity competition, and 4) implement a comprehensive electricity restructuring proposal; · Private activity bond caps legislation called the State and Local Investment Opportunity Act that would 1) raise the private activity bond cap for states in 2000 from the current $50 per capita/S150 million limit to $75 per capita or $225 million, and 2) allow for inflation adjustment based on the consumer price index after 2000; · School construction tax-exempt bonds legislation that would 1) expand the ability of local school districts to use tax-exempt bonds for school construction and rehabilitation; 2) allow school bonds issuers to advance refund outstanding school bonds one additional time with savings earmarked for new school construction; and · School construction tax credit bonds that would provide a tax credit in lieu of an interest payment for taxable bonds issued for school construction and renovation. FEDERALISM/PREEMPTION Takings In 1999, the House and the Senate introduced takings legislation (H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1999, and S. 1028, the Citizens' Access to Justice ' Act of 1999). Both bills constitute a massive preemption of local governing authority. They would permit landowners and developers to bYPass state courts and local planning commissions and city councils and take their land use grievances directly into federal court. These bills federalize land use laws and dramatically increase the role of the federal courts in supervising decisions traditionally left to state and local governments. The bills not only threaten local zoning powers, but also other local police powers which serve as safeguards for public health, safety and welfare. Takings cases have been 22 brought against cities for trying to regulate prostitution, illegal drug trafficking, topless dancing, and liquor licensing. These bills seek to radically alter the procedure by which these and other takings claims are heard. This legislation would overturn existing law which requires that state courts review local land use decisions before a case can be brought in, or is ripe for, federal court. Religious Liberties Protection Act Congress is seeking to further undercut the traditional roles of cities by chipping away at land use, zoning, and regulatory authority. The Religious Liberties Protection Act (RLPA) is currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee. RLPA is a massive federal preemption of traditional local regulatory authority in such areas as zoning and land use, building and fire code enforcement, child welfare and safety, and local historic preservation and environmental ordinances. This bill would exempt religious-based uses of property from virtually all local government regulations where such regulations would have a "substantial burden" on religious exercise. A recent National Congregations study, a national survey funded in part by Lilly Endowment, Inc. to study whether religious institutions are constrained by government, found a distinct lack of discrimination toward religious organizations by local governing bodies. NL¢ Position. NLC opposes both takings legislation and RLPA because they both represent federal preemption of basic local government authority. Federalism Legislation The NLC-drafted and supported Federalism Act of 1999 (H.R. 2245) and Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 (S. 1214) have moved rapidly through the House subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs and Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. H.R. 2245 will be scheduled to go before the full House Govemment Reform Committee and hopefully to the House floor before the summer recess. Despite the early success of both bills, strong opposition to the bills has surfaced. Both S. 1214 and H.R. 2245 would benefit cities for the following key reasons: · The bills contain a requirement for increased consultation with state and local officials and their representative national organizations prior to the promulgation of federal regulations which would interfere with, or intrude upon, historic and traditional state and local rights and responsibilities. The bills also require an analysis of any federal legislation that addresses the federal preemption of state and local laws to be contained in every committee or conference report. · The bills contain a "rule of construction" which provides that if Congress intends to preempt state and local law, it must expressly state its intent to preempt in the federal legislation. Any ambiguities regarding this intent shall be resolved against the federal government and in favor of state and local law. · The bills contain a "fix" to the Unfunded Federal Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) so that the mandates law will cover the nation's largest entitlement programs to ensure 23 that they are subject to the same laws as all other federal programs affecting state and local governments. · The bills contain a provision for judicial review for noncompliance with the provisions of the legislation. NLC Position. NLC supports the passage of these bills. BANKRUPTCY REFORM LEGISLATION The Senate passed its bankruptcy reform legislation (H.R. 833, formerly S. 625) on February 2 by a vote of 83-14. Cities, however face a significant federal preemption of state and local interest rates due to the inclusion of an amendment introduced at the eleventh hour in the debate by Senators William Roth (R-DE) and Patrick Moynihan (D- NY) which made it into the final version of the bill. The Roth-Moynihan Amendment changes the interest rate to be paid on governmental ~ claims in a Chapter 11 plan from the applicable state or local non-bankmptcy rate to a i much lower interest rate consistent with that contained in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The Roth-Moynihan Amendment presents a significant preemption of state and local interest rates for Chapter 11 corporate repayments on such 'things as property taxes that have been established by state statute, local ordinance, or by state court judgment. ~, Imposing the lower IRC interest rate on Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcy filings will gut the funding for much-needed services such as schools, which receive nearly all of their budget allocations from this interest collected from local governments. In addition, applying the non-bankruptcy interest rate to Chapter 11 repayments of property taxes forces local governments to make low-interest loans to debtors unable to obtain financing ..~ in the open market at such a rate, and "rewards" businesses that file for bankruptcy. A lower available interest rate on a tax debt will result in increased bankruptcy filings and gives corporate Chapter 11 debtors substantive legal rights denied to other taxpaying citizens. Such a provision only encourages Chapter 11 debtors to defer paying their taxes over a longer period of time because they get to pay a lower than market interest rate. NLC Position. NLC opposes any bankruptcy bill that has the Roth-Moynihan Amendment or similar language. CENSUS 2000 Census activities are in full swing with preliminary counts having been taken in remote areas of Alaska. The Census Bureau's advertising campaign and road tour have been launched, as has the Bureau's initiative called How America Knows What America Needs which seeks to involve local government officials in promoting community participation in the Census as a "civic duty." Census Director Kenneth Prewitt has also challenged communities to increase their mail response rate by five percentage points over 1990 participation rates. Enumerators are being hired as quickly as possible to help count America for the 2000 Census. ERGONOMICS STANDARDS The President proposed a $55 million increase in the budget for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) which would be used to boost staff. If enacted, OSHA will be responsible for enforcing new regulations the Administration has proposed this year that would establish new ergonomics standards that will place a large unfunded mandate on state and local governments. OSHA published its proposed ergonomics standard in the Federal Register in November and set March 2, 2000, as the due date for comments. 'NLC plans to submit comments which will highlight the negative impacts on municipalities of the proposed rule. The proposed ergonomics regulation would apply to all offices and workplaces when a work related musculo-skeletal disorder is reported. Municipal employers and other workplaces will be covered by this regulation. A disorder of this nature would trigger requirement_~ that employers launch formal ergonomics programs, create alternate jobs for employees, and cover six months of rehabilitation pay. In addition, state and local government employers would have to guarantee the same job and seniority to the injured employee after completion of rehabilitation. NLC Position. In view of safety and risk management programs being carded out by municipal governments, NLC opposes the application of the OSHA ergonomics standards to municipal employers. Ultimately, the proposed rule represents a massive unfunded federal mandate and a preemption of local authority. HUMAN DEVELOPMENT LABOR BUDGET REQUEST Persons with Disabilities President Clinton's proposal of $39.8 billion in budget authority in FY 2001 for the Labor Department contains several new initiatives, including the establishment of a new Assistant Secretary to oversee work programs and incentives for the disabled. If enacted, the training and disability proposals in the President's budget will help cities address employment for low-wage workers and the disabled. This new Office of Disability Policy, Evaluation, and Technical Assistance would be funded at .$43 million in budget authority and would work with employers to encourage job training and employment opportunities. 25 NLC Position. NLC supports helping people with disabilities achieve the maximum degree of self-sufficiency. Youth Opportunities A total of $2.9 billion is requested for the YOuth Opportunity movement for investments in programs that help young people make a successful transition to the world of work and family responsibility - a net increase of $241.7 million above FY 2000. In FY 2001, the Department will administer five programs to address youth problems including: Workforce Investment Act (WlA) Youth Activities, Youth Opportunity Grants, Job Corps, and two new programs under the authority of WlA that address concerns with youth violence: Responsible Reintegration for Youth Offenders and Safe Schools/Healthy Schools. Youth activities under WlA would be funded at a level of $1.022 billion, an increase of $21.5 million above this year's level. This program supports a wide range of activities and services to prepare low-income youth for academic and employment success, including summer jobs. However, under WlA it is not required that cities provide as many jobs as .they have in the past. Teens who have summer jobs must be provided with year-round counseling or other services. This means that fewer federal dollars will be available to fund summer jobs because money will also have to be dedicated to these year-round support services. The loss of thousands of summer jobs will be a tremendous blow to the young people who need them. NLC Position. NLC supports initiatives that provide training .and strengthen workforce development in cities and towns. NLC urges the Administration to add funds to the summer youth portion of WIA so that cities will be able to employ our nation's youth. EDUCATION BUDGET REQUEST There are multiple requests that would help local schools meet their many challenges in ~ the Administration's FY 2001 education budget, which calls for $4.5 billion in new budget authority for the Education Department's discretionary programs, a 12.6 percent increase over current spending. However, the Administration failed to even request I funding for Title VI grants which, among other things, help local governments meet ?' special education needs. Action is expected in Congress on the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 0ESEA) this year, and, according to members I of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, Title VI will be reauthorized. This proposed increase in funding for the Department of Education is the largest ~' percentage and dollar increase since the department was founded in 1979. It includes expanded funding for after-school programs, renovation of crumbling buildings, aid to low performing or "failing" schools, and additional money t° hire 100,000 new teachers. .Despite these record levels, the President's budget provides no funds for Innovative Education Program Strategies State Grants, also known as the Title VI block grants of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 0ESEA). The budget calls for $44.7 billion in overall budget authority for the department in fiscal 2001, compared to $43.1 billion appropriated by Congress in fiscal 2000. The department is requesting $40.1 billion for discretionary programs, compared with $35.6 billion in fiscal 2000. In addition, the budget request recommends: ,t~ · $1 billion for after-school programs, a $547 million increase over FY 2000; · $1.75 billion for the third year of President Clinton's seven-year plan to hire 100,000 teachers, representing a $450 million increase; and · A $690 million program for teacher training and classroom development. The teacher training program would replace the Goals 2000 and Title VI professional development programs. School Construction The budget includes $1.3 billion to repair and renovate schools-including $1.1 billion to subsidize $6.5 billion in no-interest loans and $175 million in direct aid. The Presidents' budget also calls for tax credits to subsidize tens of billions of dollars in low-interest bonds. Hometown Teachers Initiative The budget also includes a $75 million "Hometown Teachers" initiative to help high- poverty areas recruit and retain teachers; $50 million to help districts provide better teacher pay; and $50 million for low-income districts that increase their percentage of certified teachers. It would also provide $50 million for bonus payments to states that show significant gains in academic achievement. Republicans argue that such decisions are best made by states and school districts and shouldn't be mandated at the federal level. Republican lawmakers have promised to outspend Clinton again this year-focusing on school choice, tuition tax breaks, increased special education funding, and giving local communities the flexibility to spend their money on new teachers, school construction, and other local education needs. NL¢ Position. NLC supports initiatives designed to improve education outcomes fOr children and youth while giving state and local elected officials the flexibility they need to address local education needs. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BUDGET REQUEST The Administration's budget proposal and legislation currently under consideration in Congress seek to address Several key issues important to improving the lives of the poor in cities and towns. The proposals expand on initiatives in the areas of health care, child care, education, and welfare. Health Care Currently, there are over 44 million Americans without health insurance, and 100,000 more lose coverage every month. Cities increasingly foot the bill for those lacking adequate coverage by providing emergency services through EMS and public health facilities. The President's budget proposes to ease some of that burden by making a 10- year, $110 billion investment in health care affordability, access, and quality. Budget highlights include: · $100 million increase in the Health Care Access for the Uninsured Program, a grant program for identifying service gaps and meeting the primary care, mental health, and substance abuse treatment needs at the local level; · $200 million for the first year of Family Care, a new program that will provide states, via federal matching funds, the option to cover parents of children eligible for Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP); · $114 million to give states the option to extend coverage under SCHIP until age 21, addressing critical needs of young adults and those who have aged out of the foster care system; · $61 million to give states the option to cover children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants, regardless of when they entered the United States; and · $980 million over five years to allow displaced workers between the ages of 55 and 65, the fastest growing population of uninsured, and their spouses, to buy into the Medicare system. While Congress is considering funding levels for health care, two managed care reform bills (H.R. 2990 and S. 1344) have been sent to a House and Senate Conference Committee to reconcile their differences and to get a final vote in each chamber for passage. Major obstacles, including a private right of action, the scope of the legislation, and access provisions will make consensus very difficult. These issues also have significant implications for the ability of cities to provide insurance to their employees, and a potential increase in demand for public health services, if more employers are forced to drop coverage due to increased rates. If and when a final package emerges from the process, it must withstand presidential scrutiny. The Republican leadership has pledged passage of a Patients' Bill of Rights by late spring or early summer. Some pundits believe that passage of this legislation is critical, as the Republicans struggle to maintain control of the House and Senate. However, given the abbreviated election year calendar and the major differences that must be resolved between the House and Senate versions, passage of a final reform package anytime this year is a tall order. NLC Position. NLC supports adequate funding levels to finance and provide care for the uninsured. The legislative vehicles for achieving the goals of increased access to health care and improved quality of care must ensure adequate consumer protections as well as flexible and affordable options for employers and individuals. Any such legislation must not impose costly or burdensome mandates that preempt state and local authority. Children and Families Quality childcare and early education programs are essential both to parents' stable employment and to children's health and intellectual development. The President's budget focuses on tools critical to the well being of children, families, and communities: · $817 million increase in the Child Care Development Block Grant, in order to increase the availability and affordability of quality child care; · An unprecedented $1 billion increase in Head Start funding which will enroll 70,000 more children in the program and includes funding for Early Head Start programs targeted to children under three years old; and · $3 billion over five years for a new Early Learning Fund which would fund local challenge grants to support programs that improve early learning and improve the safety and quality of childcare for children through age five. NLC Position. NLC supports the federal government increasing its commitment to the nation's children and families, as well as strengthening the entire early childhood care and education system. Welfare The Administration is proposing $255 million in new competitive grants to support working families and help low-income, non-custodial parents meet their obligations. The grants will be awarded to state and local workforce investment boards who partner with community-based and supportive service agencies. A total of $125 million of the grant money will be targeted to low-income, non-custodial parents, usually fathers. As part of the grant program, states will be required to put incentives in place to get non-custodial parents who owe child support to either pay or go to work. The remaining $130 million in proposed grant funding is intended to leverage the supportive programs that help working families with child care, health care, and food stamps. NLC Position. NLC supports programs that move people from welfare to work and provide the supportive services that allow families to keep jobs. Grant programs should 29 be flexible and formula-driven to ensure that funds are directed to recipients with the most need. NLC also supports adequate funding of homeless programs and the consolidation of these programs into a single, formula-based block grant program. NLC hi~ opposes set-asides within these programs and urges the Administration and Congress to give states and localities flexibility to address their particular needs. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND COMMUNICATION TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF t996 As the Telecommunications Act of 1996 reaches its fourth birthday, members of Congress are considering whether the intent of the Act - to deregulate the telecommunications industry as a means to increasing consumer choice and lowering prices - is actually being achieved. Members in the House who are experts in the field of telecommunications, including Reps. Thomas Bliley (R-VA), John Dingell (D-MI) and ~ Billy Tauzin (R-LA), have said they have no plans to offer comprehensive legislation to amend the Act this year. Instead, some specific pieces of legislation may be offered to address particular problems and concerns. Despite the leadership position, there are forces that are determined to reopen the .~ Telecommunications Act of 1996. This will produce challenges to state and local authority. Some in the Congress will press to preempt' the authority of states and local governments to set their own taxes and tax rates on telecommunications, instead of mandating uniform state taxes and rates. NLC opposes any federal action that preempts or restricts zoning and ~' NL¢ Position. other local laws or requirements applied in a non-discriminatory, competitive, and timely manner that regulate or restrict the location, placement, size, or siting of personal wireless service transmission or receiving facilities such as satellite dishes, radio towers, broadcast facilities, microwave facilities, and similar facilities. ~ MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SOURCING ACT Over the past 18 months, NLC has worked with the cellular telecommunications industry to make the application of state and local transactional taxes on wireless communications feasible. Wireless communications are especially vulnerable to overtaxation, undertaxation and, in some cases, no taxation. NLC efforts have resulted in the introduction of identical versions of a sourcing measure. The Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act (S. 1755) was introduced last October by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS). The House version of the measure, The Wireless 30 Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy'Act, (HR 3849), was introduced by Representative Chip Picketing (R-MS) last November. For local governments, the legislation addresses the key issues of nexus, collection and remittance of existing taxes due, and simplification and uniformity. Most important, agreement on this bill represents a true public-private partnership and demonstrates that state and local governments and private industry can work together to produce beneficial results for all parties involved. The measures bolster the ability of state and local governments to collect taxes they choose to impose on wireless providers while simplifying the wireless providers' job of determining which taxes apply to them. The measures are needed to avoid the potential for double or no taxation to provide carders, taxing jurisdictions, and consumers with an environment of certainty and consistency in the application of tax law and do so in a way which does not change the ability of states and localities to tax these services. The bills preserve state and local government revenues and lower the cost of collecting taxes that are owed. The measures' uniform sourcing formula provides for the determination and collection of certain state and local taxes at a single location at the customer's place of primary use, whether it is a home or business address. These measures would also treat the sale of wireless services as a single monthly transaction, provide for consistency and certainty in taxation of wireless services for all parties, and eliminate multiple jurisdictional claims to the same taxable revenue. The most important aspect of these bills is that they leave the determination of whether or not to tax and, if so, the tax rate and base, to state and local taxing authorities - where it belongs in our system of federalism. NLC Position. NLC supports the Mobile Telecommunications Sourcing Act (S. 1755) and the Wireless Telecommunications Sourcing and Privacy Act (H.R. 3849) and federal legislation that preserves local authority and simplifies procedures for the collection of wireless taxes. OPEN ACCESS/FORCED ACCESS By all accounts, the "open access" debate has been one of the most expensive and hotly contested policy disputes since the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The City of Portland, Oregon, led the way in the spring of 1999 when local authorities there voted to require AT&T to open its cable network to Internet competitors. In response, AT&T sued the city but lost in federal court in June. The case is now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The question AT&T has raised is whether local governments have the legal authority to pass mandatory open access ordinances. NLC, in conjunction with other local organizations, has submitted an amicus brief in support of a local government's ability to decide whether to place such a condition on businesses operating within the community. More recently, authorities in Broward County, Florida, St. Louis, Missouri, and Cambridge and Weymouth, Massachusetts, voted to require open access, while Sacramento, California, rejected it. The struggle over open access, however, will likely be resolved at the federal level, through litigation, legislation, or rule making by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Currently, there are numerous proposals in Congress that are either for or against "open access." Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) will introduce a measure that would require cable open access - but in a way that would deprive local governments of cable franchise fees on cable operators' Internet access revenues. Markey's bill would supposedly "clarify" that broadband access over cable systems is a "telecommunications service" under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and not a "cable service." It would give the FCC 180 days to adopt rules treating cable broadband access as "telecommunications services." If this approach becomes law, either through legislation or through arguments in litigation like the Portland appeal, cities could lose millions in future cable franchise fees. For the immediate future, neither Congress nor the FCC is moving quickly. Broadband Technology "Broadband" technology offers a high-speed digital connection to the Internet that is "always on" - a permanent connection from your home or office to the Net that will make gOing online more convenient than ever before. Broadband technology will allow users to download more information, including new multimedia applications, and eventually video programming similar to current television and cable services, up to one hundred times faster than today's dial-up modems. The largest beneficiary of this system has been AT&T, which controls about 60 percent of America's cable lines and has required anyone who wants to use those lines to channel their Internet traffic through Excite@Home. For cities and towns to remain competitive, affordable broadband access will be essential. Currently, fewer than a million subscribers have cable Internet service, and about 650,000 customers have digital subscriber lines. But the broadband market is expected to grow rapidly, reaching more than 11 million households by the end of 2002. Until the America Online/Time Warner merger, AOL had been one of AT&T's chief critics. As an Intemet service provider and not a cable company, AOL had mainly sold its customers access to the Internet over phone lines. And, as more and more consumers began using cable to connect to the Internet--lines to which AOL lacked access--the company faced potential extinction. Not surprisingly, AOL spent much of the past two years demanding that AT&T provide open access to its cable lines to all Intemet service providers. AOL applauded cities like Portland, Oregon, that passed open-access laws and called on the FCC to make open access a national requirement. AT&T denounced AOL for seeking a "free ride," and the FCC refused to act contending that the free market would one day solve the problem. By purchasing Time Warner, AOL acquired the second-largest cable company in America and controls 20 percent of the nation's broadband lines. AOL now has a chance to put its principles into practice: Will it allow other Internet providers access to Time Wamer's cable lines, as AT&T has not, and at what price? AOL executives, who face antitrust hearings in Congress and must win approval from the FCC and the Justice Department for their merger, promise they will. They insist that consumers who live in cities wired only by Time Warner will not face the same problem as those who live in cities wired only by AT&T. NLC Position. NLC supports the rapid universal deployment of broadband information technologies. NLC further believes that, in addressing broadband access issues, the federal government should reserve existing local government authority to regulate cable television or telecommunications entities. NLC urges the federal government to recognize longstanding municipal authority to assure universally available communications and information technology through municipally-initiated development and by working with the private sector in negotiating, franchising, licensing, or any other prudent means. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced a Notice of Inquiry that could have serious implications for cities and towns. The Notice includes new claims that the FCC has jurisdiction over local rights-of-way. The rationale being used by the FCC is that municipalities regulate the entry of cellar phone, companies into the communications business by requiring franchises or permits where cellar phone companies build lines in local rights-of-way to connect to their cellular towers. The Notice cites recent cases overturning certain aspects of municipal control over the rights of ways and overlooks cases upholding municipal rights in this area. The FCC is asking for comments regarding rights- of-way management and compensation as it affects phone companies and on state legislation restricting municipal authority in this area. NLC has submitted comments in response to the notice of inquiry. NLC Position. NLC strongly opposes efforts by the FCC to restrict/preempt local governments on rights-of-way issues. NLC believes that the FCC does not have the authority to propose any rules that would undermine local authority in this arena. . DIGITAL DIVIDE Recent studies show that, although many more Americans now own computers, minorities and low-income households are still far less likely to have personal computers or access to the Internet than white or more affluent households. Even more alarming, recent studies reveal that this "digital divide" between households of different races and income levels is growing. These findings underscore the need for programs? such as the education rate or e-Rate, that reach out to communities that otherwise lack electronic resources. Under the E-Rate, schools and libraries receive discounts of 20 to 90 percent on telecommunications services, internal connections, and Internet access with the deepest discounts going to the poorest urban and rural schools. Last year the FCC raised the ~,.. funding for the education rate or e-rate program by nearly $1 billion. The e-rate program, authorized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, provides a subsidy to schools and libraries to buy telecommunications services and products. The program, which helped fund Internet and telephone services for 80,000 schools and libraries in its first year, will receive a total of $2.25 billion for the year beginning July 1. Congress is expected to ~ debate the e-rate and new ways to bridge the "digital divide" between technology "haves" and "have-nots." NLC Position. NLC supports federal efforts to address the digital divide. I Furthermore, the NLC supports the cun'ent structures for funding the e-rate program. ~ NLC opposes Congressional efforts to restructure the funding mechanisms for the e-rate program. PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIME PREVENTION PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET REQUEST Last month, the Administration released its FY 2001 budget proposal of $23.35 billion to fund public safety programs administered through the Department of Justice. Of this amount, $2.4 billion is requested for funding new prisons. Other major areas of the budget requeStLocal addresSLaw EnforcementgUn violence, communitYBiock laWGrantenforcement, drag control, and cybercrime. For the sixth consecutive year, the Administration has zeroed out the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant. (LLEBG) - the only direct source of federal funding to local govemments for special community crime prevention programs, training, and needed equipment. Since 1994, many cities across the nation have regarded the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant as one of the most effective tools for crime prevention, especially for customized local programs addressing youth crime and violence. Instead of funding the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, the Administration requested $616.4 million for "expanding communitY law enforcement," part of the President's 21st Century. Policing Initiative to extend the COPS program (Community Oriented Policing Services) for five years.and to fund a number of other.activities, including crime prevention programs and programs to help local communities buy the latest anti-crime technology. NLC Position. NLC opposes the elimination of TJ.F~BG and supports direct, flexible federal assistance for all federal public safety programs. NLC urges greater flexibility in the use of these funds for law enforcement purposes in addition to hiring. 34 ,~ Juvenile Justice Accountability Incentive Block Grant If Congress decides to accept the Administration's budget request, the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) would be eliminated. Last year, the program was funded at $250 million. Instead of the juvenile justice block grant, funding would be allocated through community law enforcement programs, gun control initiatives, and substance abuse treatment programs. NLC Position. NLC supports direct, flexible, federal assistance for all public safety purposes and urges the federal government to provide implementation funding for any current or future mandates in juvenile justice programs. Gun Violence, Drug Control, and Counterterrorism The following funding proposals on gun violence, drug control, and counterterrorism are part of the Administration's budget request, which includes targeted funding for cyber-crime and technology for local law enforcement. They include: · $150 million to hire or redeploy up to 1,000 community prosecutors in regions designated by the Justice Department as "High Gun Violence Areas;" · $11.36 million to help state and local law enforcement ballistics systems integrate into the National Integrated Ballistics Identification Network (NIBIN) and to eliminate the backlog in imaging ballistics data; · $40 million to target initiatives that reduce juvenile gun violence, get guns off the streets, and develop "smart gun" technology; · $230.68 million for the Public Safety and Community Policing Grants program, primarily for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) including continuation of the COPS program with a goal of hiring up to 150,000 police officers by the end of 2005; $70 million for a new community crime prevention and school safety programs; · $25 million for the bullet-proof vest program; · $30 million to enhance police recruitment, promote police integrity training, and create citizen problem solving academies; · $220 million to address communications interoperability problems among computers and communications systems within the law enforcement community including criminal records systems, forensic labs, crime mapping tools,' and funding for the National Law Enforcement Technology Centers; 35 · $75 million for "zero-tolerance" drug supervision programs to provide discretionary grants to states, units of local government, Indian tribes, and state and local courts to plan and implement drug testing and treatment programs, as well as graduated sanctions for the criminal justice system; · $65 million for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program to help states and local governments implement the program within correctional and detention facilities; · $60 million for an Offender Reentry Program to foster partnerships between law enforcement and community leaders for surveillance, sanctions, and support services to communities that experience high inmate returns including allocations for a special juvenile transition support program; ! · $3.5 million for domestic preparedness activities to help prepare for terrorist incidents employing weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and allocations for the National Domestic Preparedness Office's (NDPO) outreach efforts to state and local governments; · $2.9 million to support state and local bomb technician training at the Justice '~ Department's Hazardous Devices School; and · $3 million to expand the First Responder Equipment Acquisition Program to fund local equipment.P°lice' fire, and EMS equipment needs such as HAZMAT suits and decontamination NLC Position. N-LC suPports these targeted initiatives, l TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION Since October 1, 1999, all Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) grant funding has been at a standstill. The House passed its version of FAA reauthorization, the Airport Investment Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), last June. The Senate version was passed in early October, but House-Senate negotiators were unable to come to agreement on the legislation. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA) did not support the passage of another extension of FAA funding, so the program lapsed at the end of the 1999 fiscal year. At issue is the creation of a guaranteed funding mechanism for aviation programs. The House has proposed NLC-supported language which would create a budget "firewall" for aviation programs, similar to 1998's TEA 21 law. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R- 36 ~. AK) have rejected attempts to create a "firewall" for aviation funding because the proposal would guarantee funding from the General Fund as well as the Aviation Trust Fund. An additional difficulty for conferees is the allocation of take-off and landing slots at the nation's largest and busiest airports, including LaGuardia, Reagan National, and O'Hare. TRANSPORTATION BUDGET REQUEST The President's budget for transportation is a record $54.9 billion this year, a nine percent increase over the current budget of $50.2 billion. The proposal provides very positive increases in programs vital to our cities. Due to the nation's good economic condition, more people have been on the mad, which has again produced higher than projected gas tax intake to the federal treasury. This year, the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is expected to take in $3.06 billion more than was anticipated when the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21), the law that governs the nation's surface transportation program, was passed in 1998. Last year, gas tax receipts were $1.45 billion over TEA 21 levels. NLC-supported language in TEA 21 requires that the Administration and Congress automatically spend any additional Highway Trust Fund dollars on highway programs, specifically through the formula programs that send monies directly to states and localities. The budget proposal is controversial because it redirects some of the $3 billion HTF surplus to targeted Administration priorities including Amtrak. The Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) funds, which are required by the TEA 21 firewalls to be spent directly on the core highway program, would be redirected to give additional funding to (1) Indian reservation roads, (2) a new program to fund transportation improvements in the Mississippi Delta region, (3) highway safety activities, (4) the access to jobs transit program, and (5) new high-speed rail development for Amtrak. Rail/Amtrak Amtrak would receive $521 million for regular operations, a level consistent with this year's budget and with the Amtrak financing plan, and $468 million for new high-speed rail development. Amtrak's new Acela high-speed rail began service in portions of the Northeast corridor in january. The additional Amtrak funds will be particularly difficult to get through Congress because the money comes from the Highway Trust Fund. Congress is currently debating whether states should have the right to use highway funds for Amtrak. The Federal Railroad Administration, which includes funding for rail safety, is up to $1.2 billion from $740 million last year. Highways Additional funding related to environmental and safety issues includes: · $2.6 billion for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program; · $52 million for the Transportation Community Preservation Program which awards grants to cities to implement smart growth strategies; · $266 million - up from $122 million - for the National Borders and Corridor Program which, helps improve trade corridors throughout the country and increase safety at-U.S, borders; and · An increase from $181 million to $279 million for the newly-created Motor Carrier Administration, a level supported by the legislation authorizing creation of the new administration. Transit The Federal Transit Administration request is $6.3 billion - up from last year's $5~8 billion. This level is consistent with TEA 21 authorizations. Aviation Aviation programs may also see an increase over last year, even as Congress is still fighting over FAA reauthorization (AIR 21). The total FAA budget request is $11.2 billion with $1.9 billion for the Airport Improvement Program (ALP), which provides grant money directly to state and local airport authorities for infrastructure improvements. The Alp program was funded at the same level last year. Some controversy may erupt, however, as the Administration is counting on the implementation of new aviation user fees to fully fund the $11.2 billion level. The Administration will forward a separate proposal to the Congress soon to impose the new fees. This idea has already sparked a quick response from House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bud Shuster (R-PA) who said he opposes any new aviation user fees. The Administration is also requesting that the entire aviation budget be paid for out of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund. Historically, the FAA budget has received support from the general fund of the Treasury, while funding the ALP program exclusively from the Trust Fund. This proposal to cut off general fund contributions is one of the sticking points in the ongoing House-Senate negotiations on AIR 21. NLC Position. NLC supports (1) investing in transportation infrastructure to ensure world class transportation systems, (2) immediate FAA reauthorization, and (3) the use of "firewalls" to ensure that air passenger taxes and fees are dedicated solely to airport improvements and aviation safety. LEGAL REPORT - The following are brief summaries of cases in which NLC participated by filing an amicus or friend-of-the court brief on behalf of states which were parties to the cases, and a case in which NLC did not file a brief, but in which the outcome of the case will have an impact on cities and towns. U.S. SUPREME COURT - DECIDED CASES Age Discrimination Kimel v. Fiotfda The United States Supreme Court held that Congress could not force states into federal court under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) because to do so exceeded its authority under § 5 of the 14th Amendment. Kimel is an important case for cities as employers because it holds that there is no need for Congress to apply broad, one-size-fits-all federal legislation to states and localities in this area and limits Congress' power to subject states and cities to expensive federal litigation against their express consent. On a broader scale, Kimel is an important case for the preservation of states' rights and federalism because it requires state and municipal employees to seek redress against their state and municipal employers for alleged age discrimination claims in state courts, rather than in federal court under the ADEA. NLC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Kimel case in support of the states of Alabama and Florida. When it was enacted, the ADEA only applied to employers in the private sector. In 1974, Congress extended ADEA to the states and their political subdivisions. The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's age." The Kimel case is actually three separate cases with similar facts which were consolidated into one. The plaintiffs brought their lawsuits against the states of Florida and Alabama in federal court under the ADEA alleging age discrimination in such areas as receive promotions, employee evaluation systems, and pay-scale adjustments which had a disparate impact on older employees. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Under the 11t~ Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a private individual cannot bring a federal lawsuit against a state in federal court unless the state consents. In other words, unless expressly waived, states have sovereign immunity against federal lawsuits brought by private individuals. This general concept was reaffirmed in the Supreme Court's recent trio of federalism cases - Alden v. Maine, Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board. In order to determine whether the 39 Legal Report Agenda Communication Page Two states' sovereign immunity had been preserved_ under, the facts in the Kirnel case, the Supreme Court had to answer two questions: · Whether Congress UnequivOcally expressed its intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states when it enacted the ADEA; and · If it did, whether Congress acted pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. The Supreme Court answered the first question affirmatively holding that the ADEA did contain express language evidencing Congress' intent to subject states to lawsuits in federal court and therefore abrogate their sovereign immunity. The Court answered the second question with a resounding "no," and held that Congress lacked the authority to override the sovereign immunity of the states under both its Article I Commerce Clause powers and under § 5 to the 14th Amendment. The Court based its holding that Congress lacked authority to enforce the ADEA against the states and cities under § 5 of the 14th Amendment on two factors. First, the Court held that no evidence existed in the legislative record of the ADEA that showed a pervasive pattern of age discrimination by states and localities. The Court Stated that "Congress had virtually no reason to believe that state and local governments were unconstitutionally discriminating against their employees on the basis of age." The Court summarily disposed of the argument that such evidence existed in the private sector as "beside the point." Second, the Court ruled that the "remedy" of applying the ADEA to the states was "so out of proportion to a supposed remedial or preventive objective that it cannot be understood as responsive to or designed to prevent unconstitutional behavior." The Court concluded its opinion with a reassurance to the plaintiffs that "state employees are Protected by state age discrimination statutes and may recover money damages frOm their state employer in almost every state in the union. Those avenues of relief remain available today, just as they were before this decision." Federalism Reno v. Condon The case of Reno v. Condon gave the Supreme Court its second chance to uphold our 'tradition of federalism. This case strikes at the heart of the states' political autonomy and ability to have a choice whether to adopt a federal regulatory program. In Reno, NLC filed an amicus brief in support of the state of South Carolina. The Reno case involves a constitutional challenge brought by the state of South Carolina to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA) which restricts disclosure of personal information from state motor vehicle records. An individual who seeks a Legal Report Agenda Communication Page Three driver's license from his/her state's department of motor vehicles (DMV) is generally required to give the state agency a range of information including the driver's name, address, telephone number, and, in some cases, medical information that may bear on the driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle. In some states, the DMV also requires a driver to provide a social security number and to have a photograph taken. State DMVs, in turn, routinely sell this personal information to individuals and businesses. Although DMVs generally charge only a small fee for each particular sale of information, aggregat~e revenues are substantial. The personal information sold by DMVs is also used extensively to support the marketing efforts of corporations and database compilers. This information is then combined with information from other sources and used to create lists for selective marketing use by businesses, charities, and political candidates. Based on evidence about threats to individuals' privacy and safety from misuse of personal information in state motor vehicle records, Congress enacted the DPPA to restrict the disclosure of personal information in such records without the consent of the individual to whom the information pertains. The DPPA prohibits any state DMV, or officer or employee thereof, from nonconsensual disclosures of the information, including photographs, social security numbers, names and addresses etc., but not information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver's status. The DPPA does not prevent states from disclosing personal information for other uses in which Congress found an important public interest such as car safety or theft. South Carolina law, however, permits the state DMV to disclose personal information for uses broader than those permitted under the DPPA. South Carolina brought this action in federal district court alleging that the DPPA exceeds Congress' constitutional powers and seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the DPPA. Both the district court and, subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals found in favor of South Carolina and held that the DPPA was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals explained that the DPPA was unconstitutional because it was not a law of general applicability, that is to say, it does not apply to private entities as well as state agencies, but rather only to the latter. NLC argued in its brief that the DPPA violates the l0th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the states. Under principles of federalism embodied in the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot "commandeer" or compel state governments or officials to effectuate the federal government's policies. While the federal government may encourage states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, it may not compel them to do so under prior case law (New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). 41 Legal Report Agenda Communication Page Four NLC further argued that in the end a rule that permits federal governments to intrude excessively into the area of state autonomy would-do considerable damage to our dual system of governance. NLC argued that the DPPA is unconstitutional for three reasons: 1. The DPPA imposes mandatory Obligations and prohibitions on the states.' By prohibiting states from having a "policy" or "practice" that does not comply with the federal regulatory system, the DPPA effectively requires state legislatures to enact or amend state laws that adopt the federal program established by the statute. States are given no opportunity to opt out of the federal program. They must either adopt it, or face a fine of $5,000 per day for noncompliance. 2. The DPPA imposes direct affirmative obligations on the states because it provides that certain categories of information "shall be disclosed" by DMVs. The use of mandatory language leaves no room for a state to choose. 3. The DPPA effectively incorporates the states into a federal regulatory regime. This violates the l0th Amendment's prohibition against fOrced participation of the states in the actual administration of a federal program. In an unexpected departure from the Court's recent string of rejections of federal laws that touch on state activities, the Court unanimously rejected all of NLC's arguments. The Court, in finding for the federal government, held that the DPPA was a proper exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause because "drivers' personal, identifying · information is, in this context, an article of commerce, its sale or release into the interstate stream of business is sufficient to support congressional regulation." The Court also held that the DPPA is constitutional and consistent with prior case law because the DPPA, unlike the statutes at issue in those cases, does not require states in their sovereign capacity to regulate their own citizens; rather, it regulates the states as the owners of databases. The Supreme Court will decide three more federalism cases this term. COURTS OF APPEALS - DECIDED CASE First Amendment Rights Smith ~. City of Fort Lauderdale The City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, successfully argued that its regulation prohibiting all forms of soliciting, begging, and panhandling on the Fort Lauderdale Beach did not violate the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of homeless people. The City of Fort Lauderdale won the appeal against the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Legal Report Agenda Communication Page Five the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari, thereby refusing to hear the case on November 1, 1999. This case is important for cities because the Court has upheld a local role banning begging in a non-hostile, non- aggressive manner in a public place. Fort Lauderdale's regulation states that its intent is "to provide citizens with a safe environment in which recreational opportunity can be maximized." It further prohibits soliciting, begging, or panhandling on the Fort Lauderdale beach area "to eliminate nuisance activity on the beach and provide patrons with a pleasant environment in which to recreate." The city and the ACLU agreed that tourism played an important economic role in the State of Florida and in the City of Fort Lauderdale, that "Fort Lauderdale is the premiere tourist location of Broward County," and that the "beach area is Fort Lauderdale's number one tourist attraction." The Court, in reaching its decision to uphold the city's rule, acknowledged that begging is a form of speech for purposes of the First Amendment and that Fort Lauderdale's rule sought to restrict speech in a public forum (the beach and adjacent areas). Under First Amendment case law, the city can restrict speech in a public forum provided that the regulation does not restrict the content of the speech, but rather only the time, place, or manner of expression. Such a time, place, and manner restriction can only survive a First Amendment challenge if it is content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leaves open ample alternative methods of communication. In applying this legal test to Fort Lauderdale's rule, the Court held that the rule was content neutral because it was not aimed at the content of the action of soliciting, begging, or panhandling, but rather at the secondary effects of such conduct on tourism and the surrounding community. The Court also held that the city's rule was narrowly tailored to serve the city's interest in providing a safe pleasant environment and eliminating nuisance activity on the beach. In so determining, the Court stated that "the city has made the discretionary determination that begging in this designated, limited beach area adversely impacts tourism. Without second-guessing that judgment, we cannot conclude that banning begging in this limited beach area burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interest." The Court also found that begging, soliciting, and panhandling were permitted elsewhere in the city, therefore, ample alternative methods of communication existed. 43 POLICY REPORT Speak/nE with One Vo/ce: NLC PolJcj~ and NLC Leaders OVERVIEW More city leaders participate directly at NLC through the policy process than any other way, working to set priorities and achieve consensus on national issues. The integrity of that process is the stren~-n~h of the organization in addressing national issues before the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. This participation and strategic focus is an essential element of NLC's ability to make a difference. Annually, that involvement begins at the Congressional City Conference where the newly- appointed policy and steering committees meet for the first time. During the policy committee meetings on Saturday, March 11, members will debate and discuss issues of common concern and set priorities for policy development over the course of the year. On Sunday, March 12, the steering committees will hold organizational meetings to begin to get acquainted and to determine their meeting logistics for the year. The membership .on the seven policy committees is drawn, from the 49 state municipal leagues. Each committee averages approximately 150-200 members. Through the policy committees, each state has an opportunity to participate in the policy development process. Each state league has a set number of slots on the seven policy committees based on the size of that state's municipal population ranging from three to seven slots for each committee. State leagues may choose elected or appointed city officials to fill their allocation on a policy committee. The steering committees 'are 35-member working groups of the Policy Committees that are charged with carrying out the policy agenda set by the policy committee and determining what, if any,. changes or new policy they want to recommend to the National Municipal Policy. Steering committee members must be elected officials from member cities. APPOINTMENTS NLC President Bob Knight and the NLC Officers selected the policy chairs and vice chairs at the Officers' meeting in mid-January. On JanuarY 28-29, the 2000 policy leadership team convened in Washington, D.C. with a kick-off media event on Friday with trade publication journalists. The media event focused exclusively on NLC's key policy issues discussed by its policy leadership team. This is the second year for the event. Unfortunately, it was not attended as well as in 1999, due to bad weather and competing media priorities. However, this event will be scheduled annually. The remainder of the weekend sessions were led by President Bob Knight, First Vice President Dennis Archer, and Second Vice President Karen Anderson. All seven policy committee chairs, and four of the Board Representatives to the policy committees, participated. The seven steering committees will meet twice between' the Congressional City Conference and the Congress of Cities in December. They will explore the policy agendas identified by the policy committees and will return with recommendations for the policy committees to consider in December. President Knight has already invited the chairs to meet with the Board in Wichita, Kansas, in July to update the Board on key policy issues. COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP AND SUBJECT AREAS Community and Economic Development (CED) Chair: Larry Haler, Council Member, Richland, WA Vice Chairs: Ruth Hopkins, Council Member, Prairie Village, KS Willa Johnson, Council Member, Oklahoma City, OK Board Representative: Bev Perry, Mayor, Brea, CA Advisory Council Rep.: Han'y L. Smith, Mayor, Greenwood, MS Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources (EENR) Chair: Rudolph C. McCollum, Jr., Vice Mayor, Richmond, VA Vice Chairs: George Rogers, Council Member, Wichita, KS T. J. Patterson, Council Member, Lubbock, TX Board Representative: Bruce H. Tobey, Mayor, Gloucester, MA Advisory Council Rep.: Jack Lynch, Chief Executive, Butte, MT 45 Finance, Administration, and Intergovernmental Relations (FAIR) ~ Chair: Irene B. French, Mayor, Merriam, Kansas '~- Vice Chairs: Alexander G. Fekete, Mayor, Pembroke Pines, FL Margaret K. Peterson, Council Member, West Valley City, UT Board Representative:-. Joseph E. Brooks, Council Member, Richmond, VA Advisory Council Rep.: Walter F. Kelly, Council President, Fishers, IN Human Development (HD) Chair: Samuel J. Ferreri, Mayor, Greenacres, FL Vice Chair~. Gilbert Garcia, Council Member, Santa Barbara, CA Joan Campbell, Council Member, Minneapolis, MN Board Representative: Jerrilyn S. Wall, Council Member, Evanston, WY Advisory CotmcilRep.: Marian B. Tasco, Council Member, Philadelphia, PA Public Safety and Crime Prevention (PSCP) Chairs: Olden Henson, Council Member, Hayward, CA Vice Chairs: Ann Simank, Council Member, Oklahoma City, OK H. William Greenup, Mayor, Fredericksburg, VA Board Representative: Evelyn Wright Turner, Councilor, Columbus, GA Advisory Council Rep.: Rillastine R. Wilkins, Mayor, Muskegon Heights, MI 46 ~ Transportation Infrastructure and Services (TIS) Chair: Kath]ecn Gay)ord, Mayor, South Saint ?aul, MN ?at M. Moss, ^]de,woman, ~c~ory, NC BOard Representative: Robert T. Bartlett, Mayor, Monrovia, CA Advisory Council Rep.: June M. Eisland, Council Member, New York, NY Information Technology and Communications (ITC) Chair: Kathleen Gilliland, Mayor, Loveland, CO Vice Chairs: Joseph Hilson, Council Member, Hayward, CA Nancy Nathanson, Councilor, Eugene, OR Board Representative: Jim. Naugle, Mayor, Fort Lauderdale, FL Advisory CouncilRep.: Mary C. Poss, Mayor Pro Tem, Dallas, TX February 1, 2000 National League of Cities Center for Policy & Federal Relations Lobbying and Policy Staff Responsibilities Community, Economic, Housing and Urban Development, Budget & Taxes, Banking Legislative Staff: Cameron Whitman - Center Director, CPFR Phone: (202) 626-3020; E.mail: Whitman@NLC.org HOUSING, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Fair Housing (Parnas) Economic Development (HUD, SBA, EDA, etc.) Affordable Housing, Section 8, Public Housing, ETHTC, Preservation, CDBG & Home, McKinney Homeless Programs (Pike) Enterprise Zones/Empowerment Committees BUDGET k~qD TtOmS (Rigsby) BANK~G (CRA) FAST TRAC TRADE AUTHORITY FEMA- (White) Natural disasters Public and private property insurance Stafford Act Terrorism (Pamas & Rigsby) INTERNET (Rigsby & Otero) Legal Affairs Legislative Staff: Juan Otero - Senior Legislative Counsel, Esq. Phone: (202) 626-3020; E-mail: Otero@NLC.org LEGAL COUNSEL- Litigation on municipal issues (Pamas) TELCOM (Broadband/high speed Internet access Digital Divide/Universal Intemet services/E Rate (Guastella) Cable franchise Wireless taxation (Rigsby) Cellular Towers Placement/Zoning (Pamas) E 911(Rigsby) Implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Internet Privacy BELLAS HESS INTERNET (Rigsby & Whitman) February 1, 2000 JusrIc£ & PVB£IC SAr£r¥ Legislative Staff: Deborah ~gsby - Senior Legislative Counsel Phone: (202) $26-3020; E-mail: ~gsby~C.org ~~ AC~ON ~Hc S~ Juvenile Accountability Block ~t ~temet Chine ~c~ Law Enforcement Block Gr~t Cops Gun Safety (Conceal & C~) Public Safety Technology ~-911 & Spec~m) Civil Forfeiture Police Bmt~ity Fire Safety Fun~ng Hate Chme Subst~ce Abuse T~, Budget, Finance and Pensions Le~slative S~ff: DebOrah ~gsby - Senior Le~slative Counsel Phone: (202) 626-3020;'E-mail: ~gsby~C.org ~sIo~ Iss~s B~GET & T~S (Whitm~) M~c~ ~~s Bonds, etc. ~T (Otero & Whitm~) M~IC~ ~ike) Soc~ SEc~ (Pike) Environment Legislative Staff: Carol Kocheisen - Senior Legislative Counsel Phone: (202) 626-3020; E-mail: Kocheisen@NLC.~org WASTEWATER Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund Stormwater (MS4s) (CWSRF) Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) Associated litigation Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) Federal advisory committees Watershed management DRINK~6 WATER Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) Public drinking water supplies NPDES permits Disinfection by-products (DBPs or M/DBPs) 'Wastewater treatment Radon in drinking water Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) Consumer confidence reports (CCR) Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund February 1, 2000 (DWSRF) Mobile sources (cars, truck, buses, off-road Information Collection Rule (ICR) vehicles) Groundwater/aquifers Hazardous air pollutants Source water assessments GLOBAL WARMING Federal advisory committees SUPERFUND SOLE) WASTE Municipal liability Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) Cleanup standards Municipal incinerators Natural resources damages (NRD) Interstate Transport of Municipal Solid Waste (also Funding known as "flow control") BROWNFIELDS ENDANGERED SPECIES CORPS OF ENGINEERS AIR Wetlands National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS: 404 permits (dredge and fill) Ozone [smog], particulate matter [soot], lead [Pb], LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS (LUST) carbon monoxide [CO], sulfur dioxide [SOx], nitrogen oxide [NOx]) Federalism/Preemption/Mandates Legislative Staff: Susan Parnas - Senior Legislative Counsel, Esq. Phone: (202) 626-3020; E-mail: Parnas@NLC,org LEGAL COUNSEL -- STATE AND LOCAL LEGAL RELIGIOUS LmERTY PROTECTION ACT CENTER TAKINGS Federal litigation on municipal issues FEDERALISM REGULATORY REFORM DAVIS BACON (Guastella) PKEEmON American With Disabilities Act (ADA) UNFUNDED MANDATES FAro HOUSING (Whitman) TRmAL ISSUES BANKRUFrCY CENSUS DOMESTIC TERRORISM (Rigsby) Transportation~ Electric Deregulation, FEMA Legislative Staff: Melissa White - Legislative Counsel Phone: (202) 626-3020; E-mail: White@NLC.0rg p. TRANSPORTATION Seaports (Harbor Maintenance Tax) Highways/TEA 21 implementation ETF. CTRIC DEREGULATION (Pike) Aviation/AIR 21/FAA FEMA (Whitman) Rail/Amtrak Natural Disasters Transit Stafford Act Reform ,(~ Pipeline Safety Federal Disaster Insurance Hazardous materials transportation National Flood Insurance Program February 1, 2000 Labor and Education Legislative Staff: Samantha Guastella - Legislative Counsel Phone: (202) 626-3020; E-mail: Guastella@NLC. org LABOR Davis Bacon (Pike) OSHA Workforce Development (WlA Implementation) Fair Labor Standards IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) Welfare to Work Collective Bargaining TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) (Pike) NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) Summer Jobs & Youth Opportunity EDUCATION School construction Glass size reduction Elementary and Secondary Education Bilingual Education INSUe. nNCE ~SSU-~S Risk Pools Election 2000 HEA£rH & HUMAN SERVICES Legislative Staff: Jennifer Pike - Senior Legislative Counsel Phone: (202) 626-3020; E-mail: Pike @NLC.org W~T.FARE REFORM Childrens' Issues (poverty reduction, infants & children, Head Start) Food Stamps/Nutrition Safety Net Mental Health Reform Medical Errors Mental Health Courts Homelessness/McKinney Homeless Programs/Funding Prevention Programs for Juveniles Social Services Block Grant Low Income Heating Assistance Program IMMIG~TION Funding Social services for immigrants SOCIAL SECURITY MEDICARE (Rigsby & Parnas) MEDICAID ELECTRICITY DEREGULATION (White) February 1, 2000 DESCRIPTION OF POLICY COMMITTEES AND STAFF Debra Johnson, Manager, Policy Analysis & Development Phone:' (202)626-3020; E-Mail: djohnson@nlc.org Public Safety and Crime Prevention (PSCP) Committee is responsible for policy in the areas of crime prevention, corrections, substance abuse, municipal fire policy, juvenile justice, and disaster relief and preparedness. Douglas Peterson, Senior Policy Analyst Phone: (202)626-3020; E-Mail: peterson@nlc.org Finance, Administration and Intergovernmental Relations (FAIR) Committee deals with national economic policy, general financial assistance programs, liability insurance, intergovernmental relations, municipal bonds and capital finance, municipal management, antitrust issues, citizen participation and civil rights, and labor relations. Information Technology and Communications (ITC) Committee has jurisdiction over issues surrounding telecommunications and information systems, electronic commerce and taxation, geographic information systems, and other technology services provided by local governments. Scott Morris, Senior Policy Analyst Phone: (202) 626-3020; E-Mail: morris@nlc.org Community and Economic Development {CED) Committee is responsible for national urban policy in local economic development, community development and community development block grants, housing and neighborhood development, land use, recreation and parks, and historic preservation. Human Development {HI)) Committee analyzes and develops policy on such issues as employment and job training, social security and unemployment insurance, income support programs, immigration and refugees, health and education, equal opportunity, and social services. Denise Garcia, Policy Analyst Phone: (202) 626-3020; E-Mail: garcia@nlc.org Energy~ Environment and Natural Resources 0gENR) Committee is responsible for policy on energy, air quality, water, waste management, infrastructure, urban esthetics, and noise control. Transportation Infrastructure and Services (TIS) Committee is responsible for policy on public transit, streets and highways, air transportation, and railroads and waterways. Center for Policy and Federal Relations (202) 626-3020 (FAX) 626-3043 J:CPFR Resp. Vision 2020 Vision 2020 f999 Population Indicators Projected Metro Population 2oo / ' t00-/ ]001 / 50- / /-- , / (]/ City of Bakersfield Metro Area Kern County lggO t996 2000 Source: Updated 1990 Census Population'?hown in 1,000s Source: City of Bakersfield Population shown in 1,000s Vision 2020 Vision 2020 Population Trend by EthnJcJty Se.ous Crimes per fO0,O00 people 70- 120' 50-60-40- 30 ~= [] % in 1990 60- 20- [] % in 1998 10- 40 0 ~ ., City of Bakersfield i~ = '' ~ .= o ........... Z; I~ I~ 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Source: Updated 1990 Census Percentage of total population Source: Bakersfield Police Department (City data only) 2 Vision 2020 Vision 2020 Serious Crime Benchmarks Gang-Re/areal Homicides t400 ~- ~ 30 t 200 --/ -- ~ -- 25 ~ 000 ~ 800 ~ 400 __ ~ 15 ~ o · o · ~ ~ ~o a m 1997 1998 19~ 20~ Source: ~B~ (Ci~ data only) Number of Crimes RepoSed Source: B~e~field Police Depa,ment (Ci~ data only) Vision 2020 Vision 2020 % of f2th Graders Taking SA T Math SA T Test Scores ~0 5'10 ' 5O5 50O 495 490 Lr~ California 485 480 ~ 475r'''0''~1'''''''''''. ' ' ' ' ' California Sacramento Bakersfield ~- ~- ~. ~- v. v. Source: California Dept. of Education Source: Kern High School District 4 Vision 2020 Vision 2020 Verbal SA T Test Scores KHSD 4-Year Dropout Rate 520 30 25 ' ,,,ollll Ilil Ilil tlilllil I~lli I Ilil Iii Illil Iii Ilk ti--1 "'liforni~'J "°IllIIMIIHIIHIIHI IHIIHI IHltHtIHIIIltll Source: Kern High School District Source: KHSD Rates shown in percentages 5 Vision 2020 Vision 2020 f999 % Unemployed Benchmarks Cost of Living Benchmarks 3O ~~,~~ ....... 130 25 125 120 -- -- -- 20 115 ~ -- -- -- 15 110 10 105 ~..~L -- 5 100 -- -- -- 0 95 .... ~ -~ -~ ~ . So~ce: C~i~mia Employment ~velopm~t Dept. ~ce: Kern ~n~c Journal, ~t~ f~ ~onomic ~u~fion ~ CS~ 2020 Vision 2020 Vision Metro Bakersfield Urban Growth Housing Affordability Index (~ of h~u~e~old~ ~o ~an ~ ~IaN~cH ~e In ~lr c~nty) 1200 70 I 1000800200_ ~ ~ ~------ 40 5060 ~__ Ii ~ 1~-----~ [3Kern 600: ~ - ]~Farm Acres Lost[ 30 B California 4~~ ~ 20 _ ~0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Source: Kern Coun~ Planing Depa~ment Source: California Association of Realtors 7 Vision 2020 Vision 2020 Number of Bad Air Days Sources of Air Pollution Days with EPA Pollutant Standard Index 90. ~ 30 ~=- 80 25 ~- 70' ~ 20 -- 60. -- 15 -- 50- -- -- ~- -- -- 10 ~ .... 40- -- -- -- 5~ ~ -- -- -- 30- -- ~ -- -- ~ 0 .... ~ -~ -~ 10. - .... ~ . ~ 0 ~ ~ ~< 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 ~ Source: California Air Resources Board Source: Califo~ia Air Resources Board 8 Vision 2020 Vision 2020 Public Transportation Benchmark Meadows Field Passengers 250- 300000[[ ~l~ ~ ¢~ 100' ~ ID No. Buses in Service 150000 i ~' /[~ Service Area in Miles $0 ~ Operating Hours (000) 100000 Source: Golden Empire Transit District Source: KC Airports Department Shown in 1,000s , , , - - Shows current t~minsl d~ign ~apadty 9 Vision 2020 Scheduled A/ri/ne Use Benchmark Enplanements per 100,000 population. Indicates "leakage to Los Angeles 0.? 0.4 [[3 Pot '100,000 o.3 -- ~- L Population 0.1 0 BFL FNO 8LO 8BAR Source: Kern County Department of Airpo~s 10 BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM March 21, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director~w ~ SUBJECT: Update of March 16, 2000 Southeast Bakers~AC meeting The Southeast Bakersfield Project Area Committee (PAC) met on March 16. The Old Town Kem- Pioneer PAC was scheduled to meet on March 20, the first time since April 27, 1999. However, that PAC had no quorum. The Southeast PAC agenda covered the following items: Workshop: · Presentation by Jeff Johnson, Director of Small Business Development Center · Presentation by Graham Kaye-Eddie on the need for a Master Plan. Reports: · Business Subcommittee · Community Organization Subcommittee · Community Relations Subcommittee .Staff New Business: opAC member absences ans new election procedures · Statement of Economic Interest for 1999-200 (Form 700) Chairman Isaiah Crompton called the meeting to order at 6:36PM. Six members were present. Four members, plus one alternate, were absent. Vice Chairman Ricky Peterson gave the invocation. There were no public statements. Mr. Crompton passed on Kimika Porter's objections to the building of a drainage sump on Madison Street. Staff indicated, as outlined in information in their agenda packet, the sump is necessary due to the new curb and gutter being installed throughout the neighborhood. Mr. Peterson said if the PAC wanted to object, they needed to do it last night at the Council meeting wh ,,'~,.,.,,.~V~_v.~i~en purchase of the land. S:\REDVAREA\PAC meetings March 2000 memo.wpd C1TY MANAGEWS OFF~CE Alan Tandy March 21, 2000 Page 2 Marvin Dean requested that Public Works attend the next meeting to discuss sumps. Workshops: · Ted Thiesen from the Small Business Development Center made a presentation regarding services provided by the SBDC. Mr. Dean made a motion, seconded by Charles Owens, that a representative from SBDC attend each PAC meeting to work with Mount Elgon and other organizations to assist in the development of an incubator. The representative would be assigned to a committee as determined by the PAC. The motion failed. · Graham Kaye-Eddie made a presentation regarding a master plan. He suggested that the PAC change its name to "Projects Action Committee," with an emphasis on the plural. He said the committee should have more than one project to work on. David Lyman stated that the term "project" is defined by state redevelopment law as the area targeted for redevelopment. In this context, the term "project" does not refer to proposed developments like shopping centers or housing. The title of the PAC, "Project Area Committee," is defined by state law and "project" refers to the project area. Mr. Kaye-Eddie stated that the city has committed to spending over 180 million dollars in the southeast project area and the PAC should have some say in how this money would be spent. Mr. Lyman responded that Mr. Kaye-Eddie was incorrect. The dollar figure cited was the estimated cost to eliminate blight in the area, and this did not represent a commitment by the city to spend this amount of funds. Mr. Kay-Eddie suggested that staff create five separate maps to present to the PAC. Each map would have a variety of information that is color coded such business sale data, police calls, income levels, infrastructure needs, traffic volumes, vacant lots, commercial space, etc. He estimated that each map would cost $2,500. Attached is the handout Mr. Kaye-Eddie passed out, summarizing his master plan. Reports: Business Subcommittee: Mr. Dean discussed recent meetings regarding Fannie Mae as well as meetings with the Downtown Business Association. He said there is lots of support from the community. He has five banks that have made commitments to the area. Stephanie Campbell invited Jim Johnson who wants to purchase Lakeview Barber Shop. She is looking for ways the PAC can assist him. She asked that this item be placed on the next agenda. Mr. Lyman said that staff is available to talk with Mr. Johnson about what resources are available so he does not have to wait until the next meeting. Art Powell said he is concerned about Mr. Dean and Ms. Campbell giving separate reports. There appears to be two separate committees. He suggested that Mr. Dean and Ms. Campbell need to get their information to staff in time to include it in the agenda packets. The Business Subcommittee needs to at least talk together. S:\REDVAREA~t~AC meetings Mamh 2000 memo.wpd Alan Tandy March 21, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Peterson asked that the next agenda include an item to have two separate business subcommittees since they can't work together on the same committee. Ms. Campbell asked that the next agenda include an item to inform the PAC about who is on each subcommittee. Community Organizations Subcommittee: Mr. Crompton said he had no report. Community_ Relations Subcommittee: Mr. Peterson said he went before the City Council the night before and advanced three ideas: street lighting, infrastructure, and a conceptual master plan. He mentioned that John Stinson from the City Manager's Office will work with him to schedule a workshop with the City Council. Mr. Peterson will contact Mr. Stinson regarding the date. Walt Porr reviewed the process for presenting committee reports and making motions. Mr. Powell suggested a ten minute presentation from someone regarding the City.Council's committee structure and how to handle public statements. New Business: PAC member absences and new election procedures: Due to continued absences of PAC member Devon Johnson, Mr. Dean made a motion, seconded by Ms. Campbell, to declare Mr. Johnson's position vacant. The motion passed. There is no alternate to assume Mr. Johnson's position. Mr. Dean said he does not wish to spend money to hold a new election to fill Mr. Johnson's seat. Mr. Peterson made a motion, seconded by Ms. Campbell, not to have new elections to fill Mr. Johnson's position. The motion passed. Statement of Economic Interest for 1999-200 (Form 700): Mr. Webb directed the PAC's attention to this item. Copies of these forms were included in the agenda packets, and he offered to submit them to the City Clerk's Office. No PAC member had completed the form. Mr. Webb reminded the PAC about the filing requirements and the penalty for not filing. PAC Member Statements: Mr. Powell said he was very impressed with Mr. Kaye-Eddie's presentation. He believes knowledge is power. He also is concerned that the PAC needs to know what is needed to make the group run more efficiently, and said the PAC spends too much time talking and not enough time on the things it needs to do. Mr. Dean requested Mr. Kaye-Eddie to provide updates at the next meeting regarding a master plan. S:\REDVAREA\PAC meetings March 2000 memo.wpd I Alan Tandy March 21, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Dean also said that if there are controversial votes, the minutes should show split votes. Mr. Porr responded that any PAC member can request the chair to have the record reflect a vote against a motion. If a member wishes to have everyone's vote shown, a motion is needed and seconded to requested a roll call vote. Mr. Dean said the Southeast Bakersfield Business and Property Owners Association is holding a town hall meeting at the Beale Library on Saturday, March 25 from 10AM to 2PM. Everyone is welcome to attend. Regarding discussions about paying consultants to attend PAC meetings, Ms. Campbell said the city only needs to pay Mr. Chatman if he attends another PAC meeting. She does not see that happening. She is also concerned with common courtesy in dealing with other members at the meetings, and feels she is treated rudely by other members because she is a woman. She also asked for the Request for Feasibility Study for Union Avenue (which previously failed to get approval by the PAC) be placed back on the next agenda to include Lakeview and Cottonwood. Mr. Peterson requested staff provide him the cost per street light on an existing pole, and the cost of a street light and a pole. Ms. Campbell asked if the PAC could invite Alan Tandy to a future meeting to discuss a master plan. Mr. Peterson suggested the PAC meet with Mr. Tandy at Mr. Tandy's office. Mr. Crompton designated Ms. Campbell to call Mr. Tandy, and to develop an agenda with Mr. Powell. Mr. Crompton said he is tired of hearing "no" from staff and wants to see if there is a "yes" behind the door. Mr. Dean wants to remove the tabled conceptual master plan from the table and place it on the next agenda. Mr. Dean also stated that Mr. Tandy is a big gun and that the PAC should not waste bullets because it makes the PAC look bad. Ms. Campbell said she is tired of talking about big things. She would rather do anything than nothing. The meeting adjourned at 9PM. cc: Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency S:\REDVAREA\PAC meetings March 2000 memo.wpd LAND PLANNING, URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 13109 Hageman Road, Bakersfield, Ca 93312. Phone: 805-589-3300 - Fax: 805-589-6933 E Mail gra@light3peed,net MASTER PLAN and]or BUSINESS PLAN FOR BAKERSFIELDS SOUTH-I~AST REDEVELOPMENT AREA The viewpoints that we are sharing with you this evening are an extremely abbreviated version of what we think you need to steer towards. To accomplish an increase in value on private property within the boundaries of the Bakersfield South-East Redevelopment Area should be the collective focus. Let us start by saying that everything in building together begins and ends with "people's" involvement. Successful building of a place together depends on team hours tithed by community members towards an agreed upon set of accomplishments. What we are searching for is a commitment from residents to initiate and maintain a community spirit toward small staged programs and projects. These when completed become the physical evidence of this community effort. Five suggested principles are offered as key communication networks for your consideration: - 1.0 "THE PEOPLE'S" shared and agreed upon vision as to what programs and/or projects to invest energy into, in order to yield the maximum tax increment result for the good of the whole community. The leadership is responsible, accountable and has authority to initiate action on behalf of their stakeholders. These actions must be underwritten with some knowledge of the people's resources found in the community. FIRST: - This shouM be mapped as to where these people resources can be found and what abilities they will_freely give to their communi~, future. These people agree upon the list of purposes. THESE FOLK ARE THE DOERS ! 2.0 "THE PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS" Translating community "stakeholders ideas" into viable programs and projects needs artistic skills to clearly conceive and/or design program and project goals and objectives. These actions must exhibit defined opportunities upon which to advance on a set of priorities for community life improvements. SECOND: - This shouM be mapped a, to where the physical resources are located and where.future programs and pro?cts might be located, These become an agreed upon list of programs and projects. THESE FOLKS ARE THE "CAN DOERS"! 3.0 "THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY" for each program or project must be evaluated as the ultimate test for action. Project placement must show a cost/benefit value increase which raises the surrounding private sector values with acceptable ratios, ranging from min 3:1 to max 7:1. These are acceptable tax increment value increases. THIRD: - This should be mapped to indicate the wealth building expected on the specific sites o_f investment to enhance associated land values and quali~_ of l~fe expectations. These are the agreed upon monetary investments with expected returns. THESE FOLKS ARE "THE BELIEVERS" IN THE BUILDING PROCESS! 4.0 "THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS" for each program and project have constraints and implications toward mitigation. Thus according to law, future programs and projects must be made known and resolved in some practical manner. They are reminders of ensuring the air, water, traffic, historic man made and natural environment issues are flamed within acceptable standards. FOURTH: - This shouM be mapped to indicate the ~_eoe_raphic issues, which are sensitive to problems in need o_f improvement. These measured impacts become a list of safeguards. THESE FOLKS ARE THE "EVALUATERS" OF COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS. 5.0 ''THE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP" for each program and project has been fully revealed. Detailed public infrastructure needs have been carefully inventoried. The costs have been estimated. The status quo approach in following the redevelopment laws for qualifying the South-East Redevelopment area have been followed and approved. FIFTH: - This infrastructure plan should be ma_~t~ed to indicate these proposed improvement& THESE FOLKS ARE "THE CIVIL SERVANTS" WHO APPROVE EVERY PROGRAM, PROJECT, FINANCING PACKAGE, INCENTIVES, FEES AND PERM1TS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OCCUPANCY. These projects become the list of infrastructure improvements. The challenge for this Advisory Project Action Committee in its role of advisors is to produce this information. In order to maintain leadership it must share facts with "stakeholders" thus creating a positive community spirit. It is to empower the "stakeholders" with hope for good change. This will deliver the right actions towards building a better place together. IN SUMMARY: - 1.0 PEOPLE. Only the giving of free time and talent by community members as a team toward accomplishing community building needs will the effort increase "stakeholders" values. 2.0 TECHNOLOGY. The creative commitment to design of architecture, engineering and finance will reveal how each development program/project will work. 3.0 ECONOMICS The risks of feasibility, costs and benefits Will indicate program/project viability. 4.0 ENVIRONMENT The mitigation of impacts will burden each program/project .in some manner. 5.0 PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS The requirements of government participation will be challenged in a new partnership of development assistance, to incrementally improve infrastructure and to approve program/projects. Creating an urban place with these five elements supported by maps and data will allow "stakeholders" to market their future vision. This vision can be transmitted and translated amongst "stakeholders" in partnership with civil servants, for the development of programs and projects to be built by "insiders" and "outsiders". Graham Kaye-Eddie. Master Urban Designer.© 801 words 17Feb2000 MASTER PI_AN FOR BAKERSFIEI-DS SOUTH-EAST REDEVELOPMENT AREA THE PEOPLE PARENTS YOUTH SENIORS DISABLED WELFARE ARTISTS CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS CHURCHES BLOCK CLUBS CU LTU RAL GROU PS LOCAL INSTITUTIONS BLUE RIBBON BUSINESSES INDIVIDUALS LIBRARIES ELDERLY HOSPITALS YOUTH COLLEGES ENERGIZERS " PRINCIPLE ONE 13109 Hageman Road, Bakersfield, Ca 93312. Phone: 805-589-3300 - Fax: 805-589-6933 E Mail gra@lightspeed.net POPULATION DISTRIBUTION MAP MASTER PLAN FOR BAKERSFIELDS SOUTH-EAST REDEVELOPMENT AREA PROGRAMS & PROJECTS PUBLIC LAND PRIVATE LAN D LAND-USE & FLOOR AREA RATIOS ROADWAY CAPACITIES (LEVEL OF SERVICE A-F) TRANSIT SERVICE LIABILITY LOCATIONS ASSET LOCATIONS VACANT LOTS COM M UNITY PLAYGROU N DS VACANT BUILDINGS COM MUNITY GARDENS VACANT COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD CULTURAL CENTERS VACANT INDUSTRIAL SPACE BUSINESS INCUBATOR CENTERS UNDERUTILIZED SPACE ETHNIC MUSEUMS HISTORIC DISTRICT ENTERTAINMENT AREAS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING STRATEGIC LOCATIONS EXiSTiNG LOCATIONS NEW LOCATIONS TAX INCREMENT ASSESSMENT FINANCIAL VIABILITY PR~NC.~PLE TWO LAND PLANNING, URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 13109 Hageman Road, Bakersfield, Ca 93312. Phone: 805-589-3300 - Fax: 805-589-6933 E Mail gra@lightspeed.net LIABILITY LOCATION MAP MASTER PLAN FOR BAKERSFIELDS SOUTH-EAST REDEVELOPMENT AREA ECONOMIC FEASIBILTY . PROJECT LOCATION & SCALE LAND - ASSESSED VALUE LAND - MARKET VALUE TAX iNCREMENT VALUE PROGRAMS & PROJECTS NEIGHBORHOOD JOB FOP~IMATIQN I NVESTI NG ~oc^c HIRING NEW BUILDING PERMITS NEW JOBS LAND SALES -- AUCTIONS NEW BUSINESS CREATION BUSIN ESS SALES INOICATORS DEVELOPING PHYSICAL RESOURCES DEVELOPING HUMAN PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY MEASURES STRONGER LOCAL ECONOMY INVESTING LOCAL FINANCIAL RESOURCES MOBILIZING EXTERNAL RESOURCES (GRANTS) CREATING ALTERNATIVE CREDIT INSTITUTIONS EVALUATORS PRINCIPLE THREE LAND PLANNING, URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 13109 Hageman Road, Bakersfield, Ca 93312. Phone: 805-589-3300 - Fax: 805-589-6933 E Mail gra @ lightspeed.net THREE DIMENSIONAL ASSESSED VALUE MAP MASTER PLAN FOR BAKERSFIELDS SOUTH-EAST REDEVELOPMENT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENTAL ~SSUES EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED MITIGATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS MITIGATION BROWNFIELDS CLEAN-~U P SERVICES AM BU LATORY SERVICE SERVICE LEVELS(A- F) FOR: POLICE SERVICE MEDICAL, POLICE, FIRE. FIRE SERVICE SOLID WASTE & PARKS/OPEN CANAL DROWNINGS SPACE. ROAD ACCIDENT INCIDENTS INFRASTRUCTURE STANDARDS: WASTE DUMPING WATER, POWER, SEWER &STORM SCHOOLS/EDUCATION 'ROAD WIDENINGS, STOP SIGNS, STREET LIGHTS, SIGNALS ETC., ROADWAY CAPACITIES TRANSIT AVAILABILTY PRINCIPLE FOUR LAND PLANNING, URBAN'DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 13109 Hageman Road, Bakersfield, Ca 93312. Phone: 805-589-3300 - Fax: 805-589-6933 E Mail gra@lightspeed.net ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN MAP MASTER PLAN FOR BAKERSFIELDS SOUTH-EAST REDEVELOPMENT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS & PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS COALITIONS COMMU NITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS PUBLIC ADVOCACY TECHNICAL PARTNERS PARTNERS NON PROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS HOUSING REHABiLITATiON ARTISTS URBAN GREENING ARCHITECTS RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ENGINEERS SOCIOLOGISTS MARKETING/ADVERTISING SPEAKERS BUREAU I ~ CITY & RDA FINANCIAL PARTNERS PARTNEP~S PROGRA M S/IN CENTIVES/WRITE DOWN S BAN KS STREET CLOSURES EQUITY LENDERS INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES FOUNDATIONS VACANT LOTS GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS HOUSING IN DUSTRIAL MAPPING DATA & INFORMATION PP, INCIPLF~ FIVE LAND PLANNING, URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 13109 Hageman Road, Bakersfield, Ca 93312. Phone: 805-589-3300 - Fax: 805-589-6933 E Mail gra @lightspeed.net PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS MAP BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 2000 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL No. WF001 g39g/001, GRAFFITI - ROBINSON & NILES ST. COUNCIL REQUEST/REFERRAL: "D£MOND REQUESTED ST'IFF LOOK INTO ,,t GR,~FFITI PROBLEM ON VACANT HOUSE ,'IT ROBINSON & NILES SZ " RESPONSE: Graffiti was removed from the vacant house at Robinson & Niles St. on March 23, 2000. cc: Joe Lozano, Operations Manager Brad Underwood, General Services Superintendent ..... RECEIVED WF0018398.ref. wpd ~4~1~ ~ 3 ~ CITY MANAGER'S OFFIC_~F. City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018398 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3~21~00 REQUEST DATE: 3/15/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 8:44:48 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 7/0 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: DEMOND ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: GRAFFITI - ROBINSON & NILES ST. REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** DEMOND REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO A GRAFFITI PROBLEM ON A VACANT HOUSE AT ROBINSON & NILES ST. Job Order Description: GRAFFITI - ROBINSON & NILES ST. Category: PUBLIC WORKS Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / / BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: PAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: March 2'1, 2000 SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0018405/00'1, WARD 2, PARKING PERMITS - PRINCETON AND PANORAMA. "DEMOND REQUESTED STAFF PREPARE A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO THE PRINCETON AND PANORAMA DRIVE RESIDENTS REQUESTING FEED-BACK ON THE PARKING PERMIT SITUATION IN THEIR AREA." Staff is preparing a draft follow-up letter to the residents near Bakersfield College asking for their comments. The draft letter will be available shortly for review and comment prior to being sent. The Traffic Engineer has not received any negative comments on the restrictions. Based on the Traffic Engineer's observations, the restriction to resident-only parking appears to be effective. cc: Traffic Engineering File - WF0018405.parking_permits_ward2.ref.wpd slw: P:\DATA\WP~2000\WF0018405.parking_permits_ward2.ref. wpd .... RECBVED Page 1 of 1 CITY ~? ~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018405 / 001' PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3Z21~00 REQUEST DATE: 3/15/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 8:44:45 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'l'~u~'~': 3~15~0~ LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/27/0 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: DEMOND ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: PARKING PERMITS - PRINCETON & PANORAMA DR. REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO TRAFFIC ENGINEER - STEVE WALKER*** DEMOND REQUESTED STAFF PREPARE A FOLLOW-UP LETTER TO THE PRINCETON & PANORAMA DR. RESIDENTS REQUESTING FEED-BACK ON THE PARKING PERMIT SITUATION IN THEIR AREA. Job Order Description:'PARKING PERMITS - PRINCETON & PANORAMA DR. Category: PUBLIC WORKS Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE' / / BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 21, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Referral #WF0018399 Academic Excellence Awards I have obtained information about Bakersfield High School's academic teams, which are still competing on the state and national level. I have informed Mayor Price of Councilmember DeMond's desire to recognize these students for their academic excellence. The Mayor has indicated he will give the appropriate recognition at the conclusion of the competitions. AC:rs ~ City of Bakersfield ~ ~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 //JOB: WF0018399 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3~17Z00 REQUEST DATE: 3/15/00 /~W: TIME PRINTED: 8:26:53 SCHEDULE DATES ~CATION: ~T.~'~': ~Z15~00 DoCATION ID: ZIP CODE: .COMPLETION: /27/00 ~EN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: 'FACILITY ID: TO:' REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: DEMOND ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID:. RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AWARDS REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO ASST. CITY MANAGER, ALAN CHRISTENSEN*** DEMOND REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AWARD PROGRAM WHERE THE MAYOR WOULD RECOGNIZE STUDENTS FROM PARTICULAR SCHOOLS FOR THIER ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE. STAFF TO REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL. Job Order Description: ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE AWARDS at~gory: CITY MANAGER asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: CITY MANAGER START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / / BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 2000 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~ SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL No. WF0018402/001, GRAFFITI PROBLEMS COUNCIL REQUEST/REFERRAL: "MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO GRAFFITI PROBLEMS IN THE AREAS OF ALTA VISTA AT THE GREEN FROG MARKET, SIEMON PARK AND THE OSWELL AREA. PERHAPS LOOK INTO INCREASING GRAFFITI PATROL IN THESE AREAS." RESPONSE: Graffiti was removed from the Green Frog Market on March 22, 2000 and at Siemon Park on March 16, 2000. Graffiti at Siemon Park in a continual problem requiring removal once or twice per week. Police Department staff continues to work with the anti-graffiti program on enforcement issues. cc: Joe Lozano, Operations Manager Brad Underwood, General Services Superintendent WF0018402.ref. wpd ............. RECEIVED City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* ~ ~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 REQ/JOB: WF0018402 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3~21~00 REQUEST DATE: 3/15/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 8:44:47 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: S'I'A/~'i~: 3~15~0~ LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/27/0 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: MAGGARD ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: GR3kFFITI PROBLEMS REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO GRAFFITI PROBLEMS IN THE AREAS OF ALTA VISTA AT THE GREEN FROG MARKET, SIEMON PARK AlqD THE OSWELL A/~EA. PERHAPS LOOK INT0 INCREASING GRAFFITI PATROL IN THESE AREAS. Job Order Description: GR3kFFITI PROBLEMS Category: PUBLIC WORKS TasK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 23, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager~_.~ SUBJECT: Referral # WF0018403 Parking Signs at University Baptist Church Councilmember Maggard requested that staff look into the issue of parking signs at the University Baptist Church, the reason the church had to pay a fee for the signs, and if there is any possibility of waiving the fee. The enclosed memo from Public Works provides an explanation of why the fees are charged and the circumstances under which they can be waived. AC:rs Attachment BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM:/~' .AUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: ~J~"' March 9, 2000 SUBJECT: INFORMAL COUNCIL REFERRALWF0000000/00'I, WARD 3, FEES FOR PARKING RESTRICTION SIGNS. "COUNCILMAN MAGGARD REQUESTED INFORMATION REGARDING FEES FOR PARKING LIMITATION SIGNS ON THE STREETS AROUND UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH." A fee is collected by the City for changes to parking limits, or implementation of new parking limits, for on street parking fronting individual businesses or residential private property lots. The fee of $140 covers the investigation and installation of all signs and markings for one lot frontage, whether it is only one sign or several signs. For the church in question, their fee of $140 would cover processing the installation of several signs around the street frontages, not for each individual sign. The exceptions to the fee collection are made when signs are needed for safety reasons, such as to prohibit parking at a corner to see traffic, or when the request is for a handicap sign for a resident with a handicap placard or when signs are needed for a neighborhood problem involving multiple residential lot frontages. When these exceptions are identified, the fee is waived. cc: Traffic Engineering File - Parking@ChurchNearBC.Informal.2ndRef.wpd P:~DATA~WP~2000~Parking@ChurchNearBC.hfformal.2ndRef. wpd Page I of I B A K E R 'S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR /' ~ ~__ DATE: February 16, 2000 SUBJECT:' INFORMAL REFERRAL (NO NUMBER), WARD 3, PARKING FOR SPECIAL EVENTS OR FUNERALS AT CHURCH NEAR BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE. "COUNCILMAN MAGGARD REQUESTED THAT PUBLIC WORKS STAFF INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF PARKING PROVISIONS AT UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH' NEAR BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE. STUDENTS PARKING ADJACENT TO CHURCH INTERFERE WITH PARKING NEEDS DURING SPECIAL EVENTS OR FUNERALS A T THE CHURCH." Students from Bakersfield College tend to park in open parking areas around the college area and on adjacent streets. This can cause problems with adjacent businesses and facilities in the area and their parking needs during the school day. Most students are parked for several hours while attending classes. The Traffic Engineer suggests that limited time parking could be designated by signs around the frontages of the church. The time limit could be 2 hours, effective during the weekday from 8am to 5pm. This would eliminate most student parking and be of a sufficient time period for various services, such as funerals, being held at the church. To obtain City forms to request such limited time parking signs, the church administration may contact Stephen Walker, Traffic Engineer, at 326-3959. Copy of City parking request form is also attached. The current fee charged for these requests is $140. cc: Traffic Engineering File - Parking@ChurchNearBC.Informal.ref.wpd slw: P:\DATA\WP\1999\Parking@ChurchNearBC.Informal,ref.wpd Page I of I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR SIGNING OR MARKING Name: Address: Phone: Hereby requests that appropriate signing and/or markings be installed to provide: (Check One) 30 Minute Parking E] 90 Minute Parking E] 2 Hour Parking D Loading Zone Handicap Parking ['] No Parking Other At: (Street Address) SKETCH (Showing area of interest) I hereby certify that I am the owner or represent the owner of the adjacent property for which this request is made. Signature: Date: Fee Paid (14-52260) E] Approved Work Date: By: E] Not Approved Work .Completed: Date: By: Remarks: .... ~ WORK REQUEST ' PAGE 1 JOB: WF0018403 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3/17~00 REQUEST DATE: 3y 15/00 CRE/~RE~: TIME PRINTED: 10:46:09 SCHEDULE DATES · LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION 7/00 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: MAGGARD ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: PARKING SIGNS - UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO ASST. CITY MANAGER, ALAN CHRISTENSEN*** MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO THE ISSUE OF PARKING SIGNS AT THE UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH AND THE REASON THE CHURCH HAD TO PAY A FEE FOR THE SIGNS. ALSO, LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF WAIVING THE FEE. Job Order Description: PARKING SIGNS - UNIVERSITY BAPTIST CHURCH at~gory: CITY MANAGER asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: CITY MANAGER START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / / BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 23, 2000 TO: JOHN -W. STINSON, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST Ill ~~ SUBJECT: FEDERAL GASOLINE TAX INFORMATION The following information is provided as background to a request for staff to draft a letter from the Mayor on behalf of the Council stating the City's opposition to the federal excise tax on gasoline prices and a request to work with other cities to form a coalition to request the federal government abate the excise fee. Darrell Hildebrand of KernCog has indicated the federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 ¢ per gallon which is composed of 14.0¢ ISTEA funding, 4.3¢ Deficit Reduction funding, and 0.1¢ Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust funding. Several charts on Transportation Funding in California which Darrell provided are attached for your information. The State of California also has a state fuel tax that is 18.0¢ per gallon. According to a report put out by the California Energy Commission on California Retail Service Stations, 13,496,210,000 gallons of gas were consumed in California in 1998; the total in Kern County for 1998 was 240,859,000 gallons. Proposals at the federal level include eliminating the 4.3¢ federal deficit reduction funding. (Please note the 4.3¢ is now used for transportation projects and not deficit reduction purposes.) Bob Winters, Legislative Director, Congressman Thomas's Washington office, indicated there have 'been a couple of bills proposed to eliminate the 4.3¢ increment (which was added in 1993). He believes they are in the House Committee on Ways and Means. Nothing is happening at this point, but things can change momentarily. He believes there is also another bill in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee relating to the Highway Trust Fund. According to Mr. Winters, if you eliminate the 4.3¢ increment, it will cost California over $600,000,000 annually. In Kern County, the cost would be $23 of the $60 million in road projects. Dwight Stenbakken, League of California Cities federal contact, indicated he feels both political parties have "nixed" the idea of eliminating the 4.3¢ federal excise tax. There has been discussion by the California Speaker to eliminate a portion of the state tax for the summer months. He doesn't know how far that will go. Both Mr. Winters and Mr. Stenbakken provided copies of a white paper of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, chaired by Congressman Bud Shuster (Rep-PA), and Ground John W. Stinson Page 2 Federal Gasoline Tax Information March 23, 2000 Transportation Subcommittee chairman Thomas Petri (Rep-WI) on "The Impact of Reducing the Federal Fuel Tax on Transportation Programs," dated March 14, 2000. The report categories include: History Of The 4.3 Cent Tax, A Tax Cut Does Not Mean Lower Prices At The Pump, Cutting The Tax Makes Little Economic Sense, The Impact On The Federal Highway And Transit Programs, Program Cuts Will Affect Safety, The Problem With Using The General Fund To Make Up For the Shortfall In The Trust Funds, Solutions, and The Effect On Aviation Programs. A copy of this report is attached. Jack LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager, has indicated over the last two years Bakersfield has received approximately $3,000,000 a year from the 18.4¢ federal excise tax on gasoline. Cutting the tax by 4.3¢ is approximately a 23.4% reduction, or the equivalent of a $702,000 annual loss for the City of Bakersfield. These funds are used to rehabilitate and repave major road ways, congestion mitigation air quality programs, transportation enhancement projects, highway bridge rehabilitation and replacement programs, and seismic retrofit of bridges. Additionally, federal excise tax revenues also help fund regional state transportation projects as well as mass transit systems. As explained in the League's Legislative Bulletin #11-2000 (page 2), a state 9¢ gasoline tax began in 1923, which was equitably distributed with 59% allocated to cities and counties and 51% allocated to the state. In 1990, an additional 9% was added to the state gas tax. Unfortunately, rather than the traditional 51/49 split with the state, cities and counties share dropped to a 77~23 per cent split. Cities and counties only receive 2.07¢ of the last 9¢ increase for a total of 6.4¢ as compared to the state's share of 11.6¢. This has made it impossible to keep up with the maintenance and rehabilitation needs of local streets and roads networks which rely heavily on this source of revenue. This inequity has resulted in nearly a $3 billion loss to cities and counties. The Council has a stated goal of enhancing the City's transportation network by maintaining and improving the quality of existing surface streets and arterials, supporting the development of beltways, supporting the development of an Intermodal Transportation Hub, promoting and encouraging public transportation, and supporting efforts for adequate air transportation. Based on this and the general information above, further in-depth study on the impact of the loss of federal excise tax dollars upon Bakersfield residents would appear to be in order prior to formal City opposition to the tax. If you would like additional clarification or study, please let me know. (P:~A%FederalExciseTaxMemo) Attachments: Transportation Funding in California (charts) White Paper, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 03/i~3/00 Ttt[T 13:03 FAX ~001 March 14, 2000 THE FACTS ON GAS TAX REPEAL Dear Colleague: Attached is a Committee white paper describing the effects of a 4.3 cents-per-gallon fitel tax repeal. which has been proposed by some in Con~ess in response to the rece}~t sharp increases iix fuel prices. We agree on the need to address the problem of rising fuel prices. But repeal of the fi~el tax is the wrong way to go. · it will not likely result in lower prices for the consumer. ,, It will do nothir~g to correct the root cause o£the problem -- the OPEC cartel's decision to reduce oil supply. ,, It will have a devastating impact on our Nation's highway, lfighway safety, transit and aviation programs. Instead, we must find a way to ensure an adequate supply o[ oil. And i f wc want to find a way to really hclp consurtlcrs, we mtlst lind a way that works. We hope you will find the inf0rn'tation in thc attached white paper helpful as you consider this most important issue. Sincerely, 'BUD SItUSTER JAMES L. OBE'RSTAR Chaim~an Ranking Democratic Member l~ttp://ww~v.house.gov/transportation/gastax/gastax.html 3/23/00 03/23/00 TI~I~ 1~:04 FAX ~002 . Page 2 of 9 NICK J. RAHALL, Il THOMAS E. PETRI Ranki~g Democratic Member Chairman Grmmd Transportation Subcommittee Ground Transportalion Subcommittee T}IE IMPACT OF REDUCING IItE FEDERAL FUEL TAX ON TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS March 14, 2000 lntro__duction. In 1993 Congress approvcd a 4.3 cent per gallon increase in thc Federal excise tax on all fi~els used in transportation. This tax xvas in addition to the taxes already imposed on fuels. 'rl~e tax is imposed on aviation t:uel, fi~els used m automobiles and trucks, and diesel fuel uscd by railroads and the barge industry. Some bare proposed repealing thc 1993 tax increase to help offset the recent increases in the price of gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel. h,,,.//www h,mse uov/transportati°n/aastax/gastax'html 3/23/00 03/23/00 THU 13:04 FAX [~]003 Page 3 of 9 This papcr explains the co~sequence,~ for Federal trmasportation programs of repealing this tax. History_Of The 4.3 Cent Tax When the lax was originally imposed in 1993, all the revenues Wcre dedicated to the General Fund. Now, the overwhelming majority o[the revenue goes into trust funds for i~frastructure im, cstment- ha 1997, Congress transfe~xcd the revenue from tl~e taxes imposed on highway users to the Highway Trust Fund to help pay for highway and transit in ffastrtmmrc, and for hi ghway safety programs. The 4.3 cent tax on gasoline and diesel brings in $7.2 billion to the I-tighway Trust Fund annually -- $5.8 billion tbr highways and $1.4 billion for tra~sit. In ! 997, Congress also transferred the revctme from tl~e aviation [uel tax into the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to support aviation pro,ams. It bri~gs in about $700 millim~ per year, The taxes paid by railroads and the barge industry still goes ii,to the Gcr~eral Fund. The revc~ue amounts to about $190 millio~ per year. A 'fax Cut Does Not Mean Lower Prices At_ T__he P___um_l/ There is no guarantee that prices at the pump would fall if thc tax were cut - especially in the short term. The Federal tax is not actually imposed at the .pump; it is collected shortly after it leaves the refinery. 'the fuel can pass through several middlemen before it reaches the consttmer. None o[ these middlemen would have to pass along tl~e savings. The reduced tax could simply be kept by those h,m'llwww muse ~ov/transportation/gastax/gastax html 3~23/00 ·" Page 4 of 9 supplying the fi.tel. 'Past experience has shown that as the wholesale cost of fuel goes up, prices at the pttmp increase. However, decreases it~ the wholesale price - or in the fuel tax -- have not been passed on to the motorists or truckers as consistently. Several years ago, Connecticut reduced their State fuel tax but it did l~ot translate into a price cut for the consumer. As thc H_a. rtfor~d .Co___t.!r'.aSR noted in 1997, after prices failed to come down: "Gas taxes and prices are not connected in an ironclad way. The lax can be cut, but the benefils to consumers will be swallowed up in higher prices at the pump, In the,fi,~ture, the governor and legislature should build tax policy on a firmer foundatton, Even if the reduced tax were reflected at the pump, a reduction o f 4.3 cents -- when gasolinc could cost $2 a gallon by the summer - is only about a two percent reduction. This translates into less than a doll~u: per week lbr the average consumer. Furthermore, some States have laws that automatically increase the State tax if tl~e Fcderal tax is reduced, hi such States, there would be no tax savings to pass along. Cutting The Tax Makes Little Economic Sense Supply and demand are the basic dctenninants of the price of gasoline, not a few cents of a Federal excise tax. Reducing a Federal tax will do nothing to increase thc supply and therefore lower the price. In fact, reducing the tax is counterproductive because reducing a portion of the price without increasing the availability of crude oil makes .it easier for OPEC to keep prices hi~. htto://wWW.house.gov/transportation/gastax/gastax.html 3/23/00 05/23/00 That 13:o5 FAX [~005 Parc 5 of 9 _Thejm_RactO_n The Federal Hi_ghway And Transit Pro_grams Since the revcnue from this tax is used for infrastructure and transportation safety programs, cutting it would reduce Fcderal support for these pro~ams. In 1998, Con~¢ss passed the Transportatior~ Equily Act for the 2'1~t Century (TEA 21) tha~ established a direct link between the funds deposited in the I-bghway Trust Fund and the Grading returned to States and cities for highways and trm~sit. In recent years, this has meant increased fimding for fl~e States and cities since receipts have been higher than expected, l. Jnder TEA 21, all highway progams - highway construction, highway safety, transportation enhancements, and high-priority projects -- are decreased proportionally if tax revenues fall short. According to the Department of Transportation, if the 4.3 cent ~,as tax repeal xvere to take effect on July 1 of this year, thc highway program would be cut by $20.fbillion through FY' 2003 - the final year of IEA 2 l; $'18.9 billion of that cut would translate into automatic cuts to the State forraula 'funds (the attached table shows thc cut by Statc). The remainder o£ tl~e fundh~g does not go thc States by formula. The transit program woold face similar devastating cuts. The Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund (which supports u-ansit) would go broke m 2003. Continuing the transit program at the TEA 21 funding levels would not be possible at-tot TEA 21 expires i~ 2003. States and cities that have bonded their anticipated future Federal highway and trai~sit Ihnds to support trm]sportatiOn projects would have to cut programs even further. yro__gra___m Cuts Will Affect Safety About 12,000 highway deaths per year tu:e due to unsafe highway conditions, lfthe cuts arc made, many road improvement projects would have to be put on hold. h ,,r,. ll'~arx~;w, house, eovttransportation/gastax/gastax'html 3~23/00 03/23/00 TIll 1.3:06 FAX [~]006 Pa~e 6 o£ 9 Programs to fight drunk driving, encourage scatbelt use, and l~irc t~ruck safety inspectors would also have to be cut, J o b s~Wo u_!d._Be L_os_t According to tl~e U.S. Department of Tt-ansportation, a billion dollars of highway spending supports about 42,000 jobs. Therefore. an average of 420,000 Ifigh-pa)4ng jobs would be lost in each of years 20.02 and 2003. for a total of 849,000 jobs over the two years. There would also be lost sales of construction equipment and materials. 'yh_e..Pro__ble___m With Using The Gen. erai Fund To Make t J0 For The Shortfall In The ~[rust Funds In effect, this means using most ot-tl~e current non-Social Security budget surplus [or transportation. '/'his surplus is not then available for other priorities that Congress may want to fun.d or fi>r tax cuts. it doesn't make sensc to. replace a successful user fee with a broad-based tax. This option also puts the highway, l~ighway safety, m~d transit programs at risk when they are reauthorizcd by Congress in 2003 since the funding levels in TEA 21 will not be sustainable without a · tax increase or continued transfers from tl~c General Fund. Sol__utio___ns. ................. ~ ....... ~,tinnA, astax/~astax.html 3/23/00 03/23/00 THU 13:06 FAX ~007 ~ Page: 7 of 9 The primary problem is lack of supply - not the Federal tax. The OPEC countries have reduced production which has resulted m constricted supplies and higher prices. Worldwide production must be increased m order for prices in the United States to come down. Options include: putting pressure on oil producing countries to increase production; incrcasing domestic production; releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; allowing truckers to set rates that automatically adjust when fi~el prices increase; increasing t~se o[ alternative fuels; and, providing direct tax credits to small businesses - such as independent trackers - impacted disproportionatcly by increased fuel costs. _T~.e Eff_gft..O~. Ayi_ati~n__P. rogD~m_s The 4.3 cent tax on aviation fuel raises about $700 million ammally for the aviation trust lhnd. Thc Senate jus! passed the Con fcrencc Report on the Aviation Investment anti Reform Act [bt thc 21 st Century (,AIR 21') last wcck and it is scheduled to come up in the House this week. ALE 2'1 guarantees that airport hnprovemcnts and Federal Aviation Adrninistration ([;AA) modernization arc fully funded fi-om the taxes and interest deposited in the Aviation Trust Fund. Thc remaining taxes and interest are available to pay for the operating expcnses of the FAA. Reducing the tax, therefore, means that the Gencral Fand contribution for FAA operations must be increased. 'For the time period at'fiscal years 2001 to 2003, the aviation trust fund would lose $2.1 billion. Loss of Highway Funds to the States in 2002 2003 due to Repeal of 4.3 cent in Fuel Taxes ........ ($ in millions) State' i I state --- ...i I ....L_os__q] htm://www.bouse.gov/trm~sportation/gastax/gastax'html 3/23/00 03/23/OO TI~T 13:07 FAX ~]005 , f, ·Page 8 of 9 Arizona .............. ............. ; 89 5 154,9i 244.4 Arkansas ,. ;atifomia ......... Delaware ..... aho ! ..... 52131 .......... 90.51 442.8 Illinois ' · ........ ~ 1~ ......... ~'61',:~'i 27~'16i 439.7 !pdi~na ........... · ...... Iowa ..... [ ........... 81"4i 14(~]9! 222.3 Kentucky . . Maine ................ Ma~sSachu~:~ffs : .....i26,3t ...... 2i'8.'5f 344.7 .................. ' { ....... 523' i'i ........... ~8'5 9j ...... 6o9161 iMichi 'gan ' Mi'nnesota i i ...... 1'0;i--6' 17'~.7'! .... ~77,3 MississipPi i i 85.2't .......... i'47,~1 232.5 M0n(ana i .i 67;31 ........ i'i'6';4i, i83.6 Nebraska ......... I ] 52.'6! .............. 9'i';~i .......... i43.7 Nevada ] i ~,9,it .......... 8'5'.~i i3'4:1' ~ew 'york i l ...... ~'49'.8i .......... ~0'5'.';i'i' orrh, car0iin,a .........) i i9i'.9i ......... 3~'i0! ....... :523,9i North-0ak0ta '. ~ ..... ;4'&4J 7~';~!.' .... i'21.2 ............ J, ........ ............. Oklahoma ............ , 82:6! ............ ~-~t2.;8.I ....... '225.'~ Oregon ~ .......... 338..~. ~8~'i'~ 922.7 Pennsylvania I ................ 40.4! '1'10.2 Rhode Island ............ i';i :3.51 309.7 196.3 'S?tRh' Car'!in? ' ~ ........ 4~'~i 8~'.~ ....... 132.2 South Dakota Tennessee i57'i'J .......... ~'~'17' ......... 4~8.7 http://www.house.gov/tr~msportation/gastax/gastax-html 3/23/00 03/23/00 TI:{U 13:08 F,~. ~009 ', Page 9 of 9 IVermo nt 3~ .O'i 5~'16l 84.6' ...... , 7'717t ..... 3°7,31 48510 Virginia Washington ............. i'21.1.! ..... 200'15' ....33.0;(3 'West virgini'e 76,7! ..... 1'~2.7'I 209.4 ~JWi'sconsin ......... ."~[ i34.9~ ........ 233'~'~ ' 368'.~i "' 6,909:2~ i'1~'951,~'~ '~8,86~.g N°i~'~ 'Am0o'~tS sh~' abo~e' ~ssume repeal of 4.3 cent per gallon'fuel tax effective July , 2000. Although highway funding is tied to fuel tax revenues, there is a time lag between when a fuel tax reduction occurs and when the reduction would translate into decreased highway funding. Therefore, highway funding would ,begin to be reduced in fiscal year 2002, Funding loss estimates ipro?ided by U.S. Department of Transportation, http ://w ww.house.gov/tr~aasportatiol~/gastax/gastax.htm! 3/23/00 Transportation Funding in California The attached chads have been prepared as visual aids ~ show the sources and uses of transportation funds in California. The dollar amounts, where readily available, are provided to show the relative magnitudes of different programs. They are not necessarily of~cial figures and are obviously subject to change. The amounts were obtained from different sources which may notalways be consistent No accounling accuracy is intended here. Office of Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program California Department of Transportation 1999 Edition Chart 1 State Transportation Funding OVERVIEW · ~, (Hwy Trust. ~ (Chart 6) ' · ~ ,, ';~? High~/ay Aid Transit Aid I I PbbliC~Ti'~ns,. P~,~J ~ J~onsol~aatea~ O~! I:~ ~1 ~idgeEun~ I[ (Cha~ 2) (Chad '&13) (Ch~d 5) ~ (Chad 3 & 4) ;~: ::::~'~::~::~;~ ~ .... ? ~' ' %;: '~ '~ State & Local Public Transit L~3~i. St~ & Roa~ State Highway System ~ Operation , (Chart ~ ~ 9) (Chad ~2) Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program CAL TRANS 12/98 Chad 2 State Fuel Tax Allocation Gasoline & Di~el Tax (§ 7351 & 8651 R&'0 t, fi'lA 1T'/o/ ~ (2) ,, ~ ...... t v (§ 2105 S&H) (§ 2108 I (3) I 4 t~')~,.l 144 e'o/ ~. ..... ~ ~ ......, ~ Counties (~ 2~05a S~H) 2104 S&H) ..... ., ...... , v Cities:': ::' ' (~ 2105bS&H) (§ 2107 S&H) Notes: FT)-Th-b-4.39f/ local share of diesel fuel tax is allocated 1.8¢ to counties and 2.59¢ to cities. 2 A major portion of the money goes toward funding 'the new state/local programs - ¢~xible Congestion Relief, Interregional Road System, Traffic System Management, etc. (3) The apportionment to each county is based on its share of registered vehicles & county road mileage. (4.) The~ money is apportioned based on city's share of the state population. To receive the added tax (§2105), cities ~ counbes must expend a certain amout from local general funds on streets & highways. (51 ~2106: funds are distributed based on reo. vehicles, assessed oroDertv valuation, and oooulafion. TTrr~nSporta{ipn Economics_ nsportadon Planning ~'rogram California Department of Transportation 12/98 Chart 3 · FEDERAL & STATE HIGHWAY FUNDING (Mil!ion Dollars, !998-99 Est/mates) ~ :~i;ii, ExCise.Tax: ~f .~n [ ~ ' Truck Weight Fees~ l. 'l~~~~ (~r unladen weight ~~~g Federal H~:Trust Fund Tax Rates for Highway AccY 2 ::,~ ~: ~ 15.45 ¢/~al Sources: 1998-99 Governor's Budget 1998 STIP Fund Estimate I The numbers are preliminary and sbbject to change. Transportation Economics 2 Eederal excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel are 18. 4 and 24.4 ~/gal, respectively. Transit CALT~ANSTra nst:)or tat i on12/98P1 ann ing Program Acc't of the Highway Trust Fund receives 2.85 t~/gal; another O. 1 C/gal go to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. .. Chad 4 STIP Fund Allocation. 'State/Region, North/South Splits & County Shares ~(stateSTIP Funds ] & Federal Funds) Improvement Program) N/slmpr°veme~~plitPr°gram) 5ub~e,t' ~D ~ountyGroup2 S&H ~ ~88.8 ~<~:~':~ :oruan': :'~*~"~*:~rea~ ...... ~,~ ~ ,o / o County P~pulation ~5%) [ o St. Hwy Mtleaqe (25%) Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program Caltrans 12/98. Chart 5 LOCAL STREETS & ROADS FUNDING (Million Dollars, 1995-96) RE VENUES EXPENDITURES Federal Aid ' ''':~ State AId Local General Other Local Funds S~. Asse~ment $150 Bonds 80 R~ad Taxes Qther 1,01~ County Sales Tax Measures $760 Local Trans Funds (1/4% Sales Tax) source: State Controller, Annual Report of Financial Transactions: Streets and Roads Transit Operators . Transportation Planning Agencies Transportation Economics TranS~_ortatl9q~lanning Program CALTKANS 12/~ Chart 6 Allocation of General Sales Tax (R&T §720,:~/ (Gov. Code~29530) 6051. 2/ 60~. 6) Local Transp. Local General ~n~l~ls .......... (PUC §99233-407) (R&T ~7102) I PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION .i'1 ?.~ACCOUNT (PTA) (~ Gasoline *Sp#love~= 4.75% x all taxab~ sales - 5% x afl taxab~ sales except gasol~e. Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program caltrans 12/98 Char6 7 Public Transportation Account (PTA) '~.~.~, (State Transit Assist. Funds) o County/City Mass Transit (based on population) o Vehicles~Equip~Terminals/Rail R&T §7102 ~99312 ~ ~~. ~ ~ o Aliocate to transit OPerators (based on share of fare revenue) I I 'i~i~{~i'~if: P~m~l!:~;:':~:' '''' ~;~ ::::'~: I o Intercity Passenger Rail & Feeder Bus Operations o Caltrans (ping~support) o CTC o ITS (research) o PUC (passengr rail support) o High-Speed Rail Authority (*) Gasoline 'Spillover~= 4.75% x All Taxable Sales - 5% x All Taxable Sales except Gasoline. Transporta t i on Economi cs Transportation Planning Program Caltrans 12/98 Chart 8 Mass Transit Funding REVENUES EXPENDITURES State Transit Programs Guideway Capital Projects Intercity Passenger Rail & Feeder ?Js Opreratiens 5~c. 5303/TEA FlCxibl~ Funds Transit Capital Aequi~.ition Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Caltrans 12/98 Chaff 9 Passenger Rail Capital Funding (All t~ Money already Allotted) CTC STIP RTPAs STIP ~ '~: ~"~ ~ ~ ' $575 M $1,180 M $235 M 18% ~ L.A. Met~ ~ Grade Sep. Inte~odal T~nsfer Stations ~ LA.-S.~a~ara ~ S. Bar.-Or-~iv. ~ Rural Freight ~ Capital Outlay ~ Se~ice (S.F.-S.Jose) Rail ~ A~uisition ~ L.A.-S.D. ~ L.A.-S.8em. & Passenger ~ L.A.-S.D. ~ Met~link Bus Rehab. ~ S. Jose-Sacto-Aubum ~ 8A~ etc. ~ Pa~ & ~ec ' ~ L.A.-S 8a~ara L Coastal Fe~ Vessel¢e~inals L Santa Cruz ~ S.F. Bay A~a ~ Fe~ies ~ L.A.-S.F'Sact° Grade Sepa~tions ~ S. Clara ~ Bus Rehab. I . S. Jose-Sacto-Aubum ~ S. Diego ~ Bike ~ Sacto. Admin. ~ S. Joaquin ~ I~ine ~ L.A.-S.D ~ L.A.-Ventura " Translation E~nomics ,, Tran~at~n Planning P~m : ~ Caltmns 1~8 Chart 10 State General Aviation Funding (Million Dollars, 1998-99) ~:~e~p~ion~:~&~'~4°~3'~ I,v:~ . , ........ ~,.~ I~0.~ I ~0.~ PUC ~ 21680 ~ ~ (Loan Repayments &Intemst) ~ PUC ~ 21602(a) $2.2 I PUC § 21682.5 PUC § 21680-84 State Operations PT Acc't. ~.ocal Assistance (Cities, Counties, Airport DisL Aeronautics Program: ($30, O00ff ear) Community Services DisO. Calif ,4vi S),s Plan (C,4SP) ,4ero. Planning Calif ,4id to ,4irports Prog (C,~'4P): irport Land Use Guidance Discr. Grants for Capital Outlay ,4 nnual Grants ($ I O, 000 per ,4 irport} ,4irport/Heliport Safety Match F,4,4 Grants vi Project Review Local Airport Loans (LA L ,4 cc 't) ,4irport Noise $3.0 $6.6 * FAA aid to airports goes directly to counties and cities. Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program Source: Aeronautics Program, Caltrans. Caltrans 12_/98 Chart 11 Non-Motorized Transportation Funding (BicyCle/Pedestrian Facilities) S&H §165 & 888.4 PUC §99233.3 ICaltrans CTC I I 1 ~ i Agencies I (90%Statematch) . . I "~ ~ ~ 1 Cities & Counties Bicycle/pedestrian projects are eligible for these funds, but no specific allocations are mandated for such .use. Bicycle/pedestrian projects qualify for funding from NHS, STP, CMAQP, Fed Lands Hwy & Bridge programs. Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program Caltrans 12/98 Cha~ 12 State-Owned Toll Bridge Funding IT'~iii~"~i'~ ?;':;~; /,';'!,'i~ / [ Interest & fToll Rev Bond ~? RevenueSj Other Income L Proceeds CONSOLIDATED TOLL BRIDGE FUNDS $&H § 30912-914I " '~ State Operations Transportation · Debt Retirement Commision · Operations/Maintenance · Cong Relief Projects · Construction/Improvements · Guideway/Rail E. xtensionJ (*) Toll revenues collected on the nine state-owned toll bridges are deposited into four funds: S.F.Bay Bridges (Northern 8; Southern Units), Vincent Thomas Bridge, and San Diego/Coronado Bridge revenue funds. Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program Caltrans 12/98 Chart 13 Transportation Planning Funds State Hwy Acc't1 rAerOnaut. Acc'~ fPTA .on-HwYl (.wy & (~uideway Ping) J [S&H § 194] PUC § 99311 SPR (75%) )L Funds I[up tO 3%1 ! Trans Ping Program ! L (RTPAs) ! Rail Program ~ Mass Transit Program L Caltrans'Districts * The remaining 25% of the SPR funds are used for research. Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program - Caltrans 12/98 Chart 14 Transportation Equity Act of 1998 (TEA21) Federal-Aid Highway Programs J998-2003 (Estimated California Apportionments ) PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/PRO VISIONS [ .:: I ~_.~ontinuesBridcleRepl.&l~ehab. forallbridqesandDiscr. ~ o for on-system 6ddges; permits seismic retrot~t as eligible. Bridge Program " ($1.700 M) o Up to 50% of State's Bridge funds may be transferred to NHS orSTP. ' o Funds resurfacing, restoring, rahab, and reconstruction of Interstate 2)[ Interstate '1 ~ system, interchanges, & overcrossings along the system also qualifY' M aB ntenance,~ ~n., o Provides flexibility to the states to fully utilize remaining unobligated .... ' balances of prior interstate construction authorizations. . o A 163,000 mile National Highway System, to be designated, ! consisting of Interstate higl~ways & major Primary roads. National Highway I ~,~, .... v transfer u9 to 50% of NHS fund. stoother.r..oa..d, progr, a. ms ~'~t~'~i~-~.1.~0% wit. h ~ecr, etary's approval m states with (.;lean/41r . System (NHS~)~ .~ ~, Act non-ar~ainmen~ areas). · ' ' NHS funds distributed based on a formula including each state'~ total and per capita lanes miles of pnncipal arterials, vehicle mi/es, and dlesel fuel type. o Authorizes funds for hiohwavs transit capital bicycles & traffic operations, [ Surface Transp. l~-omanagement&°therd'nFe~-'~idr°adsan~r~llbrldges' ' Expands eligibility to to reduce cold start emmissions, modification of sidewalks, Program (STe~ .~ ~ and infrastructure capitalimprovements. ~ o Funds distributed to states by formula, 10% for safety, 10% for TEA, and · ' ......... ' 15% may be spent on rural collectors. I adjusted by a pollution severity tactor, in non-attainment areas rCongestion Mitigation .......~ o Fun. ds returned to states by popu. lation [& Air Quality (CMAQ)~.~n~ ~o Eligible p.roj.ects limited to those that contribute to regi°n's ability . . . to attaid feUeral Clean A~rAct standards. Federal/Public Lands Hwys, Recr. Trails . ] ~HighSpeed/MaglevRail 5) [ Other Programs ~ oPlanning & Research (~ ~n .t o Border Infrastructure, Safety Incentives ' ' ' o High Priority Projects o Minimum Guarantee Tofo/Ca/ifot'nia Apportionments $15,620 Ii, fill/on Tofo/Ob/iEafiona/Aufhorify ~12,03B A4///ion Transportation Economics Transportation Planning Program caltrans 12/98 Cha~ 15 Transportation Equity Act of 1998 Federal-Aid Transit Programs PR OG RA M D ESCRIP TI ON/P R 0 VISIONS Section 5309 }-- Capital investment grant program for New Starts projects, fixed guideway, [(Capital In--truant ~rants) o rail and bus modernization. o A General Fundp, roeram [or develot~ment of plans andprogramsfor [Section5303 ]--~"rbanizedareas~(°vb'rSO'OOOp°pul~ti°n')' (Metro. Pkanning) o Apportionment's by formula to States for MPOs in urbanized areas; requires 20% local match. o 91.23 % of.(he grant program funding is for. all ur, ba~fiz.ed areas,5 1 or more. lransit operattng assistance continuea onty tn areas oetow zoo, uuu. r ~ Section 5307, o Allfi~nds can be used for capital purposes. Operating assistance for larger (Urbanized Are~ ~rant) areas is no longer an eligible expense. o Itt areas over 200.000. at least I°/[, ~'tlu,./itn~l.v tttu.¥t I,c u.¥c,l.fi~r tran.¥it enltancement activities. I Section 53t 0 I ~~ This program receives 2.4percent of formula funding available for special needs of elderly and disable individuals. [(Elderly/bisabl~d Tran~ii) ~ o Funds statutorily apportioned to States (GovernoO based on population of elderly & disabled. . o A formula grant program available in proportion to each [ s~Ctio~: 531' ~state 's nonurbanized population :: (Non-UrlXlnized) o Funding may be used for capital, operating, state administration, and project administration expenses. 6) [Section 5313 ] oGrantsf°ranewStatePlanning&Researchprogram~ndedby (.plannin~/~,~l~rh_~ Mass ? ransit Acc't & Fed General Fund). 7) [ Section 5308 ~~Thisnewprogramprovidesfundtopurchasecleanfi,elvehicles. (tie, an Fuel;) Funds distributed by formula requiring 2/3for urban areas (over I million) and I/3 for under I million population. rranspbrtation Economics Transportation Planning Caltrans 12/98 FEDERAL/STATE PLANNING & PROGRAM PROCESS PLANNING BID PROGRAM D 0 C UMEN TS D 0 C UMEN TS D 0 C UMEN TS Projs N' FEDERAL PROCESS ,f~ ~ STATE PROCESS Locally ' funded ~1 Hwy & ~ i:i ~._ Transit CALTRANS .'! BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 24, 2000 TO: Councilmember Couch FROM: John W. Stinso~n, AU~ssistant City Manager SUBJECT: Referrals dated 3/15/00 The following are staff responses to the referrals made by you on 3/15/00. #1 Question: Review options in the next annual investment policy update. Response: The Finance Department has prepared a response to your request and will include your suggestions in next review ,of the city's investment policy scheduled for December 2000. #2 Question: Advise when traffic signals will be installed on Jewetta, between Brimhall and Rosedale Highway. Also, look into the possibility of installing an interim stop sign prior to the signal. Also, request the Police Department increase traffic patrol in this area. Response: Public Works has prepared a response providing information regarding traffic signals at this location. A referral has been sent to the Police Department regarding increased enforcement in this area. #3 Question: Look into repairing the road at the following locations: JewettaAvenue between Hageman Road and Snow Road & Coffee Road between Olive Drive and 7th Standard Road. Contact Councilmember Couch regarding this issue. Also respond to Ward 4 resident, Mr. Stephens via e-mail regarding this issue. Response: Public Works has prepared a response memo regarding road repairs in this area. They have sent a copy of the memo to Mr. Snavely via E,mail per your request. S:\JOHN\Council Referals\Couch\Referrals 3-24-00 Response.wpd MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: William C. Descary, City Treasurer DATE: March 23, 2000 SUBJECT: INVESTMENT POLICY This is in response to a referral from Councilmember Couch concerning the next annual review of investment policy. The current Investment Policy was adopted by the City Council January 12, 2000. Prior to consideration by the Council, the policy was discussed and recommended for adoption by' the Budget and Finance Committee at their meeting on December 20, 1999. Councilmember Couch is requesting that staff utilize the Revised Local Agency Investment Guidelines, issued by the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission, in their next review of the policy scheduled for December 2000. The City's current Investment Policy limits investment maturities to 3 years which is more restrictive than the 5 year limit imposed by California Government Code. Councilmember Couch requests staff to consider the option, provided by Code, of having the Council authorize the extension of a percentage of the maturities beyond five years to possibly as much as thirty years. cc: Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director ' RECEIVED .... S:\Darrin\Bill\Memo - Tandy - lnvestPolicy.wpd CITY MANAGEFI'$ OFFICE ~-, ~ City of Bakersfield· *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 /JOB: WF0018404 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3~17~00 REQUEST DATE: 3/15/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 12:04:41 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'l'~'l': d~15~00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/23/00 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK. TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: INVESTMENT POLICY REQUEST COMMENTS · **REFERRAL TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT*** COUCH REQUESTED STAFF TO REVIEW OPTIONS IN THE NEXT ANNUAL INVESTMENT POLICY UPDATE. Job Order Description: INVESTMENT POLICY Category: FINANCE Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: FINANCIAL SERVICES START DATE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE / / BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS, DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: March 22, 2000 SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0018406/001, wARD 4, EXCESSIVE SPEED - JEWETTA BETWEEN BRIMHALL AND ROSEDALE. "COUCH REQUESTED THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER ADVISE HIM WHEN TRAFFIC SIGNALS WILL BE INSTALLED ON JEWETTA, BETWEEN BRIMHALL AND ROSEDALE HWY. ALSO, LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTALLING AN INTERIM STOP SIGN PRIOR TO THE SIGNAL. COUCH ALSO REQUESTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INCREASE TRAFFIC PATROL IN THIS AREA." Jewetta and Palm is an intersection of two collector streets that are residential in character. Both are Iow volume streets with Jewetta carrying less than 1700 vehicles per day and Palm carrying only 1200 vehicles per day. The Traffic Engineer and staff performed a traffic study for both traffic signal and stop sign warrants. The intersection did not meet any warrants for a traffic signal or a four-way stop. The volume was at about two-thirds of the State of California recommended minimum threshold for consideration of stop signs. None of the. eleven warrants for a traffic signal were close to being met. Based on the limited growth potential for this area, it is unlikely to meet any warrant for a traffic signal for many years. Since this intersection will revert back to Kern County in a few weeks, copies of the traffic studies, volume, speed and accident data will be sent to the Kern County Road Department's Traffic Engineer for their use and consideration of future traffic controls. Speed studies were also performed by the Traffic Engineer for Jewetta. The posted speed limit is 40 miles per hour. The study showed the average speed is 41 miles per hour. A speed of 45 miles per hour is exceeded by 25 percent of the drivers (216 vehicles in 24 hours) and a speed of 55 miles per hour is exceeded by 2 percent of the drivers (17 vehicles in a 24 hour period). The Police Department conducted a special speed enforcement of Jewetta and issued eight speeding tickets in a two hour, off-peak, period. Traffic Engineering will continue to monitor the intersection and Jewe.tta_f~r operation of the intersection while under City jurisdiction. _ RECEIVED cc: Traffic Engineering File - WF0018406.Jewetta speeds.ward4.ref.wpd, _ slw: P:\DATA\VVP~000\WF0018406 J ewetta_speeds.ward4, ref. wpd , , CITY' MANAGER'S OF Page 1 of 1 WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 ~REQ~JOB: WF0018406./ 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3~21~00 REQUEST DATE: 3/15/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 8:44:44 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: /23/00 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: EXCESSIVE SPEED-JEWETTA BTWN. BRIMHALL & ROSEDALE REQUEST COMMENTS ***DUAL REFERRAL TO TRAFFIC ENGINEER & POLICE*** COUCH REQUESTED THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER ADVISE HIM WHEN TP~AFFIC SIGNALS WILL BE INSTALLED ON JEWETTA, BETWEEN BRIMHALL & ROSEDALE HWY. ALSO, LOOK INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTALLING AN INTERIM STOP SIGN PRIOR TO THE SIGNAL. COUCH ALSO REQUESTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT INCREASE TRAFFIC PATROL IN THIS AREA. Job Order Description: EXCESSIVE SPEED-JEWETTA BTWN. BRIMHALL & ROSEDALE atpgory: POLICE SERVICES DEPT asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: POLICE SERVICES START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / / BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/~'~ ~ DATE: MARCH 23, 2000 ;UBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0018407, WARD 4, ROAD REPAIRS "Couch requested staff look into repairing the road at the fo. llowing locations: ~lewetta Avenue between Hageman Road and Snow Road & Coffee Road between Olive Drive and 7th Standard Road. Staff to contact Couch regarding this issue. Also, Staff to respond to Ward 4 resident, Mr. Stephens via e-mail regarding this issue. ' Staff reviewed road conditions on both Jewetta Avenue between Hageman Road and Snow Road, and Coffee Road between Olive Drive and 7th Standard Road. The following will outline the condition of each road and staff's proposal for maintenance. Jewetta Avenue is in exceptional condition between Hageman Road and Reina Road. In fact, the majority of this segment is less than ten years old and was constructed at the same time the adjacent properties were developed. Jewetta Avenue between Reina Road and Snow Road is an old County "cold mix" farm road. It too is in fairly good shape considering the type of material used in its construction. It has been the policy of the City to wait until development occurs to reconstruct these roads. This is simply because reconstruction of road work is extremely expensive and the City has limited funds for roadway maintenance. Engineering and Street Department Staff reviewed this road segment and will be proposing maintenance work in the form of either oil sand or a chip seal. Overlaying of · an oil sand road is not an effective tool since it tends to deteriorate prematurely due to the insufficient base. Coffee Road is within City jurisdiction between Olive Drive and Norris Road. Coffee Road north of Norris Road is under the jurisdiction of Kern County. We would agree that the section of Coffee Road in City jurisdiction is in need of maintenance, however the type of maintenance required consists of a portion that will become a landscape median in the near future. Therefore Staff is recommending a combination of reconstruction and roadway overlay on the north bound lanes to a point where the existing median terminates. The rest of Coffee G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals\Couch\WF0018407 road repair.wpd CiTY MANAGER'S OFiF~C~ March 23, 2000 Page 2 - memo Referral WF0018407 In order to adequately repair this segment of Coffee Road, additional right-of-way is required at the location of the homes fronting the east side of Coffee Road. It would also be staff's recommendation to begin the process to acquire this additional right-of-way through a Capital Project to complete, this segment of Coffee Rd. G:\GROUPDATLRe ferrais\Couch\WF0018407 road repair, wpd City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* WORK REQUEST PAGE '1 REQ/JOB: WF0018407 / 003 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3~21~00 REQUEST DATE: 3/15/00 CREW: TIME PRINTED: 8:44:43 SCHEDULE DATES LOCATION: ~'r~T: 3~15~00 LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/23/00 FACILITY NODES GEN'. LOC: FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: ROAD REPAIR REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** COUCH REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO REPAIRING THE ROAD AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: JEWETTA BETWEEN HAGEMAN AND SNOW ROAD & COFFEE RD.BETWEEN OLIVE DR AND 7TH STANDARD. STAFF TO CONTACT COUCH REGARDING THIS ISSUE. ALSO, STAFF TO RESPOND TO WARD 4 RESIDENT, MR. STEPHENS VIA E-MAIL REGARDING THIS ISSUE. COPY OF MR.'STEPHENS E-MAIL ADDRESS AND RELATED CORRESPONDENCE AVAILABLE AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FRONT COUNTER. Job Order Description: ROAD REPAIR at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE __/__/__ From: "James Snavely" <jstephen(~lightspeed.net> To: ClTYDOM.citypol (City_Council) Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 7:08 PM 00 FEB 29 AH 8:n6 Subject: Ward 4 Streets and repair David Couch: with the new construction taking place on Jewetta between Hageman and Snow road, Jewetta needs repair work and an overlay. Coffee Rd between Olive and 7th Standard also needs repair. Both roads should have an overlay. With the construction that is going on within Ward 4, what plans and monies has been put aside to accomplish required road improvement projects? You as our elected official, are charged with the responsibility to see that we receive necessary services and improvements from the fees.that is charged for building permits. There is a new school being constructed on Jewetta. This school will generate extra traffic on Jewetta. Jim Snavely jstephen@lightspeed.net David R. Couch Second Vice President-Investments Financial Consultant SALOMON SM1TH BARNEY 6~,_~.914, 800-421-2171 A member of c~tlgroup~ SALOMON SMITH BARNEY INC. 5000 California Ave., Suite 100 Bakersfield, CA 93309-0711 Fax 661-327-9417 7-'- // Ward 4 Streets and repair ........... page-~'-i From: "James Snavely" <jstephen@lightspeed.net> To: CITYDOM.citypol(City_Council) Date: Mon, Feb 28, 2000 7:08 PM Subject: Ward 4 Streets and repair David Couch: with the new construction taking place on Jewetta between Hageman and Snow road, Jewetta needs repair work and an overlay. Coffee Rd between Olive and 7th Standard also needs repair. Both roads should have an overlay. With the construction that is going on within Ward 4, what plans and monies has been put aside to accomplish required road improvement projects? You as our elected official, are charged with the responsibility to see that we receive necessary services and improvements from the fees that is charged for building permits. There is a new school being constructed on Jewetta. This school will generate extra traffic on Jewetta. Jim Snavely jstephen@lightspeed.net David R. Couch Second Vice President-Investments Financial Consultant SALOMON SMITH BARNEY ~:~'~'~' 800-421-2171 A member of cltlgroup'~' SALOMON SMITH BARNEY INC. 5000 California Ave,, Suite 100 Memo- · action To: Local .Elected Officials From: Philip D. Radford, Field Director, Ozone Action ~ Date: 2/21/2000 Re: Washer Efficiency Standards 1 am writing to alert you to a decision being made in Washington DC that will affect your communities' water supplies and air quality and to invite you to urge the government to preserve our drinking water supplies and our environment. The U.S. Secretary of Energy, Bill Richardson is currently considering updating the energy efficiency standards for washers. These standards will: · Reduce water use of the average clothes washer by 50%, cutting average household water use by 10%, · Cut projected drinking water system investments of $325 billion over the next two decades, · Scale down water and wastewater system infrastructure investments, saving communities millions of dollars, In addition, these new standards will cut pollution from power production - the largest source of air pollution contributing to smog, airborne soot, mercury contamination and global wanning. Scientists agree that global wanning will have serious impacts including an increase in heat-related deaths, spread of infectious disease and property damage due to sea level rise and severe weather. What you can do: The Department of Energy is currently taking public comments on this issue. Please take a minute to: 1. Write a letter to Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson (see attached), 2. Fill out the bottom of this form and fax it with your letter to: (202) 986-6041. [] I have sent a letter to Bill Richardson and cc:d a copy to Ozone Action First Name Last Name Elected Title Municipality E-mail [] In addition, sign me up for a bi-weekly email update, which will include: · Program highlights from other cities that are saving money while stopping global wanning, · Breaking science on how global warming impacts your community, · Opportunities to highlight your local environmental successes locally and nationally, · Updates on federal global warming legislation that affects my community. [] I would like more information on joining 500. other cities and counties on Earth Day by implementing a local clean energy program that saves money and protects the environment. action Modernizing the National Clothes Washer Standard: Frequently Asked Questions How do more efficient washers save energy and water? Most of the energy needed to do laundry goes t.o heat water for the washer and to operate the dryer. The actual energy to run the washer motor and controls is relatively small. So, efficient washers save energy by reducing water use and by wringing more water out during the spin cycle to decrease dryer time. Front loaders, just like the kind in Laundromats, save water by lifting and dropping clothes in and out of a pool of water in the bottom ora tub on its side. This method greatly reduces the amount of water relative to top loaders that must fill the tub for each wash and rinse cycle. Washers wring clothes dryer by more careful controls and by spinning at higher speeds. How much water do these washers save? Washers on the market today that meet the energy efficiency imprgvement target reduce water use by about 50%. Since about 20% of most households indoor water use goes to wash clothes, these washers will cut household water use by about 10% or, for the average household, about 7,000 gallons per year. Because this water drains to the wastewater system, efficient washers reduce sewer bills or, for those households on septic tanks, loading to the tank. What kind of washers would meet the new standard? Washers currently on the market that would meet the new minimum efficiency standard are all front loaders such as those marketed by Frigidaire, Maytag, GE, and Kenmore. However, a new standard does not mean all washers would be front loading. Whirlpool has developed but not yet marketed an equally efficient top loader washer for the U.S. market and many manufacturers sell equally efficient top-lo, aders in Europe and around the world. Are more efficient washers more expensive? Yes. According to U.S. Department of Energy analyses, washers meeting this new standard would be about $125 more expensive to purchase than current models. But consumers rapidly recoup these savings in lower electricity~-natural gas and water and sewer bills. How fast depends on how much laundry a given household does and their specific energy, water and wastewater rates. Most households will save hundreds of dollars over the life of their washer. Do efficient washers work as well as the old style washers? Yes. A prominent consumer products rating publication has rated a front loading design as the best washing performance product on the market for the past two years. Independent analyses have confirmed that front loads perform as well or better at washing clothes as top loaders. Who would this help? Everyone who buys a new clothes washer after the standard become effective. All new washers manufactured in the U.S. or imported for the U.S. market as of the effective date of the standard would be required to be at least as efficient as the new standard. Such standards exist for all major household appliances and the US Department of Energy revises these standards periodically to keep them abreast of technological and market changes. The new washer standard would become effective after 2003. Who is Ozone Action? Ozone Action is a non-partisan, non-profit organization solely focused on solving atmospheric problems such as global warming and ozone depletion. Among Ozone Action's recent accomplishments are The Mayor attd Local Officials Statement on Global Warming on which over 600 local officials called on the federal government to increase efforts to stop global warming and The Business Climate Challenge in Which prominent business leaders from Mitsubishi, Starbucks, Nike, CNN and over 70 other companies called for United States leadership on global warming. For more information, please see our web site at www.ozone.ore or call toll free at 1-888-363-9197. For more information, contact Philip D. Radford at Ozone Action at 1-888-363-9197 or Andrew deLaski at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project at 6 ! 7/363-94 70. Sample Letter on Energy Efficient Clothes Washer Standards Honorable Bill Richardson Secretary of Energy U.S. Department of Energy ' 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington, DC 20585 Dear Secretary Richardson: I am writing to urge you to modernize the national clothes washer efficiency standard. Currently available and affordable modem clothes washer designs justify a new standard set at 40% more efficient than the old standard. This standard will cut the average household's water use by 10%, saving consumers billions of dollars, conserving limited drinking water supplies, fighting global warming and reducing air pollution. Local communities must contend with the need for clean and safe drinking water. All across the country, communities are facing increased demand for and tightened regulatory requirements for drinking water and sewer services. Drinking water system investments alone will top $325 billion over the next two decades according to the American Water Works Association. Energy and water efficient appliances will help delay or scale down water and wastewater system infrastructure investments, potentially saving communities millions of dollars. In addition, local communities are seriously impacted by the environmental and public health consequences of wasted energy. Power production is the largest source of air ~ pollution contributing to smog, airborne soot, mercury contamination and global warming pollutants. Local communities do not have the resources to manage the consequences of global warming predicted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency such as sever weather events, the spread of infectious diseases and an increase in smog and heat related deaths. Local communities have worked successfully at the local level to find solutions that conserve water, reduce air pollution and fight global warming. We cannot do this alone, however. Setting a strong clothes washer standard now will help local communities, save consumers money and protect our environment. Please keep me informed of your decision in this important matter. Sincerely, Your Name Cc: Ozone Action BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 21, 2000 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager ~ SUBJECT: Referral # WF0018400 Code Enforcement Issues at 503, 505, 507 N Street I contacted Mr. Gary Littles regarding the properties located on N Street. He wanted to know the amount of the required fees to rectify the code enforcement issues. Mr. Littles has worked out most of the fees and charges directly with the departments involved. I am in the process of obtaining the sewer charges for one property, which are still outstanding, and will contact Mr. Littles when I have that information. AC:rs [~- ~ City of Bakersfield ~ ~/~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 //JO: WF0018400 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3~17~00 REQUEST DATE: 3/15/00 /KW: TIME PRINTED: 10:09:43 SCHEDULE DATES LQCATION: ~'l'~n~'l': ~15~0 9 LoCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/27/00 GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: SALVAGGIO ORIGIN:- CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER'ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: LETTER TO CITIZEN RE:' CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES CONTACT 503,505~507 'N' ST. Phone 2 661 - 6271899 ( ) Bakersfield, CA 93301 REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO ASST. CITY MANAGER, ALAN CHRISTENSEN*** SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF PREPARE A LETTER TO MR. GARY LITTLES REGARDING PROPERTIES ON 'N' ST. WHICH HAVE BEEN BOARDED-UP, NO UTILITIES, ETC AND LET HIM KNOW THE AMOUNT OF MONEY REQUIRED'~OR HIM TO RECTIFY THIS ISSUE. Job Order Description: LETTER TO CITIZEN RE: CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES at~gory: CITY MANAGER asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: CITY MANAGER START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / /