The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/31/00 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 31, 2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TAN D~?~ ~NAG~R SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The mayors and city managers representing Kern County cities met Thursday with League of California Cities Executive Director Chris McKenzie to discuss proposals currently being reviewed at the state level regarding local government fiscal reform. Vice Mayor Irma Carson attended on behalf of the Mayor and Assistant City Manager, John Stinson also attended. Attached is a chart which shows a comparison of the State/Local reform proposals and other materials on this issue. Some of the proposals involve a shift of sales taxes for property taxes or distribution of all or part of sales taxes by population, rather than situs (where tax is generated). Any change from the current situs distribution would have significant adverse financial impact on our city's revenues and ability to provide needed services. This will be an evolving issue that staff will monitor with the Kern County Association of Cities and the League. 2. A copy of the Mayor's letter to the Board of Supervisors and the resolution adopted on March 29th concerning the proposed Borba Dairies is enclosed. 3. The Chief of Police received the enclosed statistics on Crimes Reported for Selected California Jurisdictions from the Attorney General. According to the California Crime Index, Bakersfield had a decrease of 15.6% in violent crimes and a 16.9% decrease in property crimes. 4. The citizen survey will begin within the next week. Approximately 700 households, randomly selected, will be contacted by telephone. Please contact Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen if you have any questions or concerns. 5. An update on our negotiations with the Kern County Waste Management Department regarding commercial refuse disposal fees is enclosed for your information. 6. A response to a Council request is enclosed: Couch - Provide comments regarding clothes washer efficiency standards. AT:rs cc: Mayor-Elect Harvey Hall Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst ~'3~1/00 TUE 15:46 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP [~001 JASON O. CAODLE JOHN H.E. ROI~BOUTS City Manager Mayor HANNAH H. CHUNG PHiLiP A. SMITH Ftnance Director Mayor Pro-Tempore DAVID A. JAMES, REA MARIANA El. TELL DIr. of Planning & Econ. Dev. Council Member DENNIS WAHLSTROM JAMES D. FRANKLIN Pubtlc Works Director Council Member TIMOTHY McLAUGHLIN WES KITCHEN Fire Chief Council Member NElL G. ElROWNING JEANETTE M. HAUBRICH-KELLEY, CMC Airport Manager City Clerk THOMAS F. SCHROETER ROSE B. FRENG City Attorney City Treasurer REX A. MASON City Engineer March 21, 2000 To All Kern County Cities, City Managers and Mayors: As per my recent phone conversation with your city, the League of Cities Fiscal Reform Task Force has had five (5) meetings over the past several months to come up with a proposed change in the revenue sOurces and amounts for local government (cities, counties and special districts). This is very important to all cities since this will determine your future income/revenue from the state. Several groups, assemblymen, senators and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) have proposals and bills before the legislature and governor and as yet the cities are still in the talking stage. I have scheduled a Kern County Association Cities (KCAC) meeting for Thursday, March 30, 2000, at 12:00 PM at the Hill House, 700 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield. I have asked Chris McKenzie, Executive Director of the League, to address the association on these fiscal reform proposals. So that each city may evaluate their position with what the League is proposing, I am enclosing a Fiscal Impact Proposal by Michael Coleman, a consultant to the League. Included is a survey form, which I encourage you to complete and send to the League (attn: Michael Coleman, fax (530) 758-3952). Also incI~ded is an article by Chris McKenzie on Fiscal Reform and a chart on two (2) allocation property shift relief proposals for $1.8 billion dollars refund to Kern cities for ERAF. I encourage you to complete the survey form and hopefully Chris McKenzie will have the results so that you can see if you will be a winner or loser under the Leagues' formula. Please let Jeanette Kelley, City Clerk (661) 822-2200 ext. 104, know how many will attend the lunch so we can leave proper reservations. Please contact me if you have any questions or other matters to discuss. There will be other agenda items. Thank you. Sincerely, JOHN H.E. ROMBOUTS Mayor of the City of Tehachapi and President of KCAC JHER:sf [:\letters\councih2000\re formsurvcy 115 SOUTH ROBINSON STREI::T * TI::HACHAPI, CALIFORNIA g3561-1722 · (661) 822-2200 E-MAIL: tehach@lightspeed,net CITY OFFICIALS FAX (661) 822-2197 FAX (661) 822-8559 ~ 03/~21/00 TUE 15:47 FAX $05 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~002 - ,... '~ ".: ': ' ,' :. · .:'. · ' : ', ':,M:~ -~d'...¥:, ' ':d'.'?"...~?,.. , '.: .. ' · ' , ., ~'~: " ; .' Shaping a Plan for State-Local Fiscal Reform By Chris McKenz~e I f you were a city official in the early year (liquor license fees, highway carrier's 1990s, the weaknesses of the state- uniform business tax, financial aid to local local fiscal relationship were pain- agencies, .cigarette tax, etc.); fully clear to you in a way that may not be · Cuts in motor vehicle in-lieu tax rev- as easy to understand in today's robust enues in the early 1980s of more than $230 economy. At that time the flaws of the sys- million; and tern were readily apparent, as cities were · Additional and ongoing cuts, beginning forced to cut support for libraries, human in the early 1990s of local property tax rev- services, parks and recreation, street main- enues to fund schools (ERAF, or Education tenance and planning when local property Revenue Augmentation Fund). These tax revenues were reallocated by state "shifts" in local property tax dollars to government to fund schools, schools came at the expense of cutting vital CMs McK~zle is executive Toda}~ however, there's a cautiously hope- local services, director of ~e/eague of ful wind blowing through city halls around Add to the above mix. a growing ten- California Cities. Several the state. What's new is the fact that there is dency of state goverrument and the public detailed reporn on the fiscal a growing commitment by a number of state to mandate functions on titles while fur- pressures facing ¢~ties can leaders to Find a more balanced system for ther limiting their ability to raise taxes and be found on the teague of ' financing local governments. What makes fees (Proposition 218 of 1996, requiring Callfornta Cities Web si~, discussions possible, now more than inyears voter approval of tax increases), and there wwvzcaclties.org, click past, is the leadership on this issue by cer- can be little doubt why state and local lead- 'Member Serv/ces,' then rain state legislators (many of whom for- ers are troubled by the current state-local 'Fear, res/then merly served in local government) and the fiscal relationship. Moreover, there is grow- :Financing.' The League's good fortune of the state's strong fiscal stand- ing concern that the narrowing revenue ~scal reform lng. Whether these factors will be sufficient base of titles has created a system of unde- recommendations can be to see us through a transition to a more bal- sirable fiscal incentives that are driving land foo,d at h~p:// anced system for financing city governments use decisions (often referred to as the ww~.cacit~e$.org/ over the next few years will become dearer "fiscalization" of land use). memserv/features/ as the legislative session progresses. What Cities Need and Wanl: Permanent, Fiscal._Re~rm/ Some Background: How Cities Got to Constitutionally Protected Solutions fiscal_ref~'m, htm~ Where They Are Today With the passage of legislation last year The dissatisfaction with the current calling for the development of a proposed state-local fiscal relationship has its roots constitutional amendment to restructure in a series of decisions made by both the the state-local fiscal relationship, the Board legislature and the public, beginning in the of Directors of the League of California Cit- 1970s. These decisions have substantially les appointed a special task force charged narrowed the municipal revenue base and with charting a reform package to provide . emphasized state control over municipal a basis for future discussions with state revenues at a considerable cost to the policymakers. The task force worked dill- citizens of California. These decisions gently to identify the issues and concerns included: of cities, and to develop a set of prelimi- · Losses in city property tax revenues nary recommendations that respond to due to Proposition 13 in 1978, and loss of them. Key issues they sought to address control over distribution of the remaining include the following: property tax; · · Unpredictability in City Revenues. De- · Elimination of local subventions in the clines in federal, state and county aid to cit- 1980s totaling more than $300 million per les (down from 21 percent to 13 percent of M,~r~h 2000 ~lo~'~x Digest I~ge t3 ~ 03~'21/00 TUE 15:48 FAX 505 ~22 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~003 revenues since 1974-75) and major reductions 1. Protect existing revenues constitu tion- in property tax revenues since the early 1990s ally in order to prevent further narrowing have substantially undermined the stability of the local revenue base without voter of city revenues. Since 1992-1993, cities have approval. 'lost $Z8 billion in property taxes (net of Z Address concerns about the fiscalization Proposition t72's sales tax increase for local of land use decisions and the narrowing of public safety programs) that was diverted to the local revenue base, by taking two fund schools. These losses led to service and interdependent actions: program reductions in cities across the state · Increase the allocation of the proper ,ty mentioned earlier, tax to dries, counties and spec-iai dis~-icts; and · Increasing Reliance on'the Sales Tax. · Retain the "situs" rule (e.g. revenues In the face of unreliable funding from in- remain in the jurisdiction in which the sale tergovernmental sources as well as the occurred), but consider exchanging part of property, tax, cities have become even more the local sales tax derived from future re- reliant on the local sales tax (i.e., Bradley tail projects with state government for an ...cities wont a Burns 1 percent sales tax) and fees and increased share of the property tax derived t~ew' stole-fiscal charges to fund essential servi(/es. Sales and from such proiects. relationship that use tax revenues are by far the largest 3. Provide additional constitutional source of general fund revenue for cities protection against unfunded state mandates. will be bas~ ot~ today, providing more than 50 percent of Keeping Cities Whole: Where We Go re]iable, the general fund revenues in many cities.. From Here permanet~t · Possible Effects on Land Use Decisions. In the midst'of the discussion on reform- With the sales tax being the last remaining lng the state-local fiscal relationship it is solutions, general revenue source with potential essential to remember that it really is all ~(poriet~ce has growth for cities, some legislators, city of- about accountability and responsiveness to shov~ us t~ot ficials, co~mty officials and other observers the people of California, 83 percent of are concerned that cities and counties may whom live in dries. When city officials are only fundamental, place undue emphasis on the sales tax po- elected they are expected to l~ad by setting constitutional tential of certain retail land development spending priorities for city revenues. When reform con begin proposals in comparison to other camper- those revenues cannot be'assured for more Lng and desirable uses such as Industrial than a year at a time because of the deci- to correct tile and residential development (e.g. sions of another level of government, de- shortcomings of "fiscalization' of land use decisions). This sirable long-term plannlng grL~ds to a halt our current charge has not been the subject of exten- and the quality of local government and our sive study, but for those who believe that communities are affected. system, tax policy drives [and use decisions, there The League will continue to refine the is anecdotal evidence to suggest this may elements of this package in conjunction be happening, with its member cities. We are committed · Unfunded State Mandates. While the to working with ou.r intergovernmental California Constitution contains protec- partners to craft a fiscal reform plan that tions for cities from un/unded state man- produces long-term benefits for California's dates, the obstacles cities experience in the cities and people. lengthy process required to secure reim- At the end of the debate, cities want a new bursement of an unfunded mandate can state-fiscal relationship that will be based on lead to years of delay and expense. More- reliable, permanent solutions. Experience has over, the appointment of the members of shown us that only fundamental, constitu- the Commission on State Mandates with- tional reform can begin to correct the short- out local government input may predispose comings of our current system. We stand the commission against reimbursements, ready to engage in the debate necessary to A package of recommendations devel- accomplish that goal. aped by the task force to respond to these issues was recently approved in principle ~ by the Board of Directors. It contains the ' following elements: Page ¶4 Cai. Tax Digest March 2000 ~. 03/c21/00 TUE 15:49 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~004 Local Government Property Tax Sh~'R'e~ef. . ? 1~,o Allocation Alternatives: $1.8 Billion to TOtM LoCdl 'Government Estimate, d FY 2000-01 Values 50'% Gross ERAF / 50% PerCapifa ERAF Net (a la AB1661) of Prop 172 ARCATA $ 445,000 $ 222,000 BLUE L^K~ $ 34,000 $ 24,000 EUREKA' $ 752,000 $ 473,000 NEI~NDALE $ 37,000 $ 15,000 FORTUNA $ 275,000 $ 74,000 RIO DELL $ ?9,OO0 $ 13,000 TRINIDAD $ 10,000 $ 7,000 BRAWLEY $ 586,000 $ 3?9,000 CALEXICO $ 705,000$ 364,000 CALIPATRIA $ 200,000$ 52,000 EL CENTRO $ 1,024,000 $ 573,000 HOLTVILLE $ 149,000 $ 92,000 IMPERIAL $ 209,000 $ 199,000 WESTMORLAND $ 46,000 $ 24,000 BISHOP $ 94,000 $ 68,000 ARVIN $ 304,000 $ 35,000 BAKERSFIg. I .D $ 6,235,000 $ 3,547,000 CALIFORNIA CITY $ 238,000 $ 181,000 D~_I.ANO $ 924,000 $ 259,000 MARICOPA $ 33,000 $ 8,000 MCFARLAND $ 248,000' $ 48~000 RID GF. CREST $ 739,000 $ 206,000 SHAFTER $ 312,000 $ 70,000 TAFT $ 240,000 $ 78,000 TEHACHAPI $ 344,000 $ 119,000 WASCO $ 544,000 $ 64,000 AVENAL $ 331,000 $ 20,000 COlt. CORAN $ 559,000 $ 99,000 HANFORD $ 1,090,000 $ 685,000 LEMOORE $ 494,000$ 242,000 CLEA.RLAKE $ 318,000 $ 58,000 LAKEPORT $ 125,000 $ 125,000 SUSANVII.!.~ $ 459,000 $ 209,000 Page 3 ver 9 March 2000 League of California Cities 03~21/00 TUE 15:50 FAX 805 822 ~559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~]005 Coleman Adv/sory TO: FISCAL REFORM TASK FOR(~E OF THE LF.,AGUE VROM: MICHAEl. COLEMAN th .L J " SUBJECT: FISCAL IMPACTS OF 1) 'l"flE PROPOSAL OF THE SPEAKER S COMMISSION ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE, AND 2) THE TASK FORCE'S PROSPECTIVE REFORM CONCEPT. DATE: 3/7/2000 cc: Chris McKenzie, Dwight Stenbakken, David Jones, Dan Carrig, Megan Taylor I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In my previous reports to the Task Force I outlined the fiscal refon'n proposal of the Speaker's Commission and the Prospective Reform Concept proposed by members of the Task Force. In addition to describing how these proposals would work, I provided an overview of the kinds of fiscal impacts they might produce. I also provided initial (first and second year) fiscal impact estimates based on broadly generalized economic assumprions. Of course, economic trends and conditions vary from locale to locale, and these variations will be the determinants in how the proposals affect city budgets. For this analysis I developed a ftnandal model for each proposal and surveyed twenty (20) dries for spedfic financial data and fiscal and land use projections. I ran each of the respondent's data through the model to produce fiscal impact est/mates of each proposal specific to each city. The results largely confirm the general conclusions about fiscal impact which the Task Force has discussed. But they show the diversity of situations and the diversity of impacts on dries. In summary, my analysis shows: A. The fiscal impact of the swap depends on the city's relative future growth of property tax revenue venus sales tax revenue. Cities with future property tax revenue growth to surpass future sales tax growth will gain from the swap. For those forecasting stronger growth in dry sales tax revenue than in city property tax revenue, the impact of the swap is negative. In some cities, the property tax remm more than makes up for the loss under the swap. 1. Cities with substantial redevelopment programs are less F~kely to benefit from the swap because redevelopment dampens dry property tax revenue growth. 2. Cities whose future land use development is dominated by new sales tax generators are likely to be worse off under the swap proposal. a. However, retail land uses would still provide more city tax revenue than the added city service costs they create. 2217 ISLE ROYALE LANE ° DAVIS, CA o 95616-6616 PHONE: $30.758.3952 o FAX: 530.758.3952 03721/00 TUE 15:51 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACtIAP [~006 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 2 - M~rch 7, 2000 b. In some of these cities that expect substantial taxable sales growth from new development, the lost sales tax revenue under the swap is offset by net gains in existin~ areas of the city. B. Cities that are already especially dependent upon sales tax revenues may be more likely to benefit from the swap. Cities with comparatively ki§h sales tax per capita revenues may have less potential for developing new taxable sales generators than other growing communities. In addition, the swap has the 'benefit of providing more diversity and stability to these city's revenue bases. C, The Speaker's CommiSsion's sales tax for property tax swap is a good deal for most built-out cities. Because the swap under the Prospective Reform Concept applies only to new development, it has no direct effect on built-out cities. D. Cities with mixed residential/commercial growth futures are better off under the sales tax for property tax swap unless they expect to attract new regional-ckaw sales tax generators. E. The sales tax for property tax swap will reduce financial distortions at the root of the "fiscalization of land use" problem... Somewhat. F. Substantial property tax return to local government is necessary to address the "fiscMiv. ation of land use'" problem. II. GOALS OF REFORM While this evaluation looks at the fiscal implications of reform proposals, for a full and fair appraisal one should consider each proposal in light of the overall goals of local government fiscal reform. A. Fiscal Reform Task Force of the League of California Cities · Promote local discretion over revenues. Match local government revenue with responsibility and accountability to the local electorate. · Provide constitutional protection and stability for revenues of all cities and promote California's long-term economic growth, · Avoid harmful effects on individual local governmental units and state government service delivery obligations and programs. · Enforce the prohibition against unfunded mandates. B. Others 1. Speaker's Commission on State and Local Finance, The Speaker's Commission begins its recommendations with the following "guiding concepts:" 03/2~/00 TUE ~5:52 FAX ~05 $22 $559 CITY OF TEHACHAP [~007 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 3 - March 7, 2000 1) The local finance system should facilitate balanced, state, regional and local conservation and development policies as well as finance local and regional services. 2) In order to avoid dependence on one revenue source, local governments should derive thei~ revenues form a diversity of sources, including property tax, sales tax and general purpose state subventions. 3) The finance base for local and regional services should be a constitutionally protected, stable and reliable and be sufficient to assure basic services. _4_) Increase the transparency of state and local government. 2. Legislative Analyst's Office. On February 3, the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO)~ released a report "Reconsidering ABS: Exploring Alternative IVays to Allocate Proper/2/Taxes." The report offers five alternatives to improve local finance. While property tax reform is at the heart of these alternatives, they suggest much broader changes to local government finance. The LAO identify the following existing problems related to local finance and the property tax allocation in particular: ¢* Lack of information impedes government accountabLlity to taxpayers · /'Lack of local control o No (local) ability to raise or lower property tax shares. o System susceptible to state-controlled revenue shifts. o Inability to shift revenues among priorities. ff Skewed development incentives o Fiscal incentives encourage retail over other uses. o Fiscal incentives encourage the proliferation and misuse of redevelopment. · / Assessment practices act as a barrier to new businesses ,/ Reliance upon non-deductible taxes to finance government services. ff Competition for resources results in inefficient intergovernmental program coordination. III. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This report provides results and discussion of my analysis of three proposals for restruct-u~g local finance. The purpose of this analysis is to investigate: o How would the proposal affect the finances of ifidividual cities? o How would the proposal affect the ability of future land use development to provide sufficient ~evenues to cover municipal service costs? A. Methodology Pursuant to the direction of the Task Force, this analysis consists of two exercises: 1) an examination of fiscal impact analyses of proposed development projects ("project analysis"), and 2) The LAO is a non-[aarfsan office which provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the legislature · 037~21/00 TEE 15:52 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP {~008 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 4 - March 7, 2000 an analysis of the fiscal impact on a variety of individual ciries using local fiscal and land use development estimates ("city fiscal survey"). 1. PV°ject Analysis (Exln~olt 4) I gathered fiscal analyses of planned land use developments from several economic consulting firms. I reviewed and summarized the results of these data. Next I altered the revenue figures in the analyses to reflect the changes that would occur under the reform proposals. These changes include reductions in the Bradley Burns local sales tax rate, increases in the property tax share and additional property tax revenue from a property tax return. The numeric results of this analysis ate summarized in Exhibit 4.0. 2. City Fiscal Survey (Exhibits 1-3) I sent information requests to more than thLrty (30) dries. Twenty (20) cities 'responded with fiscal and land use planning statistics including past and projected tax revenues, assessed valuation, population and housing units, using the survey form I supplied (see Exhibit 1.0). I constructed fiscal models of the reform proposals and entered each city's information. The draft results produced by the model were returned back to each city with my observations. The models and results revealed anomalies in some of the data provided by the city finance directors and in the models themselves. Some of the mathematical formulas in the models were corrected and, in several cases, city finance directors chose to change their financial projections. While the dries in this analysis represent a broad variety of circumstances, a non-random survey of just twenty titles can by no means be considered a statistical sample. Consequently, these results suggest that similarly situated cieies will be affected similarly, but they do not necessarily reflect the proportional impact on all 474 cities. The numeric results of this analysis are summarized in Exhibit 4.0. B. The Proposals 1. The Speaker's Commission Proposal: a) swap a portion of the locally levied sales tax for an equivalent amount of the property tax, b) increase the amount of discretionary revenue (by $1 billion) for countT, vide and other local government services. (a) The "Swap" Within each county, the county and each city would Swap a portion of the locally levied sales tax for an equal amount of the property tax. The locally levied 1% sales ta~ rate would be reduced to .5% and the state rate would be raised by .5%. An equal amount of property tax would be shifted from either school or community college dist. dcts. The state, using the new revenue from the .5% of the sales tax, would backfill the school or community college disu:icts through the state aid system. The property tax allocation for each city and county would work as follows: 03~'21/00 TUE 15:53 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP [~009 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 5 - March 7, 2000 (i) The 1°/~ property tax is cu~ently levied countywide and alloCated to agencies within the county by statute. Under this proposal the county and each city would be allocated the amount of property tax it received in the prior year, augmented with the amount of the sales tax that it lost. This action would have the effect of changing each city and county's share of the property tax since the relative shares of the propen'y tax among the jurisdictions receiving the tax would change. The city or county share would go up and the school and/or community college districts' share would go down. (ii) Each year thereafter, the city and the county would receive the amount they received in the prior year (the adjustment for the sales tax swap is now in the base property tax) plus a share of the property tax that is attributable to the growth in assessed value within their ju~sdiction. This share would be based on the new, increased base amount of the agency relative to that of other taxing agencies in theix juxisdictior~ (iii) The property tax would be shifted from either K-12 school districts or community college districts. The reduction in property tax going to these districts would be replaced with an equivalent amount in state aid. Within each county the K-12 school share of the property tax would be allocated on a per student basis. The "basic aid" districts (those school dis~cts that receive a minor amount of state aid and receive most of their funding from the property tax) would be held harmless for the change from a situs based property t~x to one where the schools' share of the countywide property tax is distributed on a per student basis to school districts within the county. (b) Settlement for the 1992-93 and 1993-94 Property Tax Shift. Remm $1 billion of property taxes to counties, ciries and spedal districts from the Educational Revenue Augmentat{on Fund (ERAF) in each county or other State sources over time in annual installments of not less than $100 million, provided that the growth in any year of per capita non-proposition 98 general fund revenue exceeds the statewide consumer price index for the prior year. (Source: Speakff s Commission on State and Local Finance) Note: the Speaker's Commission does not provide a specific recommendation as to how this property tax return should be allocated. This analysis assumes an allocation formula mirroring ' AB1661 of 1999. 2. The Prospective Reform Concept: a) provide an increased allocation of property taxes to cities counties and special districts, b) change the apportionment of sales and property tax revenues from new development only. Sales tax and property tax will be allocated differently for tax revenues from development that occurs after a date certain (e.g. July 1, 2002). The apportionments of tax revenues (including those from revenue growth) on existing properties developed and operating before the date certain would not change. The design of these new apportionments would be similar to the proposal of the Speaker's Commission on State and Local Finance (a "swap" of sales and property tax allocations) but would apply to new development only - and would not involve a hold-harmless base year. Local governments would be "held harmless" on existing revenues by retaining existing tax 03~21/00 T[~ 15:54 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP [~010 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 6 - March 7, 2000 apportionments on previously developed property. The Bradley Burns local sales tax would be reduced with a commensurate increase in the state sales tax rate (the total rate to the taxpayer remakfing the same). Property tax apportionments to cities (and county rates' in unincorporated areas) would be substantially increased such that the new development would provide adequate revenues to provide local public services to the development Coc it housing, office, industrial, retail, etc.). ~ IV. FINDINGS The detailed tables in the attached exhibits provide the specific numeric assumptions and outcomes of the analyses. From some careful review, I have drawn the following general conclusions from the data to try to illustrate how the reform proposals affect specific city finances and the reasons these results may vary among cities. The sales_tax-for-property-tax-swap is the most complex aspect of each proposal. In contrast, the property tax return aspect of each proposal is straightforward as to implementation, fiscal effect, and implications. 3,. The Fiscal Impact Of The Swap Depends On The City's Relative Futttre Growth Of Property Tax Revenue Versus Sales Tax Revenue. As I have indicated in early reports to the Task Force, the fiscal effect on a particular city of the sales_tax-for-property-tax-swap depends on the relative future growth of property tax versus sales tax revenue· Historical patterns and economic trends suggest that California local governments on the whole will be better off with more property tax and less sales tax. Sixteen (16) of the twenty (20) survey dries estimate their city's furore property tax revenue growth to match or surpass future sales tax growth. These cities show net gain or break even results from the swap. [See Exhibit 2.0 Summary of Assumptions, Impacts and Profiles of Survey Cities] Lakewood, La Mixada, Mission Viejo and Signal Hill are each forecasting stronger growth in city sales tax revenue than in city property tax revenue. [See Exhibit 2.0] Consequently, the impact of the swap is negative for these cities. However, in La Mitada and Mission Viejo, the ERAF property tax return aspect of the proposal provides each of these cities with more than enough revenue to cushion the loss. In Lakewood, the property tax remm provides a net gain of almost $1 million in the first year, but this gain declines rapidly over time as the 3.5% annual growth in this property tax revenue looses ground to the loss of sales tax revenue that grows at an average of more than over 9% per year. The primary factors that contribute to a city having higher sales tax than property tax revenue growth are 1) a large proportion of the city in redevelopment, and 2) future land use development that is dominated by a high mount of taxable sales generators. 03~'21/00 TIlE 15:55 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAp ~]011 Fiscal Reform T~sk Force - 7 - March 7, 2000 1. d]~r,~l~r.~: Cities With Substantial Redevelopment Programs A~e Less Likely To Benefit From The Swap; Redevelopment is largely financed by property tax increment chat accrues within a proiect area. Redevelopment has the effect of limiting the growth of property tax revenues to the taxing agencies chat serve the redevelopment area. Thus, the l~ger a redevelopment area, the more significant its drag on a local agency's proper~y tax revenue. AIl but one of the survey cities have redevelopment agencies. In five cities, redevelopment areas encompass more than a third of the city. In Signal Hill, nearly two thirds of the city is in redevelopment -among the largest proportions in the state.2 This is a significant reason behind this city's relatively Iow general fund property tax growth forecast of just 2% per year. Redevelopment agencies collect 8% of property tax revenues in California. But unlike other local governments, redevelopment agencies gather their property tax revenues from the "tax increment" or growth in property tax revenue that occurs within their jurisdiction. Absent the redevelopment agency, this tax increment would be apportioned among the taxing agencies serving the area. California Property Tax Revenue '96-97 " redev$~l?:Bment __ ERAF $3.3B This public financing mechanism is unique to redevelopment and it creates some special considerations when we consider changes to the property tax system, such as the sales tax for property tax swap proposal of the Speaker's Commissiort Still, dudng the late 1980s, Signal Hill's property tax revenue grew by an average of 8% per year. ~ 03~21/00 TUE 15:56 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~012 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 8 - ' M~rch 7, 2000 ,The Effect Of The Swap Proposal On Redevelopment Agency Revenues The speaker's commission proposes to swap the allocation of sales tax and property tax revenues among governments, but it would not alter the tax rate- Redevelopment revenues come from the tax increment or growth in tax revenue that occurs within an area. Absent the redevdopment area, the revenUes would be allocated according to apportionment shares. Generally, shifting these shares (i.e., reducing the school/state share with an equivalent increase in the city share) will not affect the amount of tax increment going to the redevelopment agency. However, in some redevelopment areas, inter-agency agreements provide for spedal arrangements, most commonly "pass-throughs." Cities and redevelopment agendes will need to examine these agreements to determine any unwelcome fiscal impacts. A few redevelopment agencies receive sales tax revenue under sales & use tax sharing agreements. In 1996-97, redevelopment agencies received $24 million in sales & use tax revenue. Depending on the terms of each agreement, the reduction in Bradley Burns sales & use tax from the swap may affect these revenues. These agencies would need to examine the agreements and the financial implications and consider amendments. However, in most cases the city will have approximately the same (or more) total fiscal resources with w}fich to support its redevelopment agency. The Effect Of The Swap Pr.oposal On Other Taxing Entities The presence of a redevelopment area will affect city and state finances under the swap proposal. Where a redevelopment agency exists, property tax revenue growth is diverted, but not (generally) sales & use tax revenues, These dries will pick up greater burdens (pay more of the tax increment) for their redevelopment agencies and the schools serving the area will pay that much less. The total amount of increment going to the redevelopment agency will not change. More Property Tax to Cities Means Mote Redevelopment Tax Increment Comes From Cities With a greater share of property tax revenue comes a greater share of tax increment going to redevelopment areas. In the short-mn, some dries with substantial redevelopment agencies and substantial sales tax bases may see lower general fund revenue growth as a result. This is primarily because they will contribute additional property tax increment to their redevelopment agencie, However, when these agencies close, these cities will be better off than under the status quiz An Example. The. City of Durham received $2000 in sales & use tax last year. Next year that revenue source is proiected to grow 4% and so it would receive $80 in growth. But the Speaker's Commission proposal would shift half this tax base ($1000 dollar for dollar) for property tax share. So the dry would get just $40 in sales & use tax growth (4% on the remaining $1000). On the 19rol~ertv tax side. the City of Durb. um received $400 last year. Assessed · 03721/00 TUE 15:57 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~]013 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 9 - March 7, 2000 revenues for the City would grow $84 but because half this goes to the redevelopment agency, it will get just $42. The net result is that the City will see $10 less revenue under the Speakcffs proposal. But in the absence of the redevelopment agency it would have received $20 more and when the RDA completes its work and closes, the dty's larger share will have it finandally better off than under the current arrangement. This assumes that, in the future, property values in the city will grow faster than taxable sales. ~ f.~j~t~m- Year 2 I.m_p_a~of 50% ST > PT Swap _Status. Quo ?ro0osal ~ Sales Tax Base $ 2,000 1,000 Sales Tax Growth @ 4% 80 40 (40) Property Tax Base .- 400 1,400 Property Tax Growth @ 6% 24 84 60 less TI to redevelopment (12) (42) (30) TOTAL 2,492 2,482 1_(~.).~ Less Property Tax to Schools Means Less Tax Increment Comes From Schools Redevelopment has had tb.e effect of depressing the growth in property tax revenue for schools (as well as dries, counties and spedal districts) by capturing this revenue growth. Just as the swap of sales tax for property tax will mean a slower growing revenue base for some does, it may mean a faster growing revenue base for some schools (state sales tax/ general fund versus local property tax). california's taxable real property is a more robust and steady revenue base than taxable sales, historically and in the future. But the growth of property tax revenue to some local governments (mduding dries, counties, special districts and school districts) has been slowed by the presence of redevelopment. The. swap relieves schools of the some of the revenue dampening effects of redevelopmerm An Incentive To Complete Redevelopment ~ · . One of the negadve effects of the property tax shifts of the 1990s has been to reduce the incenfve for dries to close out their redevelopment agendes - by reducing their property tax shares and thereby the revenue boosts they will receive after the dosure. Increasing dty shares of the property tax gives cities a greater incentive to succeed with their redevelopment efforts, boosting property values in the process and then complete and close their agencies} reaping the benefits in healthier tax reverlucs. 03V2~/00 TUE 15:58 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP [~0~4 - 10 - March 7, 2000 Fiscal Reform Task Force 2. ~lew Developm~ent Dominated By Sales Tax Generator~: Cities Whose Future Land Use Development Is Dominated By New Sales Tax Generators Axe Likely To Be Worse Off Under The Swap Proposal This is, of course, consistent with the policy goals of the Speakers Commission to "facilitate balanced, state, regional and local conservation and development policies." The City of Lakewood expects major new sales tax generating commercial centers to open in the next few years, boosting their taxable sales by 33% over the next three years. These developments are all located in the city's redevelopment agency. Consequently, the property tax growth from them accrues to the redevelopment agency, not the city general fund. For this city swapping, a "swap" of sales tax for property tax is a one sided deal: they loose future sales tax but can expect no future property tax in return - until the redevelopment agency closes. But even ff such retail development will occur outside a redevelopment agency, the city would gain much more tax revenue under the current system. Mission Viejo is currently experiencing :a major boom in retail sales generating development including the renaissance of its high-end mall, new car dealerships, and new "big box" retailers. About half of this new development is in the city's redevelopment area. a. However, Retail Land Uses Would Still Provide More City Tax Revenue Than The Added City Service Costs They Create. In cities such as Mission Viejo and Lakewood with plans for substantial retail development, the city would receive less net revenue (new revenue minus new service costs) than under the current system. However, even under the Speaker's Commission proposal, new city revenues from the land use development would still more than pay for the added city service costs. This effect can be seen in the "Project Fiscal Impact Analyses." The original consultant fiscal analyses of projects that are dominated by sales tax generators show substantial net revenue to the dry. Under a sales tax for property tax swap (as proposed by the Speaker's Commission), these projects would still produce substanfi,lly more new city revenue than new city costs - even before factoring in the $1 billion property tax return included in the Speaker's Commission proposal. According to the original consultant study, the Coven Business Park in Davis would generate about $20,000 net revenue to the city in Year 8, My analysis shows that the Speaker's Commission swap would reduce this net gain to about $10,000 in that year. The Commission's proposed property tax return would add about $8,000 per year for a net gain of $18,000. Under the Prospective Reform Concept, the larger property tax share (for this city) and larger property tax return ($1.5 billion versus $1 billion) would produce a net gain to the city from this project of about $29,000. 03~721/00 TUE 15:59 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~]015 - 11 - Ma~ch 7, 2000 Fiscal Reform Task Force b. In Some Of These Cities That F.,xpect Subs~nlial Taxable Sales G~owth From New Development, The Lost Sales Tax Revenue Under The Swap Is Offset By Net Gains In Existi~ Areas Of The City. The negative effects on these cities may be mitigated by net positive revenue effects in existing development. That is, stronger property tax revenue growth versus sales tax growth within exiting development may exceed n.et revenue losses in new development. In Turlock, a retail proiect expected to open in August 2000 will provide a substantial boost to city sales tax revenues. The Speaker's Commission swap (theoretically implemented July 1, 2000 for the purpose of this analysis) would result in about $150,000 less net revenue to the city from the new development in 2000-2001. But this loss would be offset by from gains in already developed areas ~of the city where the swap would produce a net gain of more than $190,000 due to stronger property tax revenue growth than sales tax growth. In Laguna Niguel, new development would return $50,0000 to $150,000 less net revenue to the city per year unde~ the Speaker's Commission swap. Even though the city has no redevelopment agency, the higher property tax share under the swap doesn't make up for the reduced sales tax revenue from commerdal portions of ~the development. However, stronger grovcth in property tax than sales tax revenues in the existing areas of the city more than exceeds this loss. As a result the City of Laguna Niguel would be financially better-off overall unde~ the Commission's p~oposal. In Santa Barbara, the fiscal impact of the swap on new development is insignificant, but in . existing development, the swap results in substantial net gains. B. Cities With Mixed Residential/Commercial Growth Futures Are Better Off Under The Sales-Tax-for-Property-Tax-Swap Unless They Expect To Attract New Regional-Draw Sales Tax Generators. Several of the survey cities are forecasting substantial growth in the coming decade. For most of these communities, a sales tax for property tax swap provides the city with a substantial net gain in revenues over the current system. For example, the rifles of I,ivermore, Novato, Tracy and Turlock each anticipate annual population growth of 3% to 5% during the next five years. The swap reduces net gain from taxable sales generators because the additional p~operty tax share can't make up for the reduced sales tax revenue. But revenues from residential, office and industrial development will improve. Consequently, the swap would help cities that are building housing to cover the additional service costs of the development. However, my analyses of the proiect fiscal evaluations indicates that in some cases, this future development still might not provide sufficient local government revenues to cover the additional service demands it creates. 03~/21/00 TUE 16:00 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF -TEI~ACHAP ~..016 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 12 - March 7, 2000 C. The Speaker's Commlssion's Sales Tax for Property Tax Swap is a Good' Deal for Most Built-Out Cities. Many of the survey cities, including Bellflower, Daly City, Glendale, San Carlos, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Fe Spfings~ and Sunnyvale predict no significant land use development of any kind in the next five years. These "built-out" cities generally predict steadier, stronger growth in property tax revenue than sales tax revenue.. These projections are consistent with statewide historical revenue trends, the eminent economic rebound of property tax revenues and the increasingly negadve impacts of e-commerce on taxable sales. These built-out cifes are better off under the Speaker's Commission swap. Because the Prospective Reform Concept applies only to new development, it has no direct effect on built-out cities. D. Cities That Ate Already Especially Dependent Upon Sales Tax Revenues Axe Likely To Benefit From The Swap. These cities are particularly vulnerable to the volatlity and economic sluggishness in the brick and mortar retail sector. Moreover, cities with comparatively high sales tax per capita revenues may have less potential for developing new taxable sales generators than other growing commu, v2ties. For these cites, the future of sales tax growth is much more dubious than their historical experience. Twelve (12) of the twenty (20) survey cities have substantially higher than average per capita sales tax revenues. Nine (9) of these twelve (12) cities predict property tax revenue growth to on, ace sales tax revenue growth. For these cities, a dollar for dollar swap of sales tax for property tax is a good deal in the long nm. For cites that are highly sales tax dependent, the swap has the additonal benefit of providing more diversity to these city's revenue base. With a better balance between property tax and sales tax revenues, the two highest sources of general fund revenue, these communities axe less vulnerable to economic fluctuations and the long term economic stability of their overall revenue base is improved. E. The Sales-Tax-for-Propetty-Tax-Swap Reduce Financial Distortions at the Root of the "Fiscalization of Land Use" Problem... Somewhat. Both the Speaker's Commission proposal and the Prospective Reform Concept increase municipal revenues from residential, office and industrial land uses which in many cases do not generate sufficient local government revenues to pay for municipal service demands they create. In addition each proposal reduces (but would not eliminate) the substantial surplus municipal revenue that taxable sales generating land uses contribute in excess of municipal service costs. Both the swap and property tax return aspects of the proposals contribute to th.is effect. However, while the proposals are a step in the "fight direction," the basic dynamics of the fiscalization problem will · ' ' its wa in some areas without remain: 1) residential and mixed use development still won t pay y additional fees/taxes or municipal service cuts, and 2) sales tax generating land uses will still provide substantially more revenue than costs to cities and counties. 03'721/00 TUE 16:01 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~017 Fiscal Re£o£m Task Force - 13 - Maxch 7, 2000 Six of the nine proiect fiscal analyses I reviewed involve mixed use including a substantial number of residential units, support commercial, office, and industrial. Three of-these, six analyses (4.1 Ceres Eastgate, 4.2 Davis General Plan Update (GPU), and 4.3 I-Iollistet GPU) show a deficit of additional city revenues compared to additional city costs from the development. In each of these cases, the reform proposals increase the city's revenues and reduce the deficit, but the proiects remain in deficit. In the other three of the six residential proiects (4.40xnard Mandalay Bay, 4.5 North Livermore, and 4.6 Loomis GPU), the total development proposal provided sufficient new revenue to the city - primarily due to better local economic conditions. One of the analyses, 4.7 Grass Valley Loma Rica, is a mixed use proiect dominated by office use. The original fiscal analysis shows the proiect in deficit - not enough new revenues to cover the new city costs. My analysis shows that a sales-tax-for-property-tax swap will improve the revenues but the ptoiect still remains in deficit. The other two largely commercial developments (4.8 Davis Covell Business Park, and 4.9 Gross Valley Kenny. Ranch) xvould provide substantial net revenue to their cities due to substantial sales tax revenue. In these cases, the swap components of the reform proposals would reduce the total revenue generated by the proiect for the city. However, each proiect would continue to provide excess revenues over costs even without the E1ChF property tax return. F. Substantial Property Tax Return to Local Government is Necessary to Address the Fiscalization of Land Use Problem. The Project Impact Analyses reveal that return of property tax revenue is essential to mitigating the disparity between the incremental munidpal service costs and revenues of various kinds of development - the root of the "fiscalization of land use" problem. Property tax return further improves the ability of residential, office and industrial land uses to pay its way in all parts of the state. However, the analysis indicates that even with a swap and a $1.5 billion property tax return combined, some growth and development will remain in fiscal deficit for local government. ¥. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS A. The Economic Stability Of City Finances Would Be Improved By A Sales-Tax-For- Property-Tax-Swap And A Property Tax Return, But The Political Stability Of City Finance Requites Constitutional Protection and Mandate Reform_. Two important factors affect the stability of local government finances: 1) economic vulnerability and 2) political vulnerability from other governmental units and the voters. This analysis examines the effects of the Speaker's Commission proposal and the Prospective Reform Concept on city finances - and indicates that either proposal would improve the economic stability of most cities' ~'lan. ces. 03'/21/00 TUE 16:02 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACItAP [~018 Fiscal Reform Task Force - 14 - March 7, 2000 But the most significant factor in the instability of city finance in California is the lack of local control over revenue allocations and rates.. A restructuring of city finance will be of 'little effectiveness to our constituents if the state continues to beset cities with mandates, revenue earmarking, and the taking of local revenues. Current state subventions to local government should have their use restrictions lifted in favor of discretionary revenue for local government. Cities must have constitutional protection and mandate reform. As the Task Force has expressed, these are essential components of any meaningful reform.. B. To Really Improve City Finance We Must 1) Provide Counties and Special Districts With Adequate Revenues to Provide Local Services, and 2) Provide Cities With Greater Authority to Determine the Allocation of Resources Among Municipal Services. 1. Provide Counties And Special Districts With Adequate Revenues To Provide Local Services Cities cannot make decisions about substantial growth and development without dealing with the county and with special districts that serve the area. In land use decisions involving annexation, the city must not only deal with the fiscal impacts on the city - but also on other local governments. Tax sharing agreements between cities and counties are common today. These result from negotiations between a city and a county where a sharing of revenues is needed to help an agency provide services to the new development. Clearly, local governments are inextricably linked to each other's fiscal woes. If counties continue to be inadequately funded, they will continue to balk at new development and insist on revenue concessions from cities. As this analysis indicates, the current system makes many cities unable to respond. For example, the fiscal analysis completed by Economic Planning Systems in Hollister also looked at the fiscal impact of the future development on San Benito County. Between the 'City and the County there simply were not enough revenues from the new de/relopment to cover the combined costs of the city and the county. Absent substantial service cuts, a tax increase, a regional sales tax generator, or fiscal reform, no tax sharing agreement could make this development financially viable. The financial condition of cities will be improved if we address the fiscal problems of our counties and special districts. It is certainly in the best interests of out common constituents. The fiscalization of land use problem can't simply be addressed by changing the allocation of city sales tax. City, county and special districts must have additional permanent ongoing discretionary revenue, including property tax. Moreover, this revenue must be allocated among all localgovernment agendes such that revenue more closely matches the service costs from various activities and land uses, On its own, the "swap" does nothing to address the fiscal problems of counties and special districts'~. Full, ongoing and protected property tax return is critical to addressing these issues. ~ The "swap" would be applied to counties in unincorporated areas. But it doesn't improve their revenues from incorporated areas and it is insufficient on its own to address the fiscal deficits, many counties face with annexation and incorporation proposals. 03Y2~/00 TUE 16:03 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP [~019 - 15 - March 7, 2000 Fiscal Reform Task Force 2. Provide Cities With Greater Authority To Detertnine The Allocation Of Resources Among Municipal Services. If we want meaningful reform of the property tax system for cities, we cannot escape the problem of fragmented governance and finance. Every elected city council should have the authority to determine the best allocation of resources among municipal services including police, fire, library, streets, and parks & recreation - and to decide the best way to provide the service, whether with city staff or under contract to another agency. Cities will be better able to: o Re-allocate resources in later years as the community changes, as new challenges arise, and as needs and priorities change; o Coordinate programs for efficient service delivery; o Fund programs with revenues which are rationally related to the program; o Ensure that their ·residents are receiving equitable service levels from independent special districts relative to costs. C. Bolder Reform Ideas Should Be Considered. Since the last meeting of the League's Fiscal Reform Task Force, several new proposals for local government finance reform have emerged. Among these are those contained in the Legislative Analyst's report "Reconsidering ,4B8: Exploring ~4tternative IVays to A/locate Properly Taxes" and ideas expressed by Senator Steve Peace - who is expected to be a leader on a new Joint Legislative Committee to examine the issues and proposals for local government finance. Information on these proposals was sent to Task Force members in February. The Task Force may wish to consider these new ideas. EXHBIT 1.0: Survey EXHIBIT 2.0: Summary Assumptions, Impacts and Profiles of Survey Cities EXHIBIT 3.04: City Fiscal Impact Analysis Example: Fairfield EXHIBIT 4.0: Summary of Project Fiscal Analyses: Effects of Reform Proposals EXHIBIT a,.l: Project Analysis Example: Eastgate Master Plan, City of Ceres ,, 03~'21/00 TUE 16:04 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP [~020 Fiscal Rdorm T~sk Force - 16 - March 7, 2000 Additional Exhibits Available on Request: *EXHIBIT 3.1: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Bellflower . *EXHIBIT 3.2: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Clovis *EXHIBIT 3.3: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Daly City *EXHIBIT 3.4: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Fairfield *EXHIBIT 3.5: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Glendale *EXHIBIT 3.6: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Laguna Niguel *EXHIBIT 3.7: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Lakewood *EXHIBIT 3.8: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: La Mirada *EXHIBIT 3.9: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Livermore *EXHIBIT 3.10: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Mission Viejo *EXHIBIT 3.11: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Novato *EXHIBIT 3.12: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Palmdale *EXHIBIT 3.13: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: San Carlos 'EXHIBIT 3.14: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: San Marco *EXHIBIT 3.15: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Santa Barbara *EXHIBIT 3.16: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Santa Fe Springs *EXHIBIT 3.17: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Signal Hill *EXHIBIT 3.18: City, Fiscal Impact Analysis: Sunnyvale *EXHIBIT 3.19: City Fiscal Impaci Analysis: Tracy *E~-',ff-IIBIT 3.20: City Fiscal Impact Analysis: Turlock *EXHIBIT 4.1: Project Analysis Example: East. gate Master Plan, City of Ceres *EXHIBIT 4.2: Project Analysis: New Development, City of Hollister *EXHIBIT 4.3: Project Analysis: General Plan Update Alt#5, City of Davis *EXHIBIT 4.4: Project Analysis: Loma Rica Ranch, City of Grass Valley *EXHIBIT 4.5: Project Analysis: Kenny Ranch Development, City of Grass VaLley ~EXHIBIT 4.6: Project Analysis: Cover Business Park, City of Davis *EXHIBIT 4.7: Project Analysis: General Plan Update, City of Loomis *EXIIlBIT 4.8: Project Analysis: Mandalay Bay Specific Plan, City of Ox_nard *EXHIBIT 4.9: Project Analysis: North Livermore Specific Plan, City of Livetmore 03/2~_/00 TUE 1_6:04 FAX 805 822 8559 CItifY OF TEHACHAP ~021 o.o . ~.~.~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . EXHIBIT 1.0: Survey Form page 2 o¢ 2 ~ 03Y21/00 TUE 16:07 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~023 EXHIBIT 2.0: SUMMARY AssuMPTIONS, IMPACTS and PROFILES of SURVEY CITIES Bellflower Clovis ~ Revenue Growth Assumptions ........................................................................... · , -,o ~ ~,% 4.2 '/o ...-. .... .3 U~'o w.~ ..................... Avg Annual 96-97 to 98. L9_9. ....... , ........... [:;,-~,- ................. ~,'~'o~ ............. "' 1;5% .._4.:7..%_. Projected 98-99 to 0.4:0..5. ................................................. . ............ Annual Pm~e..r~j..T...a~...G...m..wt..h....._ .................. =,.~/; ............... 9 1% 9.4% .... .1.3:.0~'/.o. O o 3.5¥0 ........................ 2,0~ ........... o o Av Annual 96-97 to 98-99 ................................ .='h~. ...... '6'~'~ 6 2'/0 ..... 15'r~j'ected 98-~9 to 04-05 ....1: ...................... ; ............................... Fiscal Imuact .of Speaker's Commission Proposal - .. eake~$ Comm ST/PT Swap. ......................... Gain/Loss Under S ................................................. '~ ...... ~,~ - 61,637 I~ .................. + 177 .... ......................... 56,514 , . ...................... · - 6,081 ...................... 5 2000-01 ....................................................... ~'"~(~1 + 36,113 - 157,26 ................. + 20,043 7 ................................ ~: ..... [~,~- - 2001-02 ................ -.-.: -.: ;-~ ............ '~'~-~ ~'~' .... + 55,117 41,6 ..... ................................... ........... ......... .......... 2004-05 '-'~i'i/'l'(~'~§';~;.~'~,~-~ro[3osal (inluding $1.0 Bi lion ProEerty Tax Return) ................... + 1 uou oou ......................... + 63 2001-02 ...... '- .... '- ............... ----::.-:'.:.;.'~+ '" 007 772 1.92.4.,5 .,uu~-vo . - ..... ; .................................+ 6 484 + z,~ou,~ ............................................ + ~ ~"9 566 ' + 1,571,360 2,06 .................. 2003-04 ...................... . 'r '..'- ~-~ ~. :.-~ ......... -L' ;' ~E~;-&h~ ......... ~" ~' '1'~' ~,~ ....... + 2,778,769 1,1~J1,OZ , .,. ............................. 2004-05 ....................................................... Under Pros ective Reform Concept ST/PT Swap ................... Gain/Loss ~ ........................................... :~- -~-~ -~ ................... _' ........ - 10,146 2000-0 ............................... : .............. :~-'~'~,'_&,:.~=/~ ................... :'" - 164,370 ..... £d~:5~' .......... . ......................... : .............. ~..~.~-~ ................... : ............... ;'~',~" ..... ~'~:~' ............. - ................ : .............. ;-'i*~ .................................. ;'~'~l~'~" .......... :: .................................. ;; '1"~'~'~'2'~ ..... 2 361,2 ................... 2002-03 ........ : .... '-' ............... '.:" :=."~ '.; :.'~ ......... ;- ;; ~1~:/':~1~ ..... + 3,693,241 ~uuo-u.+ ............................... ~'~s"-;;~ .......+ ~ 047 314 + 4,1UU 2004-05 ............................................................. Statistical Profiles ...................................................................................... · ~b~i~'~'~'~i~;~' .... :::::::: .............. ~o~ .................. ~-~' ................. ~'~: ................ *~:~o* .... ~'~'~'~ ................. . .................. ~-:~-~ .................. -'--o: ................... ~ ...................... :'~" ...... '""'Z ;~'r~' ................ 1 l yo ~:~.¥o. ................ .2..!~o. ................ .?..¥-°- Ne~ y. ................................ : ..................... ' '~'F<~e:~. ~;{l'u'~' ~ ~h Pattern ................. ....................................... I 6 '/o * . ............ :% ...................... ~" Past 4 years ............................... ...... [~';~' '~'~' .... . ......... '" ~-- N ~. ............ r~" 24Y~ - ................... ~ ............... 172Yo - 1.3..7.'/.o. .............................................. Redevelopment '/o of AV ................. :~-~ .................. :~31 '67 138 --~-~(~-y&~ ~.~'~'~'(~ .... . .................................... ~ .................... ~- ................... -~y- ................ ; ......... :'~ ............. 21 ....................................... Pro err Tax per cap~t ........................................ : ............... · ...... -P-- - ~'- ....................... Full set,race except Full Servlce Full Sew~ce ~. ....... , ......... .(.2Z)... .................................. (?.~)- ................... ~.~..~). 1 Of 5 Michael Coleman 533-'/58-3~52 3/7/2(XX) _Outyearlmpacts.)dsSUMMARY 03/21/00 TUE 16:08 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP ~024 EXHIBIT 2.0: SUMMARY ASSUMPTIONS, IMPACTS and PROFILES of SURVEY CITIES Glendale Laquna Niauel Lakeweod La Mlrada Revenue Growth Assump tion,,s. ............................................................ ' Annual Sales Tax Growth .............................................................. .... X~'k~'~i '~Yia'~:~ ~' .................. i~-:4~ ....... ~0.5O/o .3..7, f/? ............... j.l.:~.ffo., ......................................................... ~/o ................. ~'~,- ................ ~'~% 3 2% .... .P..r.oi?.ct..e..d' .~.s.:.~ .t.o..o.4.: .o.5. ..................... .3:.9. .................... : ...................... · ...................... : ..... Annual ProEert¥ Tax Growth ...................................................................... .... X~'r;~;f~;Ai;i~,'~'~'t~;'~'-'~' ................ ~], n/a ....s.'5~. ................ 1..2d~, .... ×¢,~i'~r~:~'~'~:~' ........ T' E];Z))~!,C [ Z Z Z E~3~;~(Z E Zii E; L- -3-.;~-!/:° ................. ?;.7:~. .... '15 ~-~i~'(~t~l' {l'~ ' {i~ 't~ '~ ~,'- ~}'~ ............. 4.1% 3.9% 3.5% ....3: .0.°(°.. Fiscal Impact of Speaker',.s Commission Proposal Gain/Loss Under .S~eaker's Cumin ST/PT Swap . .................................................... .... ~(~D'I~-'~'I' ................................ ';'~;~, ........... ~:'1'{)~,408 - 326,250 - 117,250 .... };6b'{'6~ ................................. -;'~:4~;/~;,;~ ........... :~i~;6~;4 ........... '-'~'~F:;¥~-{~' ........... "~§'f .... ~6~'~:~'~ ............... · ................... ;,'~'~'( ~-~§- .......... ; '~V;~'~ ........... '-' ~'~;(~%' ........... "~'~;~-~" .... ~6b'~:~; ................................... ;' ~,i;f~i~, ........... ;; ~¥;6~'~ ..... :"':'~ ~§~ ~'~f~' ........... :'~;~'~" .... ~6D',i:~'~ ................................... ;'§~,{)~ ........... ;:-~;~'f ......... :'i;;f~b~;f,i~' ........... :-~;~¥;~'~" 2000-01 + 3,868,959 + 1,163,739 + 956,821 + 669,992 .... ~b'~:~'~ ............................... :f-~;~;~i~ ......... .;-'~',~;~'~ ........... ;,:~'4~'~' ...... ~-":f'~6.~'~" .... ~6b~:~'~ ............................... ~,~'~ ......... '+'W~¥',~'1' ........... ;-;f~{(gff .......... ;'~'~,i~" .... ~6~'~:f~;~ ............................... :;',i,~'1'~;/~;~ ......... -;-'¥,;f~;6~ ........... ;'~'~;f~,~' .......... .... ~6b',i,:~§ ............................... :,:~~ ......... ;'i']~,~1'],~ .............. "~'f:~' .......... :,: Gain/Loss Under Pmsgective Reform Concep. t ST/PT Swa~ 2000-01 - + 12,700 - 225~000 - 100,000 .... ~6~'~:6~ ......................................... '-' .............. '-;-',i~,'6~'~ .......... ,'-',~¥;t b~b' ........... : 'i '"~6~':~'~'~ ......................................... ': .............. '~'~'~]~ ........... '-'~'f~"f~-' ........... .... ~6~'~!¢);~ ......................................... ': .............. '.;.'~/~5 ........... '-'~'~f~g~' ........... .... ~6b',i:6~ ..... ' ................................... '-' .............. ',;'~i[~iJ ........... '-'~-f6~:/~ ............ :'~;~'~" '~'~'~i~ a;~'0'~a'~ ~'~;~/,~i~'~ ~' ~ ~'~a~ 'e'~ ~'~ b.'( ~ '~i'. ~' i~i~' ~ai~'t'~' ~ia'a~ .................... .... ~6i~'6:6'~' ............................... ';'~;~/~' ........ ;--'C,i§i~i~-~ ........ '.;'~;~'6~' ........ ;'C6~o ~3 .... ~'6i~'i:6~ ............................... 7'~'f~f'~'~ ......... .;' ¥:~'f,'~6~ ........ '-;'i]~'~'~,~'~/~' ........ .... ~6b-~:f]~ ............................... :f'~:,~:.f'6~ ......... .;-'i'~'f;~ ........ '.;'i~;~'fO~;~%' ........ ;,"~';~ .... ~'6b'~:~)~ ............................... ~:'~;~i-~ ......... ;' :f;fF~i~'~'6 ........ '4.'i;~'6~ ......... ; '~';i~;~,'~-' Statistical Profiles - Population Growth Pattern ' . ........................................... .... i~'~t' ;4' ~;~'~ .......................... ~ ........ ¥.'f9; ................. ~;~'9;" 1.3% 2.9% Properly V~lue Growth Pattern ........................................ ..................................................... ~1'.'~/o .................~;~;2; ...... 2.5% 3.9% Past 4 y. ears ................................ :~D~~ ................ ~::~a/~ ................. ~'.~'o~' .... ~1~','~ ~ ~:.~ .......................... 4.9% ................................................... ='"' ....; ..... ':-':'&' ':;';;; ........................ :~)' ~;/o ................. (~ 0% 17 3% 28 0% ~<eaevel.o~men[ ~o u] ,~v . · . ................ ; .....................-' ..... '~i~'~ ~;;~'l~'r' ~-~D]{~ .............................. ;1~,~ ................... 1'~" 1 O0 143 .................................................................................................... '~0 .................... ~'~" · .P..r.o_p.e..rt.¥ fi.a..x:, p.e.[ ..ca. pj.t.a. .......................... .7.4. .................. J. ! .7. ............................................... Service Responsibility Full ServiceNo Fire, no Library No Fire, no Library No Fire, no Ubrary bi ................. ................... ................... ................... 3/7/2000_Outyear~mpacts.x~sSUMMAR¥ 2 Of ,5 Michael Coleman 530-758-3952 03/21/00 TUE 16:09 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP [~025 EXHIBIT 2.0: SUMMARY ASSUMPTIONS, IMPACTS and PROFILES of SURVEY CITIES ~ ~ Novato_ Revenue Growth A.s..s..u..m.~.t.i.o..n..s. ................................................................................... Avg Annual 96-9.7..to...9.8.-.9..9. ......... ,, -,/. 6 7% 3 6% 2.0% .... o. ,o : ...................... ........................... .... .... ii!ii ........ . ................. ................. ................ ..... .... X[~'d b]dl' ~?b'~h' i~4- .s.5..t.o..8.?:p: ................~y-~',._" ................. ~-~'.); ................ ~;~ ...... ....~..?./o.. .......................... ~.O YO v,. .................................... 0 I 96-97 to 98-99 ........................... o 2 0 Avg Annua .............................. ;; ~o, ~ .~% 4.1 Yo ...... : ..... .... .P..m.~ ?.?..d..g.8.:~..g..t.o..0_ .4:9: ........................ · ................................................ Fiscal Impact of Speaker'_:s Commission Proposal ~ai~0.~s..~)~nder S~eaker's Corem ST/PT Swap 488 450 + 66,835 "'"~6~.[:~ ................................... :,.'V~.'b'~ ............ :'~i~V ;~:~*4 .... ~ .... .+..Lo.3..,~**z.s. ................... : ..... --'- ..................................... ;-:, ~-;" R~&' ........... -"1~ ]{ i¥ ..... + 143,538 .... .' ..... .... ~6[J2 03 "' ~'," ..................................... .............................. ¥6~;{~'" + 147,844 - ............ ~'4~ ............................. + 340z840 - - ................... ~ ..... .... ................................. ........ . +, ...................... ............. (J~der S eake¢s Corn m Proposal (inluding $1.0 Billion Prop, erty Tax Return) ................... Gain/Loss ~ .......... :-;.-.---:-~ .......... : ....................... Q-'"~6'D'{~[B' ..... + 1 840 637 ................................... 97 ,1 142,201 g ¢ .-'. .... ; ...... " + I ,~dl/,1 ................................ 2000-01 ..................................... '."--:.:;'.:;.;; + ~ n'~l 450 + 1,877,450 ...... (~D'~'~'~ ................... + 1,850,955 + 1 uu/,z.~u · ,"- .................... 2 ........................... '-'"2;.:: '-;:.:; ........ ~' ~' ~'~'~ ~'1~' ..... + 1,914,999 .... ;;Rh'6'B'~ .............................. + 2 096,076 + 1 ,Ut~,u/~ ...... ;; .... j ................ .--_-:-;-~-~-. ~'~' ...... " ..................................... + 130 694 + 1 .... :.;;,;,'.;'R'~' ............................... + 2,454~357 + 1,115,2.2.9. ...........1.; .... ; ............... .:.~;..~.~;,.;.. ~uuo-,,-, .......................................... + 64 615 + ..................................... + I 305 697 1,1 ........... ,. ...... .... 7=9.,=4.:9.5. ............................... ... .2. :?.4.7. : .5.t~ ............. ,.: .... ,.: .................................. Gain/LoSS ......... -~ :.- :.-~: ................................. ~." ~" ~'~{)' + 39,756 .... ;~&~{r~'~'~- ............................ + z~ oo,~ - 71,271 ......... .1...7., ............................. .... -"-': -"-':-: -'-; ................................... ;' ~A";~' ............ 1-~1¥ ~§~i~ .... + 204,347 ......... +...B.2.,.3..3.6... 1 02 200 - - ......................................;='~"--'~ ...........;'~':~)~;t'~'"' + 152,095 .... ;;AR'-F~'~ .................... + 195,349 - 1 zz,o ............ ~ ................. -_-:.-;-;;.-.;-. "~-- . ................................:;'.:' :,;4:,' ............ %'&~; %'&~ ..... + 465,407 + .... 3~6b'~:~,'" . .................... -+..~;~ ........... .-:-~'-~-~'--~'~ ........... ;'g~'~'~'4~' .......... ;;'~'6;-~¥d" .... ~6b'~:6§ ............ + 5~ .._':.::~,.'.:x ................. -' ............................. ........ ~-~-1~l~"~'lS'r~[~;~' ~'f'(~'(~'~'~.~{ ;~[t'l~ '~' ~' ~illion Property Tax Return .................. Gai./L ..................... : ...... -.: -~ :.-; -; ;.;4 ........ ;'~'~,¥~";~' ...... + 2,891,698 .......................................... + o ~o2 695 + z ~u~,3oz ...................... 2000-01 ............................... ::';'..:;',:~. ~ + * R79 915 + 3,083,793 .... '*-'::-':':-'~ ......................... + 2 906 734 + z 4uu u~/ · ........................... zuu~-u-' ..... -' .... -' ............... ::~;.':";;,'; ........ ';'~' {}'1'~:1'~{~" + 3,307,410 .... ;;~b'~'0~ .............................. + 3 326,314' + z,~,.=.?~ ............· .................. ~-._--;~-~-~§-~-, .... ~_u....: .................................. -;.;,; ~.~.%-~&. ........ ;¢ ~-~,567 + 2,155,037 . ~.,.~.~.o.,.u. ..... 2003-04 ............. ~ ............... -_--.:~-4-;;.-4- +" 408 697 + 3 775,586 .... ~;R;,';';,'~ ........................... + 4 456,363 + ;z,/~,~,~u ....~., .... ., ................. ,- ........... /..~./~,~-U;:) ................ '- ........................................ Statistical ProF. I;[.~r.~ .................................................................................................. 0 3 8Yo 2.8Yo .................................. 'o;" Past 4 xears .................................. ;.-~ ..................;,-~'0}. ......... 3 1% . 2.1 .... :.....:-; ..... ~" ~. ~ ~o ..... . .............. '. -~ .................. ;.- ...................................... % oo~o · - ............. ~d evelo p m .e.n.t..o./%o. f..A..V. ......................... .4,~.~ ~. .................. ~;~ .................. :1'~' .......... 72 ales Tax e~ cap~ta ................................. 32 S P ..................................... ~ 112 66 ........ Property Tax per.c..a£1.t.a. ................................................. , ..... Service Responsib,hty ......... - ............................. ~5~'.o~ert[/Tax after fire,libra~&l~ .... .~..~ ................................................................... 3['(r2o3o _Outyearlmpacts.xlsSUMMARY 3 of 5 Michael Coleman 05/21/00 TI~ 16:10 FAX 805 822 8559 CIT~ OF TEI~ACHAP ~026 EXHIBIT 2.0: SUMMARY ASSUMPTIONS, IMPACTS and PROFILES of SURVEY CITIES San Carlos San Mateo Santa Barbara lanta Fe Sprin.qs Revenue Growth Assumptions Annual Sales Tax Growth ................. . .......................... .... ~;/'~ 'A'~ ~'~i '~-b~ '{(~ '§~-'~ {)' ................. ~ D','~;/; ................. ~ ~;' ' ' 7.3% 0.2% Annual P.r? .J~.rttt Tax Growth .......................................... .... ~,~'~J~l' 8~'8'~' ~J,'-~'¢'t'~ '~"-~,' ............... i:1;~ ............. ' .... ~.'f~ ....11.1% 3.2% .... ×.~i'~i'~'-~'~'~'-'~' .................. y.w/; ................. ~:~z' ................ ~:;~ ............... '~'~:~'~;.' .... ~;oF~'~' ~'~:~ ~'~z~'~ ..................... ~'.~ ................. ~:~o- ................ ~:~':::::::::;:: Fisca!..!.mpact of Speaker':s Commission Proposa! Gain/Loss Under S~eaker's Camm ST/PT Swap .................................. .... ~'~:~¥ .................................. :~"i~'~, ........... ~"~;~ .......... :,-~64,090 - . .... ~8~';~:0~ ................................... ~'~;~1'~ ......... ;'i,131 ,~,81 + 858,493 - .... '~' ~ 'o~ : ~ ;~ ................................. v, . ~ .~-~ ; ~-~ ~ ......... :~"i ; ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~'~ ........ ';'i;~'~3'~' ............. .... ~6~i:~ ................................. ~'i'1'~;~ ......... ;'~','~i;8~ ........ ;'i;~{~;~'f~' ............. - g'~'~i~:~'~'0'~ ~'~ F~i" ~-~7~ '8'~ ~'~4 '~'~;~'~'~i- ~;~i~'~;~' ii '8' §~ fi~'f~7~/~'~t'¢ %'; 'f~i~;~') ............................ 2000-01 + 580,961 + 2,367,133 + 1,951,309 + 312,224 2002-03 + 681,814+ 3,144,681 + 2~754,252 + 337,702 .... ~-~:~ ................................. ';'~'~:~ ......... r ~-,'4~'~;~'~ ........ F i s..c..a.I. !.m..?..a.c..t..o..f,..P. r~p..e..c! ive Reform Co .n..c.e..p..t..&...P..r..,o.....e...~..T..a..x...~.e..t.u. ~ ........................... Gain/Loss Under Prospective Reform Canoe t ST/PT Swap 2000-01 - - - 1~729 - .... .2.0..0.!: ?.2' ................. - - - 2,469 2002-03 - - - 2,099 ............. 2003-04 - - - 485 - + 2,516 ............ 2004-05 - - . ....... - 2000-01 + 845,561 + 2,696,817 + 2,541.380 4- 468,337 .... .2.0..o.t: .o.2. ................................. _+...~.9.9:.5.5..7 ......... .+..2.,~.7.5. ,.~..5.2. ........ .+...2: .7.o..5: .7.5..4. .......... .+..4. ~Z ,.0. 2002-03 + 924,480 + 3,019,801 + 2,881,395 + 506,553 .... ~b'~:~'~ ................................. ';'~;~ ......... ;-~-;i~;~ ........ ';-~;~'~;~'~' .......... ;'~'~;~'~" ._s_~_a..ti~.ti.~..~!..,. mr.,!~ ?_ ..................................................................................................... Population Growth Pattern .... .... P~t';f ~'r~ ................................... i~_~/; ........... ~ ..... ~;5~; ................ ~:~ ..... ........ P.r.o~erty Value Growth Pattern ....................................... ................................................ 7.2% .......... ~.'~ ................ .... .P..a.s.t..4. y.e..a.~ ............................. 6.1% .......................................................................... .... .N..e..xt..4..y..e?.r.s. ................................... ~..?.~ ................. 7.: .1 ?./~. ................ .2...S.o.~ ........................ Redevelopment % of AV . 10.1% 8.9% 14.3% 54.0% '§~,i~'~%'~'~7 ~!{~ .............................. ~f .................. ~1'~ .................. :~ ................ Full service except Full Service Full Service Full Service Service Responsibility library 3/7'r-z-~t~ _Oulyearlmpac/s.xfsSUMMARY 4 of '5 Michael Coleman s ~027 03/21/00 TUE 16:11 FAX 805 822 8559 CITY OF TEHACHAP EXHIBIT 2.0: SUMMARY ASSUMPTIONS, IMPACTS and PROFILES of SURVEY CITIES $i,qnal Hill Sunnwale Tracv 'rurlock Revenue Growth Assumptions Annual Sales Tax Growth ................................................ ...................................................... ~'.'~6/; ............... 1. ~)'~;'' 12.0% 6.8% Av~ Annual 96-97 to 98-99 ......................... .... i~i ~'a'~a' b'~:bi~ i~;'d~-~ ..................... ~' ~i~/; ................. ~ ~' ................ ~;~% ' 5 .o% Annual Pm~ert¥ Tax Growth ............................... '~" X~I' ~)",~ J~' ~]~'~ 't~ -~{):~,' ................ ~'-~ ................. '~{~ ............;1~'.7% 12.9% ............................................................................. Av~ Annual 96-97 to 98-99 3.0% .............. ............................................................................ ,~' ~; ................ -~ ~6~ ........... 6 8% Projected 98-99 to 04-05 2.0% . . Fiscal Impact of Speaker',.s Commission Proposal Gain/Loss Under S£eaker's Comm ST/PT Swap ...................... .... ~'6:6'1' .................................. '-'~Eb~6 ........... ;~.~iE~'l' ........... -;-':l'l':~b'" - 2002-03 - 280,990 + 448,136 + 346,920 + 137,858 .... ~'~:~; .................................. :'~'~E~;{~ ........... ~"~;~ ...........;.'~=/;~;~'f;~ ........... ;'~'~ ~'~" 2004-05 -461,546 + 714,633 + 484,417 ~- 304,003 ' ~'~i'~'~'O'r~;:l'~F~'~'l~7~'e:;'~fifi'~'f"r~'l~'~i ~fi'~'cii~' :~'i7~' §iiii~'~i~,~'~h~ %~'~,'~i~)~ ...... : .................... 2000-01 + 59,237 + 2,938,350 + 1,184,548 + 969,047 .... ~Sb'i:(T)'~. .................................... : ~,~;~'~ ......... ; ~,~' ~'i;~ ~:1' ........ '-.:'i 2003-04 - 208,567 + 3,615,814 + 1,825,838 + 1,371,283 Fiscal Impact of ~rospective Reform Concept & Property Tax Return Gain/Loss Under Prospective Reform Concept ST/PT Swap 2000-01 - 30,000 - + 165,578 - 158,558 2~'~ ~"~ 75 883 + 353,249 - 35,208 ............................................................................................. .... .~.o..o.2.: .o.3. ................................... :..s.~.,.~o. ................... : .................................................. 2nn,~ n,~ 97 102 - + 768 908 + 227,702 108 334 + 905,539 + 347 056 2004-05 - , ' . ......................... ,. ...... 2000-01 + 2,508,535 + 4,083,389 + 1,891,692 + 1,387,462 2001-02 + 2,513,422 + 4,235,716 + 2 442,543 + 1,693,620 2002-03 + 2,554,801 + 4,393,972 + 3,140,682 + 2,006,800 .... ~6b'~ ............................... '.,:~?,:,:J~;~'l':~ ......... ;'~,~,~,'4~'6 ........ S.,t. atistical Profiles P.o~ulation Growth Pattern ............ ............................................................................Past 4 .y..ears 1.5% ~ ;~'~; ................ :4';~&,~ ............. 2.4% .........................................................................................................................Next 4 years 2.1% 1.0% 4.4% ~'.~'o~' Pr.o~ert¥ Value Growth Pattern ............ - ...........................................................................Past 4 years -0.8% ........................................................................................................................Next 4 ~ears 5.1% 3,1% 27.8% '1'~.~'~/~' ............................................................................Redevelopment % of AV 65.5% ~:8~o' ...............~:(~4~ ............... ............... '~§:[)'~o" ............................................................................. '~',{ .................. :¢~' ......... lo9 Sales Tax per cal?ta 882 97 42 - .......................... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ............................................................ Full service except Service Responsibility No Fire Full Service Full Service library ?. ::: :::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::: ::: :::::::: 3/7/20130_Oulyearlmpacts.xlsSUMMARY 5 of 5 Michael Coleman 530-758~52 EXHIBIT 3.20 SPEAKERS COMMISSION PROPOSAL_ City of Tuflock 000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 1999-2000 2 · ,,~-- -~ ,'~.~,,,eYear 5 Change Year 6 Sales Tax 2, , - ......... o/. ~ ,~,~ ,~-7 6 0% 6 628,411 6 0% 7,026,115 6.0 '/o7,447,682 Property Tax 5 267,198 5,~9,zoz -~z.u ~ v .......... ' 9 181,584 9,666,833 10,178,570 10,718,281 11,287,.5..3.5. .......... ........................... . . + 65,646 .................................. $1B statewide a la AB1661 ........ 0_4 .-T'-"-~ Total $ I__~act + 865,221 + 969,047 + 1,092,837 + 1,226,679 + 1,371,283 + 1,527,4 Current AB8 share* 10.0% New AB8 share* 22.6% · Estimated average pre-redevelopment AB8 share. That is, lhe city's share of property tax revenue generated within its jurisdiction prior to distributing tax in~rement to the redevelopment agency. Profile of the City of Turlock Stanislaus County --------- Growth Pattern Population Growth/yr past 4 yrs = 2.4% Commercial Devpt/yr past 4 yrs = 81.0% = Population Gmwth/yr next 4 yrs = 3.9% Commercial Devpt/yr next 4 yrs 21.5% Property Values $ 41,677 SAV per capita. Statewide mean is $58,000 AV per capita. Redevelopment 38% of Assessed Value in city is in Redevelopment Area Sales Tax $ 109 per capita. Statewide City Sales Tax / city population = $111 Property Tax* $ 42 per capita Service Responsibility Full se~/ice except library Property Tax* a~ter fire, iibran/8, parks/ret -$104 per capita. Statewide mean is - $52 per capita (negative $52) EXHIBIT 3.20 PROSPECTIVE REFORM CONCEPT City of Turlock 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004.2005 Base Year Year 2 Chan_q.e. Year 3 ~ Year 4 Char)cie Year 5 ~ Year 6 Chan(:]e. , Sales Tax $ 5,861,290 6,239,645 0.5% 0,453,481 3.4% 6,670,507 3.4% 6,911,538 3.6% 7,136,000 3,2% Property Tax $ from existing development as of June 2030 2,336,553 2,484,238 6.3% 2,504,042~ 0.8% 2,528,601 '1.0% 2,558,322 1.2% 2,593,642 1 Property Tax $ from NEW development a~ter June 2000 278,246 565,952 863,441 1,1 71,044 1,489,105 PropertyTaxStotat 2,336,553 2,783,381 19.1% 3,112,498 11.8% 3,456,888 11.1% 3,817,314 10.4% 4,194,581 9.9% Total 8 197,843 9,023,026 9,565 979 10,127,395 ~10,728,851 11,330,587 ............................... ~. ............................................... ~ .............................................................................................. i1~¢~ ~f Swa~ - - 158,558 - 35,208 + 86 682 + 227,702 + 347,056 :Property Tax Return 1,297 831 + 1 ,546 021 + I 728 828 + 1 ,920 ;1.1.8. .+..2: J.2..0.,.3.1..5. ............ ~..2..3..2.9.;8_ .6.8., $1 B statewide a la AB1661 ITotal $ Impact + 1,297,831 + 1,387,462 + 1,693,620 + 2,006,800 + 2,348,017 + 2,676,923 Current AB8 share* 10.0% AB8 share* for New Development 21.0% EXHIBIT 4.0 SUMMARY of PROJECT FISCAL ANALYSES- EFFECTS OF REFORM PROPOSALS Residntl Non.Resid Original Outyr Speaker's Commission Proposal Prospective Reform Concept units ~ Surplus/Deficit Swap +1- wi PT return +1- Swap +i- wi PT tatum ~ R~idential Mix 4.1 CeresEastgate 1,777 63,340 $ (183,376)i. $ (107,212) + $ (76,616) + $ (135,026) + $ (89,131) + 4.2 Holli~terND 5,257 1,826,600 $ (1,417,914)i $ (1,313,989) + $ (1,238,632) + $ (1,492,304) . $ (1,379,328) + 4.3 DavisGPU 3,804 1,440,377 $ (1.424,634)~ $ (1,354,800) + $ (1,172,565) + $ (1,173,942) + $ (900,591) + 4.4LoomisGPU 1,085 1,2,55,335 $ 331,698 $ 259,187 - $ 330,934 $ 422,198 + $ 529,819 + 4.5OxnardMandalay 358 14,000 $ 111,915 $ 194,603 + $ 231,371 + $ 193,223 + $ 248,374 + 4.6LivermoreNLSP 12,500 657,000 $ 1,686,120 $ 3,334,474 + $ 3,885,601 + $ 3,290,561 + $ 4,117,251'+ Commercial Mix 4.7GrassValleyLomaRi 180 1,502,820 * $ (366,587); $ (250,605) + $ (217,639) + $ (357,213) + $ (307,764) +: ' 4.8 GrassValleyKenny 100 505,296 $ 262,596 $ 184,942 - $ 202,863 $ 126,989 - $ 153,870 - 4.9 DavisGovell 3,033,230 $ 20,031 $ 9,806 - $ 17,693 $ 17,633 - $ 29,404 + 'office only Pmjecflmpact.:~ SummayProjectAnaJysis page 1 of 2 Michaet Coteman 530-758-3952 Exhibit 4.t page Eastgate Master Plan. Ceres, Stanislaus County, CA , '' " Non- -- Project Summary Residential Residemial Acreage Units Bldg Sq. Ft. PROFILE City of Ceres Residential Very Iow Density Residential 4~ 184 Low Densi~ Residential 221 1,296 ' · Medium Density Residential 2 HighBensiW Residential 6 108 · Subtotal Reside-a-0~! 294 1,777 Non-Residential service Rca@onaibility Full Service ~ncept library Neighborhood Cmnmercial 6 63,340 Ta~aablo AV per capita +S30,962 Subtotal Non-Residential 6 63,340 Other Neighborhood Park 9 Community Park 46 Sale~ Tax Revamc per capita +$78 Elementat3' School 9 TID Ceres Main Canal 6 Total 370, 1,77~, 63,340,,, Michael Coleman 5~0-758-3gb'2 Projectlmpact.xls 4.1 CeresEastgate Page I of 5 Exhibit 4.t page Eastgate Master Plan. Ceres, Stanislaus County, CA O_~fi~inal City Fiscal Impact Summar3/ -- Fiscal Year Ending <General Fund only> 1999 2000 2001. ~2002 20113 2004 2005.. 2006 2007. REVENUES Property Tax 15,701 30,200 44,399 62,685 78,093 99,539 116,502 137,137 157,883 Sales Tax 18,672 37,343 56,015 80,423 101,222 133,358 154,021 177,547 201,073 Other ci.ty taxesI & Franchises 24,162 39,210 54,267 77,715 94,328 123,174 137,810 158,938 178,074 State Subventions I7,590 35,180 52,771 77,866 99,561 123,249 142,916 I64,879 187,043 Fees, Fines and Forfeitures 1,283 2,565 3,848 5,677 7,259 9,090 10,509 12,125 13,741 Serx-ice Charges & User Fees 506 1,012 1,518 2,240 2,864 3,587 4,147 4,784 5A22 Other Revenues ..... 9..I ............ !.8.2. ........... 3!4. ........... :4.95 ............53.6- ........... .6.4..7 ............ 7..4.8. ........... .8.6.3. ........... .9.7..8.. '~:~X i~ '1~ ~7 ig'l~l~ ~' ................. :J8,005 145,692 213,092 307,010 383,843 492,644 566,653 656,273 744,214 EXPENDITURES General Government 7,073 14,148 21,222 31,314 40,036 50,134 57,961 66,876 75,778 Other General Government 3,792 7,585 11,377 16,788 21,465 26,878 31,075 35,854 40,632 Police Department 38,421 76,843 115,264 170,079 217,465 275,761 318,280 -366,691 415,!02 Fire Department 13,000 25,999 38,999 57,546 73,579 92,133 106,520 122,900 139,279 Public Works 2,797 8,420 11,217 22,271 28,545 36,776 44,108 51,871 59,632 Park Mahltenance 1,973 4,843 6,816 11,874 47,588 84,133 117,151 142,571 164,308 Planning 3,067 6,134 9,201 13,576 ' 17,359 21,736 25,130 28,995 32,859 SIIRPLUS/DEFICIT 7,882 1,720 (1,004) 06,438) (62,194) (94,907) (133,572) (1.5,9:485) (183,376) ! - "off,er rev~u,n" i~¢ludes real proper~y transfer lax, transient oc.m;pancy tax, SOURCE: Fiscal Lq~act Study Prepared by Eo, n~omi¢ & Planning Systems 91644%8010 buslne~s lica~se laX, franchisetax and other city-imposed taxga. 1750 Creek. side Oaks Drive Suite 290 · Sac~a~m~to CA 95833-~6ad) Mard~ 1998 forll~e City of Ceres. CA Projectlmpact.xls 4.1 CeresEastgate Page 2 of 5 Michael Colemarl 5~0-~ '~ ~ Exhibit 4.1 page Eastgate Master Plan. Ceres, Stanislaus County, CA S_S_oeaker's Commission Proposal [ Local Bradley Burns froln l.t)0% City PropTax share from 11.7% to 0.50% to 24.7% REVENUES 1999 20~0 ' 2001 ,,L 200.__~2 2003" 20114 2005 200_.....~62007 Properly. Tax 33,273 63,999 94,090 132,841 165,493 210,941 2'46,889 290,619 334,583 Sales Tax 9,336 18,672 28,008 40,212 50,611 66,679 77,011 88,774 100,537 Other ci~' taxes~ & Franchises 24,162 39,210 54,267 77,715 94,328 123,174 t37,810 158,938 178,074 State Subventions 17,590 35,180 52,771 77,866 99,561 123,249 142,916 164,879 I87,043 Fees, Fines and Forfeitures 1,283. 2,565 3,848 5,677 7,259 9,090 10,509 12,125 .13,741 Sen, ice Charges & User Fees 506 1,012 1,518 2,240 2,864 3,587 4,147 4,784 5,422 Clher Re~,enues 91 182 274 404 516 647 748 863 978 '~xi:'~;i~'/~'o'/~' .................. ~ii.~i ....... 'r~:~ ...... '~;~'~ ....... ~'g:~' ...... ~'~3~'~ ....... ~¥3'~ ....... ~'6:~b' ...... ¥~3~/( ..... i~.~'.o.',~.~i~ SUBTOTAL SURPLIIS/DEFIC 16,118 16,848 20,679 13,507 (25,405) (50,1841 (80,1951 (94,7771 (107,2121. Proper~y Tax Return 3,043 5,853 8,604 12,148 15,134 19,290 22,577 26,576 30,597 TOTAL SURPLUSfl)EFICII 19,161 22,700 29,283 25,655 ' (10,2711 (30,893) (57,6181 (68,2011 (76,6161 Prospective Reform Conceot / Local Bradley Bums from 1.00% City PropTax share from 11.7% L to 0.50% to 22.7% J REVEN IJES 1999 2000 2001 200..._~2 2003 20O4 200S 2006 ,200..7 Properly Tax 30,507 58,679 86,268 121,798 151,736 193,406 226,365 266,460 306,769 Sales Tax 9,336 18,672 28,008 40,212 50,611 66,679 77,011 88,774 100,537 Other city taxes~ 24,162 39,210 54,267 77,715 94,328 123,174 137,810 158,938 178,074 State Subventions 17,590 35,180 52,771 77,866 99,561 123,249 142,916 164,879 ' 187,043 Fines and Forfeitures 1,283 2,565 3,848 5,677 7,259 9,090 10,509 12,125 13,741 Enlerprise Charges 506 1,012 1,518 2,240 2,864 3,587 4,147 4,784 5,422 othe~ ~eve,,aes ...........9_3 ............ ~..8.2. ........... .224. ........... .4.95 ........... .~J.6. ........... .6~7 ........... .7.f.a. ........... .8~3. ........... .9.7..8.. '~:~,iJ '1~ ~;i~l~'~ ~' ............ 83,475 155,500 226,954 325,912 406,875 519,832 599,506 696,822 792,564 SUBTOTAL SURPLUS/I)EFIC 13,352 11,528 12,858 2,46.,4 (39,1.621 (67,7191 (100,7191 (118:9361 (135,0261 Property Tax Return 4,564 8,779 12,906 18,222 . 22,701 28,935 33,866 39,865 45,895 ~OTAL SURPLIIS/DEFI,CIT t7,916 ,20,307,. 25,764 ,, 20,686 (16,4611,. (38,784) (66,853) (79,0711 (89,1311 PrOlectlmpact.x~s 4.1 CeresEastffate Page 3 of 5 Michael Coleman 530-756-3~2 ~ · Comparison of State/Local ' Reform prOposals ; " Issue CSAC SMART(er) SPeaker's Senate Republicans, Le'3gue of California Cities Swap Property Tax for No. Intra-county swap between Sw~ap equal amounts with No. Exdhange part or all of future Sales Tax "surplus" entities and state making up difference sale's tax derived from newly "deficit" entities; excess is oU~ of ERAF and other K- developed retail properties in a redistributed based on % 14. entities. This amount c~t~ or county ~n return for a contribution to total excess, becomes base and prop. tax incr~eased percentage of property ~" growth is allocated tax '~on such properties. jurisdictionally. Pool Sales Tax Growth & Yes. Pool within county 3 Yes. All growth will be ye, s. Create countywide or No. Distribute? ways: distributed statewide based regional pool for growth · / Situs (would diminish on population rather than. ( ½ ). over time) situs. Allocation would be based ,/ Population Situs base is reduced to onladopted performance ,/ Equity (bring lows up 90% of existing base for standards, including: toward average) first year; subsequent years '/ Higher value jobs - population only. '/ Adequate housing , i supply · / Jobs and housing in proximity Incremental Yes. Yes. Yds. No. No~' specific. Implementation Swap VLF for Income Tax Yes. Swap a % = existing No. No. :. No. No.' amount. Local governments keep growth. Allocate in same manner as VLF. .. Return Property Tax via Yes. $450 million. $1 billion. $250 million (plus ~uture Ret~m $1.8 billion on the basis of ERAF ~ growth). AB t1661 ( ½ per capita, ½ Performance Yes. Yes. Yes. No. In phnciple. Goals/Accountability State pays schools' share Yes. No. No. No. i No. of Property Tax Administration . ' of State/Local ReformProp°sals' '(i?.!~:''"" : . . . . · ~ Issue CSAC SMART(er) SPeaker's Senate Republicans) Le~ague of California Cities Compact Mode Yes. Yes. yes. No. i No~. Mandates Reform ~ Yes. Update Commission Yes. Pay for mandates up Y~s. Revise mandate No. i' Provide up front payment for on State Mandates front, reimbursement provisions i mahdates; allow local gov't. I I · · appointing authority, of!the Constitution. 1 assocmtxons to nominate local membership numbers, and {, /' officials for appointment; place process. ,t burden of proof on state. Countywide Revenue Yes. No. Yes. No.~" Noi. Authority ( Vote Req. Swap 2/3 to Yes. No. N9. No. ?. No, Mai ! Local Gov't presence in Yes. Secretary for Local No. Ng. No. iI No. State Gov't. Government. State Budget ' item for county expenditures. Constitutional Protection Yes. Including protection No. Yes, Including protection No. Ye~. of Local Revenues of existing ½ cent authority off ½ cent trans. & use tax, for trans. & use tax. VLF subvention, property ta,xt, and sales tax for trfinsportation. Growth Policy No. No. Yes. Develop State No. i No! regional and local guidelines. Local general plans link to regional plans. Priority in infrastructure $ to !older urban areas and trans. $ to non-auto t · al[emat~ves. Development in urban areas. Fair share housing de~,eloped regionally. Issue CSAC SMART(er) Speaker's Senate Republicans ~ League of California Cities Criminal Justice Funding No. No. No. 1) $150,000 to each policei No. ' sheriff, DA to upgrade , technology systems ($180 million total); 2) $250 million for COPS based ox/ i population (min. grant $150,000 for each police, sheriff, DA); 3) 10 counties receive $20 million for ' Project Exile Program. Public Works No. No. No. $250,000 grants to cities Improvements and counties for streets, sewers, waste mgmt., etc. March 31, 2000 Kern County Board of Supervisors 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor Bakersfield, CA 93301 Honorable Board Members: On behalf of the City Council, I am sending you a copy of the resolution which the Council adopted on March 29, 2000 regarding the Proposed Borba Dairies. The City Council respectfully requests your serious consideration of its recommendations. The resolution recommends: · That the County complete a county-wide plan and program environmental impact report specific to animal confinement and feeding facilities which defines where such facilities may be located, and identify minimum mitigation measures required, similar to the process used by Tulare County. · The formation of a joint special committee made up of representatives from ~both the City and County Planning .Commissions to make suggestions for-the development of policies, protocols, and procedures for both bodies for the review and approval of projects on the fringe of city boundaries within the 2010 General Plan in order to balance planning issues at the City/County interface. · That the County of Kern take affirmative steps to facilitate the location of an alternate site within Kern County and outside the 2010 General Plan boundaries for the Borba dairies where the potential for incompatibility between agricultural and urban uses would not exist, and, in that regard, offers the assistance of the City of Bakersfield in this process. The City of Bakersfield recognizes this issue is ultimately up to the Board of Supervisors to decide. However, the City Council has a responsibility to represent the citizens of the City of Bakersfield, who are your constituents, and express its concerns, while providing positive recommendations for the resolution of this issue. We also respectfully request that you give serious consideration to our recommendations, which we believe will help avoid future planning conflicts and 'promote better intergovernmental cooperation and joint planning between the City of Bakersfield and Kern County. Yours truly, Mayor. 1501 Tmxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, Califomia 93301 ° (661) 326-3770 ° Fax (661) 326-3779 E-mail address: mayor@ci.bakersfield.ca.us RESOLUTION NO. 3 2" 0 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE cITY OF BAKERSFIELD REGARDING THE PROPOSED BORBA DAIRIES WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield is pro-business, pro-agriculture, and supports the attraction of business and industry to Kern County; and WHEREAS, in attracting business and industry to Kern County all pertinent regulations should be clearly set forth; and WHEREAS, such regulations should detail the approval processes, siting criteria and land use relationships for such businesses and industries; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield and the CountY of Kern have a joint interest in the type, quality and location of development within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan ("2010 General Plan") area; and WHEREAS, the City and Kern County are committed to a cooperative approach to providing government services, including development review; and WHEREAS, there needs to be a balancing of compatibility between the growing economy of the urbanized area and the growing industrial/agricultural economic base in the areas adjacent thereto; and WHEREAS, projects such as the proposed Borba dairies and other significant agricultural and industrial projects affect the City of Bakersfield and its residents, as such projects occur within and adjacent to the 2010 General Plan boundaries; WHEREAS, the City and Kern County should 'develop a coordinated, consistent protocol for jointly reviewing extraordinary and significant projects at and/or near the incorporated/unincorporated boundaries of the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the City Council suppOrts the protection of property rights within existing zoning ordinances of present and future residents, businesses and property owners and consideration of property values in all decisions; and WHEREAS, the City Council has heard and received comments from those who support the BOrba dairies and city residents with concerns about potential environmental impacts as well as quality of life issues concerning the siting of the Borba dairies in close proximity to existing and planned residential areas, schools, as well as the 'City of Bakersfield's drinking water, aquifer and groundwater banking operations; and · ~ .. ~ WHEREAS, opinions of experts have been presented both in support and in opposition to the proposed Borba dairies; and WHEREAS, the City Council supports the establishment of the Borba dairies within Kern County, outside the 2010 General Plan area; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes the securing of an alternate site within Kern County would benefit all those affected by the proposed Borba dairies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct; 2. The City Council recommends that in order to bring clarity and certainty to the location of animal confinement and feeding facilities, such as the Borba dairies, that Kern County complete a county-wide plan and program environmental impact report specific to concentrated animal confinement and feeding facilities, which defines where such facilities may be located, and identify minimum mitigation measures required, similar to the process used'by Tulare County; 3. The City Council proposes a joint special committee made up of representatives from both the city and county planning commissions be formed to make suggestions for the development of policies, protocols, and procedures for both bodies for the review and approval of projects on the fringe of city boundaries within the 2010 General Plan in order to balance-planning ,issues at the city/county interface; and 4. The City Council strongly urges the County of Kern to take affirmative steps to facilitate the location of an alternate site within Kern County and outside the 2010 General Plan boundaries for the'Borba dairies where the potential for incompatibility between agricultural and urban uses would not exist, and, in that regard, offers the assistance of the City of Bakersfield in this process. ...... O00 ...... -- Page 2 of 3 Pages ;-- -' I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on MAR 2 § 2000 by the following vote! AYES: COUNClLMEMBER CARSON, DeMOND, MAGGARD, COUCH, ROWLES, SULLIVAN, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCILMEMBER No ~.~ ~. ABSTAIN: COUNClLMEMBER I~ O t,5 ~, ABSENT: COUNClLMEMBER 1~(.3f~ ~. CITY CLERK and Ex Offici~~he Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED MAR ~9 7.000 MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: BA~THILTG~ CITY ATTORNEY~f the City of Bakersfield STATE OF CALIFORNIA).. County of Kern) I, PameI~ A. McCarthy, City Clerk c~ 'he City of Bakersfield, Stats of California, hereby certify the foregoing and annexsd to be ~ f..t,, ~rue and correct Copy cf the original I~E-'50 ~ U ~L'{ bt~/ on file in this office and that i have compared the s~me wilh th6 ori¢inal. WITNESS my hand and seal this :~j ~ day of [~o,f,~ 20 ~ .. Pamela A. McCarthy, C':.' Clerk City Clerk By. JWS:jp Deputy City Clerk S:~JOHN\Urban Dev~Resolution-Borba.wpd March 30, 2000 ~ Page 3 of 3 Pages ~ From: Eric Matlock To: Alan Tandy Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000 2:39:29 PM Subject: Crime Stats I am sending over a copy of the Attorney General's Crime Stats for the State which were just released today. You will notice that Bakersfield had a decrease of 15.6% in violent crimes and a 16.9% decrease in property crimes according to the California Crime Index. CC: Brad Wahl; Dave Jackson; Neil Mahan; William Re... RECEIVED CRIMES REPORTED FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS ~ ~ ~) ~ January through December, 1998 and 1999 By Number and Percent Change CITY MANAGER'S OFF~CE FBI California Crime Index Cdme Index Forcible Aggravated Motor Larceny - January- Selected jurisdictions December total~'2'3 total2'3 Total Homicide rape Robbery assault Total Bur~llar~ vehicle theft theft Arson4 Total selected jurisdictions Total selected 1998 I 855,278 426,022 155,453 1,467 6,311 48,390 99,285 270,569 152,897 117,672 419,691 I 9,565 jurisdictions2'3 1999] 763,276 369,640 141,827 1,390 6,011 42,483 91,943 227,813 124,730 103,083 364,023 ] 9,613 % change -10.8 -13.2 -8.8 -5.2 -4.8 -12.2 -7.4 -15.8 -18.4 -12.4 -8.5 .5 Selected police departments Total selected 670,882 328,713 120,455 1,060 4,643 41,532 73,220 208,258 108,048 100,210 335,737 6,432 police departments2 605,469 286,937 110,877 1,062 4,443 36,609 68,763 176,060 88,035 88,025 312,178 6,354 -9.8 -12.7 -8.0 .2 -4.3 - 11.9 -6.1 -15.5 -18.5 -12.2 -7.0 -1.2 Anaheim 10,491 5,230 1,518 18 73 550 877 ' 3,712 2,085 1,627 5,208 53 Police Department 10,156 4,651 1,638 15 85 468 1,070 3,013 1,640 1,373 5,452 53 -3.2 -11.1 7.9 16.4 -14.9 22.0 -18.8 -21.3 -15.6 4.7 .0 Bakersfield 12,498 5,205 1,018 20 31 461 506 4,187 .2,879 1,308 7,143 150 Police Department 11,320 4,337 859 24 27 357 451 3,478 2,316 1,162 6,870 113 -9.4 -16.7 -15.6 -22.6 -10.9 -16.9 -19.6 -11.2 -3.8 -24.7 Berkeley 9,310 3,352 938 2 33 431 472 2,414 1,443 971 5,922 36 Police Department 8,401 2,864 842 3 32 391 416 2,042. 1,197 845 5,459 58 -9.8 -14.0 -10.2 -9.3 -11.9 -15.4 -17.0 -13.0 -7.8 Burbank 3,164 1,307 285 4 8 94 179 1,022 421 601 1,853 4 Police Department 2,824 1,224 314 2 10 95 207 910 362 548 1,592 8 -10.7 -6.4 10.2 1.1 15.6 -11.0 -14.0 -8.8 -14.1 Chula Vista 8,191 4,049 1,169 5 50 350 754 2,880 1,265 1,615 4,101 41 Police Department 7,065 3,468 1,024 10 47 300 667 2,444 977 1,467 3,541 56 -13.7 -14.3 -12.4 -6.0 -14.3 -12.7 -15.1 -22.8 -9.2 -13.7 Concord 6,828 2,477 657 4 44 149 460 1,820 1,107 713 4,324 27 Police Department 6,582 2,011 636 2 37 176 421 1,375 744 631 4,555 16 -3.6 -18.8 -3.2 18.1 -8.5 -24.5 -32.8 -11.5 5.3 Corona 4,095 1,878 388 1 40 141 206 1,490 816 674 2,198 19 Police Department 3,655 1,552 296 4 28 130 134 1,256 735 521 2,087 16 -10.7 -17.4 -23.7 -7.8 -35.0 -15.7 -9.9 -22.7 -5.1 Costa Mesa 3,~64 1,373 293 1 17 117 158 1,080 549 531 2,583 8 Police Department 3,625 1,1 68 319 4 29 106 180 869 489 380 2,420 17 -6.6 -13.5 8.9 -9.4 13.9 -19.5 -10.9 -28.4 -6.3 Daly City 2,797 1 ~109 328 6 17 125 180 781 275 506 1,670 18 Police Department 2,534 904 258 7 22 98 131 646 253 393 1,624 -9.4 -18.5 -21.3 -21.6 -27.2 -17.3 -8.0 -22.3 -2.8 El Monte 3,952 2,478 1,133 11 39 465 618 1,345 690 655 1,442 32 Police Department 3,339 2,044 989 8 30 346 605 , 1,055 495 560 1,281 14 -15.5 -17.5 -12.7 -25.6 -2.1 -21,6 -28.3 -14.5 -11.2 EScondido 5,694 2,708 725 I 51 164 489 1,983 960 1,023 2,962 24 Police Department 4,834 2,206 608 3 41 154 410 1,598 616 982 2,597 31 -15.1 -18.5 -16.1 -19.6 -16.3 -16.2 -19.4 -35.8 -4.0 -12.3 (Continued) CRIMES REPORTED FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS January through December, 1998 and 1999 By Number and Percent Change Violent crimes Prope~ crimes FBI California January - Crime Index Cdme Index Forcible Aggravated Motor Larceny - Selected jurisdictions December total~.2.3 total~,3 Total Homicide rape Robber~ assault Total Burglary vehicle theft theft Arson4 Fontana 1998 4,047 2,861 829 11 34 281 503 2,032 970 1,062 1,145 41 Police Department 1999 3,589 2,426 802 8 61 216 517 1,624 845 779 1,134 29 % change -11.3 -15.2 -3.3 -23.1 2.8 -20.1 -12.9 -26.6 -1.0 Fremont 1998 7,361 2,717 677 9 24 169 475 2,040 1,287 753 4,606 38 Police Department 1999 5,983 1,985 423 I 23 115 284 1,562 993 569 3,981 17 % change - 18.7 -26.9 -37.5 -32.0 -40.2 -23.4 -22.8 -24.4 -13.6 Fresno 1998 32,914 15,127 4,254 36 175 1,394 2,649 10,873 5,202 5,671 16,948 839 Police Department~ 1999 27,519 12,085 3,720 24 146 1,162 2,388 8,365 4,135 4,230 14,727 707 % change Fullerton 1998 4,515 1,822 429 2 31 153 243 1,393 787 606 2,660 33 Police Department 1999 4,031 1,387 319 4 23 118 174 1,068 623 445 2,617 27 % change -10.7 -23.9 -25.6 -22.9 -28.4 -23.3 -20.8 -26.6 -1.6 Garden Grove 1998 5,664 2,635 723 7 27 220 469 1,912 921 991 2,988 41 Police Department 1999 5,517 2,498 709 11 26 204 468 1,789 798 991 2,982 37 % change -2.6 -5.2 -1.9 -7.3 -.2 -6.4 -13.4 .0 -.2 Glendale 1998 5,391 2,168 55'8 2 19 206 331 1,610 737 873 3,178 45 Police Department 1999 5.035 1,996 530 3 20 178 329 1,466 723 743 2,995 44 % change -6.6 -7.9 -5.0 -13.6 -.6 -8.9 -1.9 -14.9 -5.8 Hayward 1998 7,170 3,145 779 5 47 368 359 2,366 1,044 1,322 3,977 48 Police Department 1999 6,041 2,800 869 9 64 308 488 1,931 797 1,134 3,192 49 % change -15.7 -11.0 11.6 -16.3 35.9 -18.4 -23.7 -14.2 -19.7 Huntington Beach 1998 5,925 2,514 541 0 46 156 339 1,973 1,332 641 3,393 18 Police Department 1999 4,892 1,941 396 5 36 111 244 1,545 1,055 490 2,922 29 % change -17.4 -22.8 -26.8 -28.8 -28.0 -21.7 -20.8 -23.6 -13.9 Inglewood 1998 5,121 3,439 1,489 35 33 682 739 1,950 941 1,009 1,630 52 Police Department 1999 4,429 2,965 1,349 16 39 601 693 1,616 691 925 1,412 52 % change -13.5 -13.8 -9.4 -11.9 -6.2 -17.1 -26.6 -8.3 -13.4 .0 Ir vine 1998 3,609 1,442 218 4 16 46 152 1,224 859 365 2,151 16 Police Department 1999 3,396 1,226 170 2 15 45 108 1,056 755 301 2,150 20 % change -5.9 -15.0 -22.0 -28.9 -13.7 -12.1 -17.5 .0 Long Beach 1998 19,264 11,156 3,697 38 111 1,765 1,783 7,459 3,908 3,551 7,922 186 Police Department 1999 18,372 9,975 3,257 46 119 1,566 1,526 6,718' 3,357 3,361 8,179 218 % change -4.6 -10.6 -11.9 7.2 -11.3 -14.4 -9.9 -14.1 -5.4 3.2 17.2 Los Angeles 1998 186,281 103,709 49,201 426 1,395 15,835 31,545 54,508 26,067 28,441 79,997 2,575 Police Department 1999 169,801 93,037 46,839 424 1,288 14,411 30,716 ,46,198 21,521 24,677 74,457 2,307 % change -8.8 -10.3 -4.8 -0.5 -7.7 -9.0 -2.6 -15.2 -17.4 -13.2 -6.9 -10.4 Modesto 1998 12,431 4,917 1,110 6 74 359 671 3,807 2,346 1,461 7,432 82 Police Department 1999 10,241 4,113 993 5 72 290 626 3,120 1,851 1,269 5,936 192 % change -17.6 -16.4 -10.5 -2.7 -19.2 -6.7 -18.0 -21.1 -13.1 -20.1 ,~_ 1_..3~_ ~1_ CRIMES REPORTED FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS January through December, 1998 and 1999 By Number and Percent Change Violent crimes Property cdmes FBI California : Janua~J - Cdme Index Cdme Index Forcible Aggravated Motor Larceny - Selected jurisdictions December total~,2.3 t~tal2,3 Total Homicide rape Robber~ assault Total Burglary vehicle theft theft Arson4 Oakland '1998 37,182 18,309 7,008 72 340 2,651 3,945 11,301 6,119 5,182 18,554 319 Police Department 1999 31,402 15,636 5,754 62 305 2,189 3,198 9,882 5,094 4,788 15,437 329 % change -15.5 -14.6 -I 7.9 -13.9 -10.3 -17.4 -18.9 - 12,6 -16.8 -7.6 -I 6.8 3.1 Oceanside 1998 5,944 3,087 1,098 8 80 272 738 1,989 1,340 649 2,830 27 Police Department 1999 5,262 2,496 942 7 94 185 656 1,554 1,060 494 2,733 33 % change -11.5 -19.1 -14.2 17.5 -32.0 -11.1 -21.9 -20,9 - -23.9 -3.4 Ontario 1998 8,420 3,991 1,075 18 43 362 652 2,916 1,354 1,562 4,337 92 Police Department 1999 7,821 3,508 1,006 9 44 285 668 2,502 1,172 1,330 4,264 109 % change -7.1 -12.1 -6.4 -21.3 2.5 -14.2 -13,4 -14.9 -3.1 18.5 Orange 1998 3,541 1,740 505 I 19 119 366 1,235 759 476 1,852 49 Police Department2 1999 3,069 1,239 399 1 12 84 302 840 429 411 1,790 40 % change Oxnard 1998 6,392 2,807 934 '~ 47 ' 393 487 1,873 1,096 777 3,571 14 Police Department 1999 5,922 2,447 · 851 5 37 357 452 1,596 1,029 567 3,461 14 % change -7.4 -12.8 ..8.9 -9.2 -7.2 - 14.8 -6.1 -27.0 -3.1 Pasadena 1998 5,946 2,457 848 10 25 354 459 1,609 1,061 548 3,432 57 Police Department 1999 5,090 2,072 826 2 30 350 444 1,246 795 451 2,913 105 % change I -14.4 -15.7 -2.6 -1.1 -3.3 -22.6 -25.1 -17.7 -15.1 84.2 Pomona 1998 6,437 3,943 1,708 16 50 409 1,233 2,235 1,167 1,068 2,440 54 Police Department 1999 6,638 3,773 1,446 26 48 381 991 2,327 1,169 1,158 2,837 28 % change 3.1 -4.3 -15.3 -4.0 -6.8 -19.6 4.1 .2 8.4 16.3 -48.1 Riverside 1998 12,582 6,465 2,245 17 87 698 1,443 4,220 2,348 1,872 5,908 209 Police Department 1999 11,911 5,932 2,064 30 77 628 1,329 3,868 2.250 1,618 5,733 246 % change -5.3 -8.2 -8.1 -11.5 -10.0 -7.9 -8.3 -4.2 -13.6 -3.0 17.7- Sacramento 1998 31,881 15,887 3,376 31 141 1,689 1,515 12,511 6,505 6,006 15,733 261 Police Department 1999 27,540 12,349 3,084 54 143 1,450 1,437 9,265 4,805 4,460 14,761 430 % change -13.6 -22.3 -8.6 1.4 -14.2 -5.1 -25.9 -26.1 -25.7 -6.2 64.8 Salinas 1998 6,420 2,864 1,193 17 57 440 679 1,611 916 695 3,570 46 Police Department 1999 6,329 2,534 1,155 12 60 346 737 1,379 729 650 3,764 31 % change -1.4 -9.6 -3.2 5.3 -21.4 8.5 -14.4 -20.4 -6.5 5.4 San Bemardino 1998 13,925 7,985 2,377 41 86 855 1,395 5,608 3,275 2,333 5,807 133 Police Department 1999 12,024 6,385 2,020 23 81 709 1,207 4,365 2,570 1,795 5,524 115 % change -13.7 -20.0 -15.0 -5.8 -17.1 -13.5 -22.2 -21.5 -23.1 -4.9 -13.5 · . San Diego 1998 54,644 26,033 8,744 42 371 2,121 6,210 17.289 7,349 9,940 .28,388 223 Police Department 1999 49,818 23,470 7,411 57 354 1,812 5,188 ,16,059 6,568 9,491 26,118 230 % change -8.8 -9.8 -15.2 -4.6 -14.6 -16.5 -7.1 -10.6 -4.5 -8.0 3.1 San Francisco 1998 46,492 20,790 7,337 58 244 3,927 3,108 13,453 6,706 6,747 25,349 353 Police Department 1999 43,597 18,058 6,555 64 193 3,475 2,823 11,503 5,526 5,977 25,264 275 % change -6.2 -13.1 -10.7 10.3 -20.9 -11.5 -9.2 -14.5 -17.6 -11.4 -.3 ,,.,_ _-;~_2:~1_ ~)__._ CRIMES REPORTED FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS January through December, 1998 and 1999 By Number and Percent Change Violent crimes Property crimes FBI Califomia January - Cdme Index Crime Index Forcible Aggravated Motor Larceny - Selected jurisdictions December total1.2.3 total2,3 Total Homicide rape Robber)/ assault Total Bur~llary vehicle theft theft Arson4 San Jose 1998 30,693 12,457 5,155 29 357 901 3,868 7,302 4,129 3,173 17,925 311 Police Department 1999 26,133 10,633 5,088 25 347 726 3,990 5,545 2,685 2,860 15,151 349 % change -14.9 -14.6 -1.3 -2.8 - 19.4 3.2 -24.1 -35.0 -9.9 -15.5 12.2 Santa Ana 1998 11,889 5,692 1,730 21 68 844 797 3,962 1,506 2,456 5,833 364 Police Department 1999 11,414 5,341 1,828 15 97 865 851 3,513 1,226 2,287 5,826 247 % change -4.0 -6.2 5.7 42.6 2.5 6.8 - 11.3 -18.6 -6'.9 o -. 1 -32.1 Santa Clara 1998 3,528 1,183 419 1 19 55 344 764 487 277 2,302 43 Police Department 1999 3,107 926 265 2 11 44 208 661 372 289 2,145 36 % change -11.9 -21.7 -36.8 -20.0 -39.5 -13.5 -23.6 4.3 -6.8 Santa Rosa 1998 6,917 2,143 584 4 75 193 312 1,559 1,086 473 4,725 49 Police Department 1999 5,441 1,570 522 5 73 152 292 1,048 720 328 3,840 31 % change -21.3 -26.7 -10.6 -2.7 -21.2 -6.4 -32.8 -33.7 -30.7 -18.7 Si mi Valley 1998 1,804 733 160 2 13 32 113 573 417 156 1,055 16 Police Department 1999 1,699 660 116 0 11 24 81 544 383 161 987 52 % change -5.8 -10.0 -27.5 -28.3 -5.1 -8.2 3.2 -6.4 Stockton 1998 17,632 7,857 2,707 27 116 1,011 1,553 5,150 3,180 1,970 9,669 106 Police Department 1999 16,681 7,424 2,808 3'2 130 904 1,742 4,616 2,476 2,140 9,122 135 % change -5.4 -5.5 3.7 12.1 -10.6 12.2 -10.4 -22.1 8.6 -5.7 27.4 Sunnyvale 1998 3,027 867 192 2 25 61 104 675 409 266 2,133 27 Police Department 1999 2,675 713 201 1 25 47 128 512 305 207 1,944 18 % change -11.6 -17.8 4.7 -23.0 23.1 -24.1 -25.4 -22.2 -8.9 Torrance 1998 5,161 2,177 464 3 21 226 214 1,713 901 812 2,953 31 Police Department 1999 4,636 1,975 443 3 23 188 229 1,532 785 747 2,636 25 % change -10.2 -9.3 -4.5 - 16.8 7.0 -10.6 -12.9 -8.0 -10.7 Valle jo 1998 7,629 3,836 1,544 6 59 382 1,097 2,292 1,523 769 3,727 66 Police Department 1999 7,368 3,399 1,297 6 48 433 810 2,102 1,323 779 3,905 52 % change -3.6 -11.4 -16.0 - 18.6 13.4 -26.2 -8.3 -13.1 1.3 4.8 -21.2 Ventu ra 1998 3,855 1,462 336 5 38 125 168 1,126 818 308 2,366 27 Police Department 1999 3,024 1,196 335 3 19 95 218 861 649 212 1,795 33 % change -21.6 -18.2 -.3 -24.0 29.8 -23.5 -20.7 -31.2 -24.1 West Covina 1998 4,719 2,057 518 5 21 224 268 1,539 667 872 2,645 17 Police Department 1999 4,287 1,622 421 3 19 180 219 1,201 511 690 2,543 22 % change -9.2 -21.1 -18.7 -19.6 - 18.3 -22.0 -23.4 -20.9 -. 1 Selected sherifl's departments Total selected 1998 I 154,284 81,126 29,533 356 1,450 5,623 22,104 51,593 38,050 13,543 70,234 2,924 sherifl"s departments3 1999 I 132,909 69,399 26,265 290 1,328 4,871 19,776 43,134 31,076 12,058 60,462 3,048 % change -13.9 -14.5 -11.1 -18.5 -8.4 -13.4 -10.5 ' -16.4 -18.3 -11.0 -13.9 4.2 Alameda County 1998 I 4,006 2,073 527 6 26 189 306 1.546 642 704 1,905 28 Sheriff's Department 1999 3,650 1,827 540 2 26 159 353 1,287 666 621 1,799 24 % change -8.9 -11.9 2.5 -15.9 15.4 -16.8 -20.9 -11.8 -5.6 (Continued) CRIMES REPORTED FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS January through December, 1998 and 1999 By Number and Percent Change Violent crimes Property crimes FBI California January - Crime Index Crime Index Forcible Aggravated Motor Larceny - Selected jurisdictions ; December total~,2.3 total2.3 Total Homicide rape Robbery assault Total Bur~]lary vehicle theft theft Arson4 Butte County 1998 2,894 1,305 278 2 39 44 193 1,027 1,006 21 1,524 65 Sheriff's Department 1999 2,377 1,048 303 2 24 43 234 745 735 10 1,249 80 % change -17.9 -19.7 9.0 21.2 -27.5 -26.9 -18.0 23,1 Contra Costa County 1998 6,888 2,502 756 9 59 185 503 1,746 1,663 83 4,335 51 Shedffs Department3 1999 4,682 1,700 565 14 50 119 382 1,135 1,126 9 2,931 51 % change EI Dorado County 1998 2,182 1,181 420 5 30 15 370 761 747' 14 987 14 Sherift's Department 1999 1,702 905 370 3 23 8 336 535 528 7 782 15 % change -22.0 -23.4 -11.9 -9.2 -29.7 -29.3 -20.8 Fresno County 1998 6,711 3,924 1,657 14 65 134 1,444 2,267 1,427 840 2,557 230 Sherift's Department 1999 6,041 3,374 1,397 14 53 115 1,215 1,977 1,245 732 2,427 240 % change -10.0 -14.0 -15.7 -18.5 -14.2 - 15.9 -12.8 -12.8 -12.9 -5.1 4.3 Kern County 1998 14,349 7,108 2,269 31 110 366 1,762 4,839 3,602 1,237 6,378 863 Sherift's Department 1999 12,302 6,002 2,154 23 81 323 1,727 3,848 2,930 918 5,383 917 % change -14.3 -15.6 -5.1 -26.4 -11.7 -2.0 -20.5 -18.7 -25.8 -15.6 6.3 Los Angeles County 1998 29,486 20,316 10,270 131 256 2,219 7,664 10,046 5,612 4,434 8,760 410 Sheriff's Department 1999 27,183 18,253 9,015 117 214 2,010 6,674 9,238 4,805 4,433 8,478 452 % change -7.8 - 10.2 -12.2 -10.7 - 16.4 -9.4 - 12.9 -8.0 -14.4 .0 -3.2 10.2 Monterey County 1998 2,018 852 172 5 23 43 101 680 658 22 1,138 28 Sheriff's Department 1999 1,726 704 218 5 37 40 136 486 476 10 996 26 % change -14.5 -17.4 26.7 34.7 -28.5 -27.7 -12.5 Orange County 1998 2,999 1,249 333 3 13 61 256 916 660 256 1,726 24 SherifFs Department 1999 2,640 1,024 280 4 20 62 194 744 500 244 1,587 29 % change -12.0 - 18.0 -15.9 1.6 -24.2 -18.8 -24.2 -4.7 -8.1 Riverside County 1998 14,087 7,550 ~ 2,186 37 82 331 1,736 5,364 3,715 1,649 6,470 67 SherifFs Departments 1999 12,089 7,515 2,072 14 160 186 1,712 5,443 3,906 1,537 4,552 22 % change -14.2 -.5 -5.2 95.1 -43.8 -1.4 1.5 5.1 -6.8 -29.6 -67.2 Sacramento County 1998 28,779 11,715 ' 4,177 41 306 1,188 2,642 7.538 6,774 764 16,926 138 Sheriff's Department 1999 24,002 9,803 3,709 26 247 1,082 2,354 6,094 5,429 665 14,013 186 % change i -16.6 -16.3 -11.2 -19.3 -8.9 -10.9 -19.2 -19.9 -13.0 -17.2 34.8 San Bemardino County 1998 8,992 5,347 1,163 24 66 268 805 4,184 2,912 1,272 3,534 111 Sheriff's Department 1999 7,413 4,172 1,072 27 66 199 780 3,100 2,044 1,056 3,137 104 % change -17.6 -22.0 -7.8 .0 -25.7 -3.1 -25.9 -29.8 -17.0 -11.2 -6.3 San Diego County 1998 8,613 5,092 1,385 7 73 263 1,042 3,707 2,328 1,379 3,456 65 Sheriff's Department 1999 7,562 4,233 1,262 14 92 210 946 , 2,971 1,883 1,088 3,272 57 % change -12.2 - 16.9 -8.9 26.0 -20.2 -9.2 -19.9 - 19.1 -21.1 -5.3' -12.3 San Joaquin County 1998 4,628 1,995 534 13 63 105 353 1,461 1,359 102 2,568 65 Sheriff's Department 1999 4,296 1,813 594 6 32 108 448 1,219 1,123 96 2,424 59 % change -7.2 -9.1 11.2 -49.2 2.9 26.9 -16.6 -17.4 -5.9 -5.6 .... ...-_9~2_ CRIMES REPORTED FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS January through December, 1998 and 1999 By Number and Percent Change Violent crimes ~ Property crimes FBI California January - Cdme Index Cdme Index Forcible Aggravated Motor Larceny- Selected jurisdictions December total~,2.3 total2.3 Total Homicide rape Robber~ assault Total Burglar~ vehicle theft theft Arson4 San Luis Obispo County 1998 1,612 707 289 2 53 3 231 418 412 6 902 3 Sheriff's Department 1999 1,408 574 213 1 38 8 166 361 357 4 819 15 % change -12.7 -18.8 -26.3 -28.3 -28.1 - 13.6 -13.3 -9.2 Santa Barbara County 1998 3,041 1,580 616 3 41 42 530 964 942 22 1,427 34 Sherift's Department 1999 2,240 795 305 1 36 31 237 490 479 11 1,414 31 % change -26.3 -49.7 -50.5 -55.3 -49.2 -49.2 -.9 Santa Clara County 1998 2,894 1,219 455 5 48 38 364 764 560 204 1,672 3 Sheriff's Department 1999 2,427 1,046 322 5 26 31 260 724 515 209 1,381 0 % change -16.1 -14.2 -29.2 -28.6 -5.2 *8.0 2.5 -17.4 Santa Cruz County 1998 3,234 1,289 427 4 28 44 351 862 851 11 1,922 23 Sheriff's Department 1999 2,596 1,002 238 1 34 21 182 764 749 15 1,561 33 % change -19.7 -22.3 -44.3 -48.1 -11.4 -12.0 -18.8 Sonoma County 1998 3,726 1,490 487 4 58 58 367 1,003 962 41 2,207 29 Sherfff's Department 1999 2,893 1,127 384 2 39 39 304 743 721 22 1,737 29 % change -22.4 -24.4 -21,1 -32,8 -32,8 -17.2 -25.9 -25.1 -21.3 Stanislaus County 1998 5,922 3,359 1,260 8 39 131 1,082 2,099 1,534 565 2,342 221 Sheriff's Department 1999 4,902 2,785 1,263 13 38 143 1,069 1,522 1,142 380 1,911 206 % change -17.2 -17.1 .2 9.2 -1.2 -27.5 -25.6 -32.7 -18.4 -6.8 Tulare County 1998 4,111 1,775 628 11 31 81 505 1,147 1,147 0 1,833 503 Sheriffs Department 1999 3,460 1,397 554 10 42 53 449 843 .843 0 1,540 523 % change -15.8 -21.3 -11.8 -34.6 -11.1 -26.5 -26.5 -16.0 4.0 Selected contract cities Total selected .1998 30,112 16,183 5,465 51 218 1,235 3,961 1 O, 718 6,799 3,919 13,720 209 contract cities 1'999 24,898 13,304 4,685 38 240 1,003 3,404 8,619 5,619 3,000 11,383 211 % change -17.3 -17.8 -14.3 -25.5 10.1 -18.8 -14.1 -19.6 -17.4 -23.4 -17.0 1.0 Lancaster 1998 5,405 3,178 1,339 8 57 253 1,021 1,839 1,215 624 2,190 37 (contracts with 1999 4,155 2,495 1,116 5 41 183 887 1,379 988 391 1,612 48 Los Angeles S.D.) % change -23.1 -21.5 -16.7 -28.1 -27.7 -13.1 -25.0 -18.7 -37.3 -26.4 Moreno Valley 1998 7,621 4,265 1,204 9 48 327 820 3,061 2,266 795 3,322 34 (contracts with 1999 5,143 3,090 984 6 76 201 701 2,106 1,527 579 2,047 6 Riverside S.D,)5 % change -32.5 -27.5 -18.3 -38.5 -14.5 -31.2 -32.6 -27.2 -38.4 No~alk 1998 3,576 2,218 866 16 25 252 573 1,352 530 822 1,336 22 (contracts with 1999 3,271 2,012 719 10 27 217 465 1,293 529 764 1,236 23 Los Angeles S.D.) % change -8.5 -9.3 - 17.0 -13.9 -18.8 -4.4 -.2 -7.1 -7.5 Palmdale 1998 4,836 2,764 1,120 7 37 197 879 1,644 1,063 581 2,028 44 (contracts with 1999 3,906 2,302 954 6 40 192 716 ' 1,348 873 475 1,565 39 Los Angeles S.D.) % change -19.2 -16.7 -14.8 -2.5 -18.5 -18.0 -17.9 -18.2 -22,8 Rancho Cucamonga 1998 3,736 1,577 269 5 16 114 134 1,308 667 64 1 2,128 31 (cont,'acts with 1999 3,858 1,513 268 7 27 92 142 1,245 825 420 2,311 34 San Bemardino S.D.) % change 3.3 -4.1 -,4 -19.3 6.0 -4.8 23.7 -34.5 8.6 (Continued) CRIMES REPORTED FOR SELECTED CALIFORNIA JURISDICTIONS January through December, 1998 and 1999 By Number and Percent Change Violent crimes Property crimes FBI California January - Crime Index Cdme Index Forcible Aggravated Motor Larceny - Selected jurisdictions December total~,2.3 total2.3 Total Homicide rape Robbery assault Total Burglary vehicle theft theft Arson4 Santa Clarita 1998 2,926 1,437 525 6 20 60 439 912 .609 303 1,463 26 (contracts with 1999 2,716 1,238 488 .2 19 79 388 750 508 242 1,435 43 Los Angeles S.D.) % change -7.2 -13.8 -7.0 31.7 -11.6 ~17.8 -16.6 -20.1 -1.9 Thousand Oaks 1998 2,012 744 142 0 15 32 95 602 449 153 1,253 15 (contracts with 1999 1,849 654 156 2 10. 39 105 498 369 129 1,177 18 Ventura S.D.) % chan~le -8.1 -12.1 9.9 10.5 -17.3 -17.8 -15.7 -8.1 Notes; Dash indicates Iflat date are not available or that percent changes are not calculated when base numbers are less than 50. Percent changes are also not calculated for agencies with incomplete data. This report includes data submitted to the Cdminal Justice Statistics Center by the cutoff date of February 29, 2000. Counts reflect the number of actual offenses. Unfounded cdme counts are not included. Sheriff Department counts are for unincorporated areas only and do not include contract cities. The California Highway Patrol reports motor vehicle theft for some county sheriff's departments. Therefore, shedft's department figures for this category may not reflect all reported motor vehicle thefts. 'The FBI Crime Index total includes the California Cdme Index total, larceny-theft, and arson. 2The following agencies were unable to provide cdme counts for the entire twelve-month period in 1999; Fresno Police Department (December), and Orange Police Department (November- December). Therefore, to maintain comparability of 1999 data wi~h 1998 data, counts for ~ese agencies are shown but not included in the subtotals or total selected judedictions counts. 3Contra Costa County SherifFs Department reported that, due to a computer programing error, crime counts for contract agencies were included in the sheriff department counts for the last half of 1998. To maintain comparability of 1999 data with 1998 data, counts are shown but not included in the subtotals or total selected jurisdiction counts. 4Arson counts for the full twelve-month pedod in 1999 were not available for: Fresno Police Department (December) and Orange Police Department (November- December). 5Riverside County Sheriff's Department implemented a new records management system mid-year 1999 and is experiencing technical problems with the system. (Continued) BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 31, 2000 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Update on Citizen's Attitude Survey Our consultant, Research Network Limited, will begin conducting the citizen survey by phone to randomly selected residents of Bakersfield. Approximately 700 households will be contacted. The survey will begin within the next week and take 7 to 10 days to complete. Our consultant uses another firm to actually make contact with residents by phone and deliver the survey, which we've been assured will be conducted in courteous manner. If residents call to ask why they were contacted or have questions about the survey, you're welcome to refer them to me at 326-3751. cc Alan Tandy, City Manager BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~- DATE: March 20, 2000 SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL REFUSE DISPOSAL FEE NEGOTIATIONS WITH KERN COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Staff met again with Kern County Waste Management Department on March 20, 2000, after sending a letter requesting this topic to be agendized for the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee. It was clarified that the City wanted to change only the method of paying for commercial bins and not apartment bins, since those are charged via land use fees. Ms. Washington indicated that perhaps the City's proposed estimate method for paying for the City portion of mixed City/County loads could be used. She is checking with County Counsel with respect to the bin fee ordinance. KB:smp ~ ~ City' of B~kersfield TRANSMII'rAL SLIP Date ........................................................ For Your:-- [] Signature [] Action Information [] Fih .- Please: [] Return [] See Me .[] Follow Up [] Prepare Answe Copy to: ........................................................................................ . ............. .............. c N O March 22, 2000 MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: Gene Bogart, Water Resources Manager ~ FROM: Patrick E. Hauptman, Water Superintendent I SUBJECT: Response to Councilperson Couch re. Washer Efficiency Stand~¢~' MANAGEI'I'S OF;-~.L: We have reviewed the memo and attachments received from Councilperson Couch regarding the request from the Ozone Action group. This request is asking local elected officials to write a letter to the Secretary of Energy asking him to support their cause in mandating changes to clothes washer standards. They claim that these design changes would decrease water demand, as well as decrease energy demand to supply hot water. The group claims that drinking water supplies will be conserved, global warming will be reduced and air pollution will be decreased. These design changes would cost the consumer an additional $125 per clothes washer unit. These seemingly altruistic efforts by the group are not necessarily needed in the southern San- Joaquin Valley. We live in a closed groundwater basin. The water used in the valley remains in the groundwater basin with the exception of evapotranspiration losses. These losses are attributed to evaporation and plant use. Indeed, some areas, particularly the coastal regions, lose their local water supplies and stormwater runoff to the ocean. Saving or conserving water here in our area will not increase the water supplies to those coastal regions. The points concerning global warming and air pollution are questionable at best. Since these claims are controversial, we choose not to argue the pros or cons. Another important point to consider in these proposed design standards is the loss of liquid wastewater needed to transport the solids in the sewer trunk lines. It may become necessary to use additional water supplies to flush and transport the solids to the wastewater treatment plants. This would defeat any "savings" in the group's strategy. David R. Couch Second Vice President-Investments Financial Consultant SALOMON SMITH BARNEY ~,.~,.~t~, 800-42t-2171 A member of c~t~group~' 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 I 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 warming 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 cornrnents 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 warming. · Breaking science on how global warming impacts your community. · Opportunities to highlight your local environmental successes locally and nationally. · Updates on federal global wanning 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 to 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 ora pool of water in the bottom ora tub on its side. This metho~l 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 improvement 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-loaders 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 confirrned 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 200.3. 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 and 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 Clinmte 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.or-, or call toll fi'ce at 1-888-363-9197. For more htformation, contact Philip D. Radford at Ozo.e Action at !-888-363-9197 or Andrew deLaski at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project at 617/363-94 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 modern 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, ho~vever. Setting a strong clothes washer standard now will help local communities, save consumers money and protect our environment. Please keep rne informed of your decision in this important matter. Sincerely. Your Name Cc: Ozone Action _RECEIVED SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS MAR 3 I 2000' BOARD OF sUpERVISORS - COUNTY OF KERN C~TY MANAGER'S 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 28, 2000 9:00 A.M. BOARD RECONVENED Supervisors: McQuiston, Perez, Patrick, Peterson, Parra ROLL CALL: SALUTE TO FLAG - Led by Supervisor Perez NOTE: Mc, Pz, Pa, Pe, Pr are abbreviations for Supervisors McQuiston, Perez, Patrick, Peterson, and Parra, respectively. For example, Pa-Pe denotes Supervisor Patrick made the motion and Supervisor Peterson seconded it. The abbreviation (Ab) means absent, and (Abd) abstained. CONSENT AGENDA/OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: ALL ITEMS LISTED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) OR A NUMBER SIGN (#) WERE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND APPROVED BY ONE MOTION. BOARD ACTION SHOWN IN CAPS RESOLUTIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Pa-Mc 1) Proclamation proclaiming week of April 3-7, 2000 as Taft All Ayes Disabilities Awareness Week in Kern County - PROCLAIMED; MADE PRESENTATION TO JEFF ROSS AND MATT KIMBER; JEFF ROSS AND MATT KIMBER HEARD; STUDENTS AND STAFF FROM THE TAFT COLLEGE TRANSITION TO INDEPENDENT LIVING PROGRAM WERE INTRODUCED pa-Pz RECEIVED AND FILED All Ayes Pr-Mc 2) Proclamation proclaiming March 28, 2000 as Volunteer All Ayes Host/Hostess Day in Kern County - PROCLAIMED; MADE PRESENTATION TO JOHN DE MARIO, PRESIDENT, RETIRED EMPLOYEES OF KERN COUNTY; JOHN DE MARIO AND BILL WILBANKS, ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, HEARD NOTE: CHAIRMAN PETERSON RECOGNIZED CITY OF BAKERSFIELD VICE MAYOR IRMA CARSON WHO WAS IN THE AUDIENCE Pz-Mc 3) Proclamation proclaiming Apri! 1-8, 2000 as Public Health All Ayes Week in Kern County - PROCLAIMED; MADE PRESENTATION TO DR. CLAUDIA JONAR, ASSISTANT HEALTH OFFICER; DR. JONAH AND DR. JOHN DIGGS HEARD; RECEIVED AND FILED DOCUMENT Summary of Proceedings Page 2 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 Pr-Pa 4) Proclamation proclaiming April 3-7, 2000 as Male All Ayes Responsibility and Girl Power Week in Kern County PROCLAIMED; MADE PRESENTATION TO JAMES TYSON, PROJECT COORDINATOR, REAL MEN PROGRAM, AND MONICA REESE, CASE MANAGER, A CHA/gCE TO DREAM YOUTH PROGRAm; JAMES TYSON, MONICA REESE, LESLIE CARSON, DESTINY TRUJILLO, KATRINA NUTT, DENESIA CARR, RYAN ROBERSON, AND IRM~ CARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, EBONY COUNSELING CENTER, HEARD Pa-Pz *5) Proclamation proclaiming April 2-8, 2000.as Safety Seat All Ayes Checkup Week in Kern County - PROCLAIMED; REFERRED TO CLERK OF THE BOARD FOR PREPARATION 6) Request from Community Clean Sweep to present report on 2000 Pacific Bell Smart Yellow Pages Recycling Program and present Certificates of Recognition to the Most Creative Transportation Contest Year 2000 Winners - MARY BETH GARRISON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY CLEANSWEEP, HEA3tD; CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION PRESENTED TO MRS. ROXBORO AND MRS. GALLEGOS, THORNER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; WINNIE GENETOLA AND DENNIS ROBERTSON, PACIFIC BELL; AND MRS. FIELDGROVE, COLUMBIA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL; MRS. ROXBORO, MRS. GALLEGOS, WINNIE GENETOLA, DENNIS ROBERTSON, AND MRS. FIELDGROVE HEARD PUBLIC REOLrEST~ 7) Request of Kern Refuse to address the Board regarding presentation of a customized support trailer to Community Clean Sweep - LARRY MOXLEY, KERN REFUSE, AND MARY BETH GARRISON, COMMUNITY CLEAN SWEEP, HEARD WITH- *8) Reappointment of Barry Jacobs as Fourth District Member DRAWN to the Human Relations Commission, term to expire March 12, 2002 - PUBLIC PRESENTATION~ 9) This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons to address the Board on any matter not on this agenda but under the jurisdiction of the Board. Board members may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed. They may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff for factual information or request staff to report back to the Board at a later meeting. Also, the Board may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME BEFORE MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION. THANKYOU! - JIM A/~L, KERN COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS, HEARD REGARDING ADDITION OF 24 FIREFIGHTER POSITIONS TO REDUCE OVERTIME COSTS BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENT~'0R REPORTS 10) On their own initiative, B~ard members may make an announcement or a report on their own activities. They may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2[a]) - NO ONE HEARD Summary of Proceedings Page 3 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 AIRPORTS Pa-Pz *11) Request to appropriate unanticipated revenue from grant All Ayes received through State Department of Transportation Aeronautics Program to partially fund purchase of airfield mower - APPROVED APPROPRIATION OF UNANTICIPATED REVENUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,800 TO APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES; APPROVED BUDGET TRANSFER FROM APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES TO BUDGET UNIT 8995 IN THE AMOUNT OF $68,700 CLERK OF T}{E BOARD Pa-Pz '12) Amended Conflict of Interest Code for the Housing All'Ayes Authority of the County of Kern - APPROVED COUNTY COUNSEL Pa-Pz '13) Request of the Office of County Counsel to destroy All Ayes records no longer needed and eligible for destruction - APPROVED Pa-Pz '14) Request of the Sheriff's Department to destroy records no All Ayes longer needed and eligible for destruction - APPROVED Pa-Pz '15) Proposed addition of one (1) Deputy County Counsel (I-V) All Ayes to Budget Unit 1210, effective April 10, 2000 - APPROVED; REFERRED TO PERSONNEL TO AMEND DEPARTMENTAL POSITIONS AND SALARY SCHEDULE Pa-Pz '16) Proposed ordinance repealing secondhand, antique and used All Ayes goods dealers local business license requirements and associated fees - WAIVED READING; INTRODUCED ORDINANCE; AUTHORIZED COUNTY COUNSEL TO PREPARE AND THE CLERK OF THE BOARD TO PUBLISH A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE Pa-Pz '17.) Report and proposed ordinance amendment to eliminate All Ayes unintended salary inequity and differing salaries among members of the Board of Supervisors WAIVED READING; INTRODUCED ORDINANCE DISTRICT ATTORNEY Pa-Pz '18) Proposed appropriation of unanticipated revenue in the All Ayes amount of $704,480 from the State Child Support Program for expenditures on contracts associated with the KIDZ Automated Child Support Auto. ted System - APPROVED APPROPRIATION OF UNANTICIPATED REVEN-JE IN THE AMOUNT OF $704,480 TO APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES; APPROVED' BUDGET TRANSFER IN THE AMOUNT OF $704,480 FROM APPROPRIATIONS FOR CONTINGENCIES TO BUDGET UNIT #2183 Pa-Pz '19) Proposed Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with Anderson All Ayes Consulting for management assistance with the KIDZ Automation Project to increase the compensation ceiling by $340,000 for a total amount not to exceed $740,000 - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 208-2000 Pa-Pz *20) Proposed addition of one (1) Departmental System All Ayes Coordinator I and deletion of one (1) Departmental System Coordinator II, effective April 7, 2000 - APPROVED; REFERRED TO PERSONNEL TO AMENDDEPARTMENTAL POSITIONS AND SALARY SCHEDULE Summary of Proceedings Page 4 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 EMPLOYERS' TRAINING RESOURCE Pz-Pr 21) Notification of retroactive approval of Agreements with All Ayes the Kern Economic Development Corporation and the Kern, Inyo, Mono Building and Construction Trades Council - RECEIVED AND FILED Pa-Pz *22) Proposed Job Training Partnership Act Local Closeout Plan All Ayes - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN Pa-Pz *23) Request to apply for .Department of Labor regional All Ayes consortium building grant funding on behalf of a consortium of counties which may include Fresno, Inyo, Kings, Madera, Merced, Mono, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare to support the creation and development of regional skills consortia - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED ETR AS FISCAL AGENT; AUTHORIZED ETRDIRECTOR TO EXECUTE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS FIRE DEPARTMENT Pa-Pz *24 Proposed Agreement with Golden Empire Air Rescue, Inc., All Ayes for County Fire Department to provide paramedic personnel for Air Ambulance Paramedic Services, and addition of three Firefighter positions effective March 21, 2000 (continued from 3/28/2000) - CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2000 AT 9:00 A.M. Pa-Pz *25) Proposed addition of three (3) Captains, three (3) Ail Ayes Engineers, and three (3) Firefighters in Fire Department (Budget Unit 2415) effective July 1, 2000, pursuant to Fire Protection provisions of mitigation agreement for construction and operation of LaPaloma Generating Project - APPROVED; REFERRED TO PERSONNEL TO AMEND DEPARTMENTAL POSITIONS AND SALARY SCHEDULE Pa-Pz *26) Proposed establishment of Interest-Bearing Trust Fund in Ail Ayes Fire Department Budget Unit #2415 for Helicopter Operations APPROVED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE HELICOPTER OPERATIONS TRUST FUND #24047 IN BUDGET UNIT #2415 AS AN INTEREST-BEARING TRUST FUND HUMAN SERVICES Pa-Pz *27) Proposed Agreement with Cooperative Personnel Services All Ayes for personnel assessment and reclassification services for Department of Human Services staff, in an amount not to exceed $56,000 (reimbursed largely by Federal and State funds, resulting in a county share of approximately 5%, or $2,800) APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 209=2000 KERN MEDICAL CENTER Pa-Pz *28) Proposed retroactive approval of Agreement with Ramesh C. All Ayes Gupta, M.D., Inc'., for professional gastroenterology services from September 3, 1999 to September 2, 2000, in an amount not to exceed $240,000 (prior notification September 7, 1999) - ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2000-086 ACCEPTING MALPRACTICE LIABILITY; APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 210-2000 Pz-Pa 29) Notification of proposed retroactive Agreement with Mark All Ayes Rispler, M.D., for reproductive endocrinology services in the Obstetric/Gynecology Department - RECEIVED AND FILED Summary of Proceedings Page 5 Board of SUpervisors Regular Meeting 03/28'/.2000 MENTAL HEALTH SERVICE~ Pa-Pz *30) Proposed Agreement with Nankil Enterprises, Inc., for the All Ayes provision of board and care services for County clients at their Lakeside Board and Care facility, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, in an amount not to exceed $10,000 (State, Local; Budgeted) - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 211-2000 Pa-Pz '31) Proposed Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 530-99 with All Ayes Henrietta Weill Memorial Child Guidance Clinic, Inc., for the provision of additional substance abuse prevention services for clients residing in the west Bakersfield area, for' Fiscal Year 1999-2000, in an amount not to exceed $88,909 (an increase of $18,814) (Federal, Budgeted) APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 212-2000 Pa-Pz *32) Proposed Amendment No. I to Agreement No. 531-99 with Ail Ayes Henrietta Weill Memorial Child Guidance Clinic, Inc., to correct amount for fewer substance abuse prevention services than projected for clients residing in the Delano area, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, in an amount not to exceed $88,909 (a decrease of $9,042) (Federal, Budgeted) APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIPJ~JtN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 213-2000 Pa-Pz *33) Proposed Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 532-99 with All Ayes Henrietta Weill Memorial Child Guidance Clinic, Inc., to correct amount for fewer-'substance abuse'-prevention services than projected for clients residing in the Bakersfield area, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000, in an amount not to exceed $88,909 (a decrease of $9,773) (Federal, Budgeted) APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 214-2000 Mc-Pa 34) Notification of anticipated retroactive approval of Ail Ayes Agreement with the Royal Palms Motel, for the provision of shelter services for JAILink Program clients, for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 (from December 1, 1999 through June 30, 2000), in an amount not to exceed $29,000 (State, local; Budgeted) - RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS A/TD RECREATION DEPARTMENT Pa-Pz *35) Proposed Agreement with Buena Vista Water Storage All Ayes District (BVWSD) to purchase water to replenish water losses at Buena Vista Aquatic Recreation Area (BVARA), in an amount not to exceed $88,000, from April 1, 2000 to December 31, 2000; Fiscal Impact $24,000 from FY1999- 2000 and $64,000 from FY2000-2001 - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 215-2000 PERSONNEL DEPARTME~{T Pa-Pz *36) Classification of positions recommended by the Civil All Ayes Service Commission, effective April 8, 2000 - APPROVED; REFERRED TO PERSONNEL TO AMEND THE DEPARTMENTAL POSITION AND SALARY SCHEDULE Summary of Proceedings Page 6 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES Pa-Pz *37) Proposed Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 801-99 with All Ayes Valley Catholic Charities for AIDS Case Management and HIV/AIDS Early Intervention Project, in an amount not to exceed $17,040 APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 216-2000 Pa-Pz *38) Proposed Agreement with the Kern Community ~College All Ayes District, Bakersfield College, for the Basic P.O.S.T. Academy from April 1, 2000 through May 31, 2001 - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT217-2000; AUTHORIZED THE .SHERIFF OR HIS DESIGNEE TO SIGN EACH ADDENDUM SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AS TO FORM BY COUNTY COUNSEL TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR Pa-Pz *39) Pooled Cash Portfolio Analysis for Month Ended February, All Ayes 2000 RECEIVED AND FILED CLOSED SESSIONS COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WITH- 40) Request for Closed Session regarding Meet and Confer, DRAWN KLEA, KCFFU, and CCAPE o Pz-Pa RECESSED TO 2:00 P.M. Dc ]~lBoard Kenneth W. ~eet~-rrso-~ Chairman, Board of Supervisors SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS = COUNTY OF 'KERN 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 28, 2000 BOARD RECON%rENED Supervisors: McQuiston, Perez, Patrick, Peterson, Parra ROLL CALL: All Present CONSENT AGENDA/OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: ALL ITEMS LISTED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) OR A NUMBER SIGN (#) WERE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE AND APPROVED BY ONE MOTION. BOARD ACTION SMOWN IN CAPS PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS 1) This portion of the meeting is reserved for Pers0~s to address the Board on any matter not on this agenda but under the jurisdiction of the Board. Board members may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed. They may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff for factual information or request staff to report back to the Board at a later meeting. Also, the Board may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME BEFORE MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION. THANK YOU! - NO ONE HEARD BOARD MEMBER ANNOUNCEMENTS OR REPORTS 2) On their own initiative, Board members may make an announcement or a report on their own activities. They may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2[a]) - SUPERVISOR PEREZ REPORTED ON A CONFERENCE PROGRAM HE PARTICIPATED IN LAST WEEK WITH~. THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SCHOOLS, COMMUNITIES AND GOVERNMENT WORKING TOGETHER Summary of Proceedings Page 8 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 CONTINUED HF~RING RESOURCE M~NAGEMENT AGENCY plannin~ Department Pz-Pr 3) Request fromTaJon Ranch by Mclntosh & Associates to All Ayes change the permitted uses from Agriculture, General Comercial, and Light Industrial to Industrial on approx/~0ately 325 acres located at the west side of Interstate 5 at Lava1 Road south of Bakersfield (SD 4) Specific Request: (a) Amend the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element of the Kern County General Plan from Map Code(s) 8.3 (Extensive Agriculture) and 7.1 (Light Industrial) to Map Code(s) 7.2 (Service Industrial) or a more restrictive map code designation (GPA %3, Map %202) (b) Amend the Land Use, Open Space and Conservation Element of the Kern County General Plan from Map Code(s) 8.3 (Extensive Agriculture), 7.1 (Light Industrial), and 8.4 (Mineral and Petroleum) to Map Code(s) 7.2 (Service Industrial) or a more restrictive map code designation (GPA %5, Map %219) (c) .A change in zone classification from M-1 PD (Light Industrial - Precise Development Combining), A (Exclusive Agriculture), and C-2 PD (General Commercial - Precise Development Combining) to M-2 PD (Medium Industrial - Precise Development Combining) or a more restrictive district (ZCC %13, Map %202) (d) A change in zone classification from M-1 PD (Light Industrial Precise Development Combining) and A (Exclusive Agriculture) to M-2 PD (Medium Industrial Precise Development Combining) or a more restrictive district (ZCC %10, Map %219) (e) Exclusion of approximately 156 acres from the boundaries of an Agricultural Preserve (Ag Pres %19 Excl) (Environmental Impact Report; Published Bakersfield Californian) (continued from 3/14/2000) - OPENED HEARING; MARY GRIFFIN, KERN AUDUBON SOCIETY; LOIS WATSON; IRENE HEATH; ARTHUR UNGER, K~RN-KAWEAH CHAPTER, SIERRA CLUB; AND BEN CARBONE, REPRESENTING W'HEELER RIDGE FARMS, HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO THE RECOMMENDATION; DOUG FORD, TEJON RANCH; PHIL ADAMS, TEJON RANCH; A/TD JESS ORTIZ, MAYOR, CITY OF ARVIN, HEARD IN SUPPORT OF THE RECOMMENDATION; CLOSED HEARING; AMENDED A/TD CERTIFIED THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPTED AMENDED MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING PROGRAM ADDING MITIGATION RELATING TO PRESERVATION OF LAVALROADALIGN~IENT; ADOPTED SECTION 15091 FINDINGS AND SECTION 15093 STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION (ADVERSE CUMIrLATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY, SOLID WASTE, AND AESTHETICS); ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS" 2000-087 THROUGH 2000-090 AND ORDIN~UNCES G-6667 AND G-6668 APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO F~%P CODE OF 7.2 (SERVICE INDUSTRIAL), APPROVING ZONE CHANGE TO M-2 PD (MEDIUM (Continued on Page 9) Summary of Proceedings Page 9 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 (Continued from Page 8) INDUSTRIAL - PRECISE DEVELOPMENT COMBINING), A.ND EXCLUDING APPROXIMATELY 156 ACRES FROM THE BOUNDARIES OF AN AGRICULTUPJ~L PRESERVE AS RECOMMENDED; NONE OF THE FOREGOING SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UNLESS PRIOR TO APRIL 27, 2000, THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE(S)' SIGNS A1VD FILES AN APPROVED INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE KERN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT; RECEIVED AND FILED DOC"JMENTS; REFERRED TRANSIT CONCERNS TO ROADS, EMPLOYERS TRAINING RESOURCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER Pa-Pr *4) Request from Kern County Sheriff's Department for a Ail Ayes change in street name for a portion of Zerker Road and an ,,~med County road east of Highway 99 to Cawelo Avenue located at an alignment south of Lerdo Highway that extends north from Highway 99 approximately 2/3 mile; adjacent to Highway 99 'for approximately 1/3 mile; and easterly from Highway 99 approximately 2/3 mile, southeast of Shelter (SD 1) Specific Request: A change of name for a portion of Zerker Road and an unnamed County road east of Highway 99 to Cawelo Avenue (80-00 3 099 Streets and Highways) (General Rule, Section 15061(b)(3); Published Bakersf-ield Californian) OPENED HEARING; NO ONE HEARD; CLOSED HEARING; ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2000-091; APPROVED STREET NAME CHANGE AS REQUESTED Pa-Pr *5) Request from WilliamBolthouse Farms, Inc., for a change All Ayes in street name from Golden Valley Drive to Bolthouse Lane, for a 1/2 mile length of road on the north side of State Route 58, approximately 3-1/2 miles east of Buttonwillow (SD 4) Specific Request: A change in street name from Golden Valley Drive to Bolthouse Lane (100-18 3 099 Streets and Highways) (General Rule, Section 15061(b) (3); Published Bakersfield Californian) - OPENED HEARING; NO ONE HEARD; CLOSED HEARING; ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2000-092; APPROVED STREET NAME CHANGE AS REQUESTED Summary of Proceedings Page 10 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 DEPARTMENTAL REOUESTS ~ESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Plannin? Department Pa-Pr *6) Notice of Nonrenewal 00-1 of Land Use Contract petitioned All Ayes by Glenn Whisler to nonrenew approximately 100 acres of contracted land within Ag. Preserve No. 7 - DIRECTED CLERK OF THE BOARD TO RECORD NOTICE OF NONRENEWAL AND TRANSMIT A COPY OF RECORDED DOCUMENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT Pa-Pz 7) Request by Timothy Sullivan for Determination of Public All Ayes Convenience for the issuance of an Off-Sale Beer and Wine License at 1501 North Chester Avenue, pursuant to the Alcohol Beverage Control Act, Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code SUE HANKINS, PRESIDENT, STANDARD SCHOOL BOARD, HEARD IN OPPOSITION TO ISSUANCE OF LICENSE; DAVID BIRD ANDADAMHENSLEY, SULLIVAN PETROLEUM, HEARD IN SUPPORT OF LICENSE; CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2000, AT 2:00 P.M. Pa-Pr *8) Request for approval to hire retired County employee All Ayes Dennis Sceales as an Associate Planner at Step E for a term not to exceed 120 working days or 960 hours per fiscal year, whichever is greater, effective immediately - APPROVED ~ESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Community Development Proaram Pa-Pr *9) Request that HUD Grant an exception from CDBG Conflict of Ail Ayes Interest Provisions related to an employee and a Housing Rehabilitation Applicant - RECEIVED AND FILED DISCLOSURE LETTER; AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR TO REQUEST EXCEPTION FROM HUD S.D.'s ~3 and ~5 Pa-Pr *10) Proposed retroactive'Enterprise Zone Agreement with the All Ayes City of Bakersfield, Kern Economic Development Corporation and Employers' Training Resource, extending 'the term twelve months and obligating $12,750 in County Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG)(prior notification March 21, 2000) - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 218-2000 · Summary of Proceedings Page 11 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Engineering and Survey Services S.D. ~2 Pa-Pr *11) Contract No. 20011, Plans and Specifications, and Notice All Ayes to Contractors for proposal and contract for construction of Mojave Retention Basin - AppROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN; AUTHORIZED ROADS TO PUBLISH THE NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION, PURSUANT TO SEC. 20150 OF PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE; BID OPENING DATE TO BE WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 2000, AT 11:00 A.M. Pa-Pr 12) Proposed Resolution ordering the extension of Zone of All Ayes Benefit No. 3 in County Service Area No. 71, a portion of Tract 1386, located south of Norris Road and east of Fruitvale Avenue, to provide streetlights - OPENED HEARING; NO ONE HEARD; CLOSED HEARING; TALLIED BALLOTS; CONFIRMED WRITTEN ENGINEER'S REPORT; CONFIRMED THAT THE MAJORITY OF BALLOTS SUBMITTED WERE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSMENT; ENACTED ORDINANCE G-6669 ESTABLISHING THE ASSESSMENT AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2000-093 CONFIRMING ENGINEERING & SURVEY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND APPROVING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT NOT TO EXCEED $50 PER PARCEL FOR STREETLIGHTS; DETERMINING TO ACCEPT AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENACTING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN THE BOUND__ARI~% HE__RE~_~_AND 9_P~?~RI~G THE EXTENSION OF ZONE OF BENEFIT NO. 3 IN COUNTY SERVICE AREA NO. 71 S.D. ~3 Pa-Pr '13) Proposed Agreement with Quad Engineering, Inc., for All Ayes engineering services associated with a drainage study for design and construction of East Bakersfield curb and gutter improvements in the unincorporated area of East Bakersfield, in an amount not to exceed $66,000 - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 219-2000 Pa-Pr -14) Proposed retroactive Amendment and Extension of All Ayes Cooperative Agreement with the .City of Bakersfield for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) Program, at a cost not to exceed $30,000 (prior notification on March 14, 2000) APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 220-2000 Summary of Proceedings Page 12 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 RESQURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY Roads Department S.D.'s ~2 and ~5 Pa-Pr '15) Contract No. 20009, accept low bid of Griffith Company All Ayes for construction on Taft Highway and Panama Road between South "H" Street and Weedpatch Highway, in an amount not to exceed $707,000 - ACCEPTED; AUTHORIZED ROADS TO PREPARE NECESSARY CONTRACT DOCUMENTS AND RELEASE ALL OTHER BID GUARANTEES WASTE MANAGEMENT S.D.'s ~1 and ~2 Pa-Pr '16) Proposed Amendment No. 3 to Agreement 399-88 with Benz All Ayes Sanitation, Inc., for providing operational services at Small Volume Transfer Stations to amend the base compensation amount to $6,222 per month for Fiscal Year 1999-2000 (a decrease of $2,530) APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 221-2000 Pa-Pr ,17) Proposed Resolution requesting authorization to submit All Ayes application for a Local Government Used Oil Recycling Block Grant for Fiscal Years 2000-2003, in an amount not to exceed $282,909 APPROVED; ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2000-094 CQ~NTY'ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Pa-Pr '18) Economic Development Activities Status Report Fourth All Ayes Quarter 1999 - RECEIVED AND FILED Pa-Pr '19) Proposed Amendment No. 3 to Agreement with United All Ayes Healthcare for health insurance plan administration to extend term to June 30, 2000' APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENT 222-2000 Pa-Pr *20) Update on status of Accumulated Capital Outlay funds - Ail Ayes RECEIVED AND FILED Legislative Matters Pa-Pr '21) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposed All Ayes insurance requirements for disaster assistance - ADOPTED POSITION IN OPPOSITION; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN CORRESPONDENCE Summary of Proceedings Page 13 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE General Services Division Mearing S.D. ~4 Pa-Pr *22) Proposed Resolution and Ordinance granting a pipeline All Ayes franchise to Source Energy, LLC - OPENED HEARING; NO ONE HEARD; CLOSED HEARING; MADE FINDING THAT PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER SECTION 15301; DIRECTED CLERK OF THE BOARD TO COMPLETE AND FILE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION; ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2000-095 AND ENACTED ORDINANCE F-426. WITH- *23) (2415.7014) Proposed Agreement with Piper & DeVries, DRAWN d.b.a. Omega Construction, for the Glennville Fire Station remodel, in the amount of $79,339 Pa-Pr *24) (2210.7001L) Accept low bid from Black Oak WG, Inc., for All Ayes replacement of kitchen and laundry make-up air units at the Sheriff's Lerdo facility, in the amount of $196,650 - ACCEPTED; AUTHORIZED GENERAL SERVICES TO RELEASE ALL OTHER BID GUARANTEES AND TO PREPARE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS S.D. #4 Pa-Pr *25) Proposed Second Amendments to two Agreements for lease of All Ayes 5121 Stockdale Highway, Suites 100 and 275, providing for improvements to office space currently used by Employers' Training Resource, and one Agreement for lease of 5121 Stockdale Highway, Suite 210, providing for additional office space, all agreements terminating October 31, 2005, with an increase of $6,512.35 for Fiscal Year 1999- 2000 - MADE FINDING THAT PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER SECTION 15301; DIRECTED CLERK OF THE BOARD TO COMPLETE AND FILE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION; APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEMENTS 223-2000, 224-2000 AND 225-2000 Pa-Pr *26) Proposed Agreement with CGG Land Seismic for geophysical All Ayes testing at County's Taft Sanitary Landfill site, expiring when testing is complete or on May 28, 2000 (revenue to County of $2,000) - MADE FINDING THAT PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER SECTION 15301; DIRECTED CLERK OF THE BOARD TO COMPLETE AND FILE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION; APPROVED SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AS TO FORM BY COUNTY COUNSEL; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN AGREEM~NT~ 226-2000 Pa-Pr *27) (1650.7142) Change Order No. 2 for the Probation All Ayes Department's Training Center remodel, an increase of $3,264 - APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMA/g TO SIGN Summary of Proceedings Page 14 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 Pa-Pr *28) (8212.8358) Plans and Specifications for seismic upgrade All Ayes at Kern Medical Center MADE FINDING THAT PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA PER SECTION 15301(a); AUTHORIZED GENERAL SERVICES TO FILE NOTICE OF EXEMPTION; APPROVED; AUTHORIZED CHAIRMAN TO SIGN; AUTHORIZED GENERAL SERVICES TO PUBLISH PURSUANT TO PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE 20125; BID OPENING TO BE THURSDAY, APRIL 27, 2000, AT 11:00 A.M. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES INTRODUCED ON MARCH 21. 2000 Pa-Pr *29) Proposed Ordinance adding subparagraph (18) to Section All Ayes 10.24.021 of Chapter 10.24 concerning a handicap parking zone on North Chester Avenue, north of Bancroft Drive ENACTED ORDINANCE G-6670 Pa-Pr *30) Proposed Ordinance adding subparagraph (102) to Section All Ayes 10.16.041 of Chapter 10.16 concerning a no stopping zone on North Chester Avenue, north of Bancroft Drive - ENACTED ORDINANCE G-6671 MATTERS FOR EXECUTIVE APPROVAL Pa-Pr '31) Budget Transfers - APPROVED #142, #143 AND $145 THROUGH All Ayes $151 ($144 WAS VOIDED) *32) Minutes for wgek of February 28, 2000 - APPROVED WITH Pa-Pr CORRECTION TO TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2000, ITEM $22, P.M., All Ayes TO ADD "ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2000-069 ZN POSITION OF SUPPORT" Pa-Pr *33) Miscellaneous Letters and Documents - FILED All Ayes Pa-Pr *34) Miscellaneous Departmental Referrals by Clerk of the All Ayes Board - APPROVED AND FILED Pa-Pr *35) Claims and Lawsuits filed with and referred by Clerk of Ail Ayes the Board - APPROVED AND FILED Pz-Pa ADJOUR/TED TO TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2000, AT 9:00 A.M. the Board ~ Kenneth W. Pe--~-r~-~ Chairman', Board of Supe~isors Summary of Proceedings Page 15 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 33) MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS - FILED Auditor-Controller-County Clerk A) Memorandum to Executive Director of Employers' Training Resource re Response to Audit Findings and Recommendations - 2nd Notice (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) B) Memorandum to Director of Resource Management Agency re Response to Minor Audit Findings - 2nd Notice (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) Community Development Proaram C) County Loan Agreement, HOME Investment Partnerships Program, First-Time Homebuyers Mortgage Assistance Program, with Epifanio G. Nunez, Cornelia Nunez, and Martina Nunez D)Thank you letters to various individuals for donations to branches of the Kern County Library E)Agenda of meeting of Kern County Planning Commission on Thursday, March 23, 2000 Roads F) Special Event Permit for Explorer of the Arts Day and Spring Extravaganza in Lamont, on April 15, 2000 (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) Miscellaneous G) Letter from Anthony Monreal, Wasco Union High School District, in opposition to the Solid Waste Facility Permit applied for by the Yakima Company (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Resource Management Agency, Environmental Health and County Counsel) H) Thirteen (13) cards in support of the Borba Dairy Project (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Environmental Health, County Counsel and Planning) I) Thirty-five (35) cards in opposition to the Borba Dairy Project (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Environmental Health, County Counsel and Planning) J) Letter from Darryl Howard Harvey re homosexuality issues (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) K) Letter from L. E. McInerney re Petition for Initiative Measure, Golden Hills Community service District (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, County Counsel and Elections) L) Letter from L. E. McInerney re Director Earl Norcross of Golden Hills Community Service District (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, County Counsel and Elections) M) Letter from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, re the Future of Giant Sequoia forum in Visalia on Friday, March 17, 2000 (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Planning and County Counsel) Summary of Proceedings Page 16 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 N) Letter from California Department of Water Resources re the Urban Streams Restoration Program (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Resource Management Agency, Engineering & Survey Services and County Counsel) O) Letter from Ramiro Garcia of Maple School District Board of Trustees re resolution-position related to biosolid disposal (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Resource Management Agency, Environmental Health and County Counsel) P) Letter from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, re release of draft policy for long-term management of the national forest road system (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Planning and County Counsel) Q) Letter from California Highway Patrol re Hazardous Materials Incident Report in Tehachapi (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Fire-Haz.Mat. and Environmental Health) R) Agenda of meeting from CALFED Bay-Delta Program, BDAC Governance Work Group, on Tuesday, March 28, 2000 (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) S) Newsletter from California Department of Fish and Game, Wild Trout Project, Vol. 4, No. 1, Winter 2000 (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Planning and County Counsel) T) Notice from State Water Resources Control Board re public workshop on Subterranean Streams Flowing Through Known and Definite Channels, Monday and Tuesday, April 24-25, 2000 (Copies to each Supervisor, CAO, Resource Management Agency, Engineering & Survey Services and Planning) U) News release from Pacific Gas and Electric Company re Current Issues in the Utility Industry, March, 2000 (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) 34) LETTERS RECEIVED kN-D REFERRED BY CLERK OF THE BOARD - APPROVED AND FILED A) Application for alcohol beverage license: McGuires Pub, 20424 Brian Way, Suites 3 & 4, Tehachapi.- REFERRED TO PLANNING (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) B) Letter from William D. Palmer, Attorney at Law, re East Niles Community Services District, Resolution 2000-01 - REFERRED TO ELECTIONS C) E-mail from Lola Owen re roads in Isabella Highlands, Wofford Heights - REFERRED TO ROADS (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) D) Letter from Arin D. Resnicke, Keyesville Classic 2000 Race Director, re formation of Ad-Hoc Committee for Safer Cycling - REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE (Copies to each Supervisor and CAO) 35) CLAIMS AND LAWSUITS FILED WITH AND REFERRED BY THE CL~RK OF THE BOARD - APPRQV~DAND FILED A) Claim in the matter of Sandra Brockman vs Kern County - REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL (Copy to Risk Management) B)Claim in the matter of ~ vs Kern County REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL (Copy to Risk Management) Summary of Proceedings Page 17 Board of Supervisors Regular Meeting 03/28/2000 C) Claim in the matter of Sophia Revera0 Isabel Ramos and Michael Ramos vs Kern County - REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL (COpy to Risk Management) D) Claim in the matter of ~ vs Kern County - REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL (Copy to Risk Management) E) Notice of Case Closure in the matter of ~ vs Kern County - REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL (Copy to Risk Management and Personnel) F) Complaint in the matter of ~ vs. Kern County REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL (Copy to Risk Management) G) Complaint in the matter of Herbert L. ,Goreck~ vs. Kern County REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL (Copies to Risk Management) H) Complaint in the matter of Jonathan Lael Robinson vs. Kern County - REFERRED TO COUNTY CoUNSEL (Copies to Risk Management) I) Complaint in the matter of Denise G. Stubblefield, aka Denise Wampler and Timothy Wampler Vs. Kern County REFERRED TO COUNTY COUNSEL (Copies to Risk Management)