The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1991 B A K E,R S F I E L D October 28, 1991 Mr. Don L. Williams, Superintendent Greenfield Union School District 1624 Fairview Road Bakersfield, CA 93307. Dear Mr. Williams: Attached is a copy of both the Litigation and Legislative Committee report to Council and a staff report to me on the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. As you review the reports; I hope they will clear up some of the concerns you have voiced regarding the Airport. If you have any questions regarding the reports or recommendations, please contact Robert Olislagers, Airport Manager, at 832-9100, or Ed Schulz, Public Works Director, at 326-3724, who will be happy to assist you. Sincerely, Dale Hawley City Manager (m1028912) Attachments cc- Ed Schulz, Public Works Director Robert Olislagers, Airport Manager · City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 BAKERSFIELD October 28, 1991 Mr. David Steiber 279 Garden Drive Bakersfield, CA 93307 Dear Mr. Williams: Attached is a copy of both the Litigation and Legislative Oommittee report to Council and a staff report to me on the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. As you review the reports, I hope they will clear up some of the concerns you have voiced regarding the Airport. If you.have any questions regarding the reports or recommendations, please contact Bobert Olislagers, Airport Manager, at 832-9100, or Ed Schulz, Public Works Director, at 326-3724, who witl be'happy to assist you. Sincerely, Dale Hawley '//, City Manager ' (m1028913) Attachments cc: Ed Schulz, Public' Works Director Robert Olisiagers, Airport Manager City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun AvenUe Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax f805~ 323-378fl. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD · LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 6-91 October 23, 1991 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS SUBJECT: BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT OVERFLIGHTS On July 31, 1991, the City Council referred to the Legislative and Litigation committee the iSsue of residential area overflights from air traffic generated by the Bakersfield Municipal Airport. The Committee met with .Mr. David Steiber and Greenfield School District Superintendent Don Williams to'receive input, reviewed staff reports and recommendations, and analyzed historical data. Issues of pdmary concern focussed on noise and safety. Safety and quiet flight measures which have already been initiated as well as possibilities for future mitigations were explored during the Committee's review. The Legislative and Litigation Committee feels that the community would be well served with the establishment of an Airport CitiZens Committee. A small committee of no more than five individuals (residents and school officials) would be helpful in keeping the Bakersfield Airpark Advisory Committee and City management informed as to concerns and needs of the area. 'The Committee also feels that the City should continue its "Fly Friendly" program, together with publishing of page inserts for airport guides. As a further educational effort to encourage better understanding of the LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE' REPORT' NO. 6-91 . October 23, 1991 Page -2- Airport's purpose and mission, it is recommended that student and adult awareness tours be conducted as well as periodic Airport "open houses." Therefore, the LegiSlative and Litigation Committee recommends that Council direct the Public Works Director to establish a five-member Airport Citizens Committee, with the Airport Manager functioning as an ex-officio member; the City continue its "Fly Friendly" program; publish page inserts for airport guides; and that, periodically, educational programs such as tours and open houses be conducted at the Airport. Further, it is recommended that staff prepare a report outlining efforts taken and recommendations made in response to concerns of area residents and forward the report to both Mr. Steiber and Superintendent Williams. The Committee requests that the City Council accept this report and implement its recommendations. Respe ~cl~ subrnitted,..~- r..,. ~un(:~imeg, i~r/..,/Patd(~ia J. DeMond, Chair Co~,~hCilhnember Lynn Edwards .aJb Councilmember Patricia M. Smith L&L6-91 .RPT MEMORANDUM October 28, 1991 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: REPORT ON BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT As directed by Council, the attached staff report details information about the Bakersfield Municipal Airport in relation to recent concerns over airport noise and safety. The report is being forwarded to both Mr. Steiber and Mr. Williams. (m1028911 ) Attachment MEMORANDUM October 25, 1991 TO: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER FROM: E.W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~. SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT ON BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT NOISE AND OVERFLIGHT The Bakersfield Municipal Airport has been in existence since 1945. Within the last year the City has received complaints from citizens regarding noise and safety, due in part to a change in runway alignment. On November 15, 1990, the City of Bakersfield dedicated a new runway at the airport. It is longer and has an orientation approximately 30 degrees closer to a north-south alignment than did the old runway. The two pdmary reasons for realignment and simultaneously lengthening the new runway were to provide a safer flying environment for pilots while at the same time significantly improving the quality of life of residents adjacent to the airport. The old runway was encroached by fencing, housing and obstructed clear zones. Homes were situated so close to the actual runway that it was not uncommon for residents along Madison Avenue, Planz Road, Elda Avenue, Shellmacher Road and Brook Street to experience overflight within 50 feet above their homes. The new orientation has vastly improved living conditions along these residential areas. The lengthening of the runway to the south has. placed the touchdown zone closer to Rexland Acres, located one half mile south of the airport. This area has experienced overflight since 1945, when the airport was built. Most of the homes and Fairview School were built shortly after the airport was constructed. Placing the tOuchdown zone closer to White Lane lowered the descent altitude of the inbound trajectory followed by pilots landing on runway 34 from 800 to 900 feet to approximately 400 to 500 feet, still considerably higher than the 50 feet overflight experienced by Madison Avenue residents. The specific alignment of the new runway was determined by a number of factors. Although a detailed discussion of the alternatives is presented in the 1988 Master Plan Update prepared by KPGM Peat Marwick, the following is a brief summary of the findings. J. DALE HAWLEY October 25, 1991 Page -2- " Aside from the technical requirements to provide maximum cross wind coverage, the decision to align the runway in its present configuration was dictated by the fact that additional land had to be acquired in order to accommodate the new runway. The old runway configuration could not be kept due to encroachment into the clear zone. Realignment was the only practical alternative. Alignments other than the present alignment would have resulted in overflight at the Casa Loma School and necessitated purchasing many homes along Planz, Madison, Elda and Shellmacher Roads, including the displacement of many long-time residents. Given the alternatives, the new alignment was preferred over ail other options. The City is aware and is sensitive to the concerns which have been expressed by residents of the Rexland Acres area and the Greenfield School District. The school district seems to be primarily concerned with safety issues, whereas some residents appear concerned about safety, noise and declining home vaiues. As a consequence, airport staff instituted a "Fly Friendly" program, patterned after the state's successful "Fly Neighborly" program. Since the program has been instituted, only a few noise complaints have been received from the Rexland Acres area. If the 'Fly Friendly" program is to remain successful, it will need participation from the residents of Rexland Acres. This can be accomplished by the formation of an AirpOrt Citizens Committee, as directed by Council. The Committee will be composed of no more than five individuals, including school officials and residents, with the airport manager functioning as an ex-officio member. The Airport Citizens Committee will report to the. Bakersfield Airpark Advisory Committee, with the Advisory Committee' in turn reporting to the City Council and management. In this manner issues of concern 'will be Severai additional mitigations to noise and overflight have already been initiated. Flight tracking is currently underway as part of the "Fly Friendly" program. In addition, the City has contacted ail the flight guides published for pilots and advised them in writing that a noise abatement program is in effect at the Bakersfield Municipai Airport. Shortly, the City will begin publishing page inserts for airport guides which will visually show the The City is considering the possibility of filing a pre-application with the Federai Aviation Administration (FAA) to request funding for a Part 150 Noise Study, mUCh like a noise study recently completed at Meadows Field. Such a request would need to be accompanied by significant evidence that a problem exists, and no such evidence is presently available. The FAA recommends that if such a study is being considered, it J. DALE HAWLEY October ~>5, 1991 __=e :, should be coordinated with a citizens committee, as was the case at Meadows Field and at other airports. Should a significant noise problem be uncovered in the course of the 150 study, a,. number of recommendations to mitigate problems could be' implemented-many which could be FAA funded--provided the recommendations of the Part 150 study are certified to conclude that significant problems exist. The health and welfare of the residents is of primary concem to the City. The City is also concerned about the potential for economic impact. An in-house review of a claim that the housing market has been negatively affected due to airport noise and overflight revealed no evidence that homes are selling for less or that more homes are for sale than elsewhere in the City of Bakersfield. Staff's review included interviews with realtors,. homeowners and a property appraiser. - "" ~'~- -~ ....... ~" "'.'~:~"?~'?~?:'~ :-.~' ~'-.~''?' ~-'' ........ It is estimated that over a quarter of a million flights have occurre~l in the area of the 'airport without a single problem. In ail of .Baker~ield, two accidents have o(a:urred involving aircraft and schools. Fortunately, no School children were involved. Both accidents occurred at .essentially random sites that happened to ~be near schools. · '. i%:~- ~ .~ -~'~',-.~.~i-:'.~ ~.. :..'.' Education and open communication will help address perceived concerns about flying. Periodic airport 'open houses,' class and parent-teacher awareness tours, and the establishment of an Airport Citizens Committee will assist in providing residents with an understanding of the airport's purpose and miSsion within the. City of,,Bak~ ersfield. ....-(M1022911) ':'!;'.. ". . · - , , , ..;... ..... .,~. .- .. . ¢ . .- '¥ ,...-- ;-, *. ,-. ,.~' - ;..~¢. - . · BAKERSFIELD 1990 ~August 29, 1991 The Honorable Trice Harvey State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 4177 Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: OppOsition to AB 350, California Rivers Riparian parkway Act Dear Assemblyman Harvey: At its meeting of August 28, 1991, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield voted to oppose AB 350, the California Rivers Riparian Parkway Act, as it was felt the bill could jeopardize the City's continuing efforts to improve the Kern River. I am forwarding to you a copy of the committee report which was approved at the meeting and urge you to continue to support the City's opposition to AB 350. Please feel free to cOntact me if you have questions on the City's stance on this issue. Sincerely, · Dale Haw City Manager JDH:jp Attachment cc: League of California Cities City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office * 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (~05) 326-3751 · Fax 1805) 323-3780- A',K .E R S F I E L D -- - ~ 1990 August 29, 1991 The Honorable Phil Wyman State Assembly State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Opposition to AB 350, CalifOrnia Rivers Riparian Parkway Act Dear Assemblyman Wyman: At its meeting' of August 28, 1991, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield voted to oppose AB 350, the California Rivers Riparian Parkway Act, as it was felt the bill could jeopardize the City's continuing efforts to improve the Kern River. I am forwarding to you a copy of the committee report 'which was approved at the meeting and urge you to continue to support the City's opposition to AB 350. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions on the City's stance on this issue. Sincerely, Dale Hawley City Manager JDH:jp Attachment cc: League of California'Cities City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California ° 93301 (805) 326-3751 · 'Fax (805) 323-3780 BAKERSFIELD 1990 August 29,~1991 The Honorable Don Rogers State'Senate State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Subject: Opposition to AB 350, California Rivers Riparian Parkway Act Dear Senator Rogers: At its meeting of August 28, 199!, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield voted to oppose AB 350, the California Rivers Riparian Parkway Act, as it was felt the bill could jeopardize the City's continuing efforts to improve the Kern River. I am forwarding to you a copy of the committee report which was approved at the meeting and urge you to support the City's opposition to AB 350. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions on the City's stance on this issue. Sincerely, Dale Haw City Manager JDH:jp Attachment cc: League of Californi.a Cities City of Bakersfield * City Manager's Office * 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield * California * 93301 ~g~3~ ~?~-~7~1 * Fax (805) 323-3780 CITY OF '~n ~ AND LITI~ATIC~ CCtV/TEE REPOR~ NO. 5-91 A~ 28, 199i TO: P~N~m.E MAYaR AND M~MBERS OF ~ CITY COUNCIL ~: ASSE2mT.Y BTTL 350, ~ RIVERS' RIPARIAN PARKWAY ACT Ur~ler current law, several agencies have jurisdiction over riparian, lar~s. AB 350'would centre] ~e authority by es~h] ~h/ng the California Rivers Riparian Althou~ the ~-o~,,, appears to assist local ,>' ...... ~ities in p~vidir~ public recreati~ml amenities and multiple use purposes', it could j~e the that the Kern River Plan be rewritten ar~ ~~_ to ~ly with star~ yet Plan would have to be approved by the State T~'n~]~ O" .... ~i-~ion. ~e bill does not ~~ the specific r~cfls of the Kern River Plan; it ~~ ~ the City Council accep~ this repa~ opposing AB 350. report and a cover letter expressing opposition to the bill to As_~mhlymen Harvey of both the report ar~ let-tar should ~e fczwaruled to the League of ~'~] ~fornia cities Sacramm~ Offiom as wmll. P~lir~c~ · , Cb~i,~ Counc~ Patricia M. BAKERSFIELD 1990 August 21, 1991 Mr. Don L. Williams, Superintendent Greenfield Union School District 1624 Fairview Road Bakersfield, CA 93307 Dear Mr. Williams: The attached material will be reviewed at the Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting this Friday, August 23, at noon in the City Manager's Conference Room. I hope you find it helpful as you prepare for your 12:15 p.m. meeting with the Committee members. Sincerely, Trudy Sl~ter Administrative Analyst TS:jp Attachment cc: Legislative and Litigation Committee Members J. Dale HaWley, City Manager bcc: YLarry Lunardini, City Attorney City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 323-3780 NOISE & OVERFLIGHT ISSUES: BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Summary of Issues: 1, Residents of the Rexland Acres Residential Area experience overflight due to landing approaches to runway 34, 2, Residents of the Rexland ACres Residential Area complain about noise associated with overflight. 3. Residents of the Rexland Acres Residential Area associate safety concerns with overflight, 4, The Fairview Elementary School has similar experiences and 'concerns due to overflight to runway 34, Other Issues: 1. Residents and the School charge that the City illegally realigned and lengthened the runway without proper notification of the residents of Rexland Acres or the School. 2. Residents and the School would like mitigation of the above stated concerns and a redress of the procedure to notify schools regarding extensive airport/runway projects. Measures the City has taken to date: 1. Changed the phone system to better respond to noise complaints and residents concerns. 2. Contacted the School to address the concerns and met with School Officials. 3. Contacted the Federal Aviation Administration and the DOT/Aeronautics Division regarding the concerns and requested input from the Agencies. 4. Mailed notices to all pilots based at the Airport requesting input and established a meeting for that purpose. 5. Commenced a noise/overflight complaint file to track all concerns and establish a profile to ascertain the type of complaint regarding flight procedures, type aircraft, noise or safety issue and residential location of complaint. 6. Conducted test flights of various flight tracks in an effort to track traffic to and from the airport but away from the residential area. This effort was coordinated with DOT/Aeronautics. 7. Based On comments from pilots, flight instructors, DOT/Aeronautics and others, the ~ollowing ~light procedures were instituted: a. Approaches to runway 34: i. No straight-in approaches ii. Left hand pattern entry approaches only iii. Follow 4 deg. glide slope approach b. Departures from 16 (towards Rexland Acres) i. No straight-out approaches ii, 20 deg. left turn out departures iii. Advisory to avoid residential area (It should be noted that all flight track'procedures are at the discretion of the pilot due to weather, safety or other concerns the pilot in command may ascertain'at the time of arrival or departure. Under no circumstances is thepilot forced to compromise safety in lieu of noise or overflight) 8. The City posted signs at the run-up areas at each end of the runway to indicate the above procedures, 9. The City contacted the publishers of flight guides and advised them of the flight track procedure for the' airport. In addition the City contacted a noise specialist to get cost estimates to monitor noise at the school and other strategic locations in order to scientifically measure overflight. Additional mitigation measures may be instituted at considerable cost, including noise monitoring. These are: 1. Noise monitoring (1 station/1 month = $2500) 2. Part 150 noise study ($75,000-$150,000) 3. Residential Insulation program (Cost?) 4. Acquisition of Residences to form "green belt"(Cost?) A suggestion was made by Mr. Steiber to flight track the aircraft from a left hand to a right hand pattern approach to runway 34. However, traffic in a right hand pattern to 34 would be diverted into inbound traffic to the ILS (Instrument Landing System) at Meadows Field, as well as traffic flying the Shafter VOR, a radio directional beam leading aircraft near the airport. This flight track could produce catastrophic results. With respect to legal procedures regarding the environmental process, the City followed all legal requirements, including notification of responsible agencies. New legislation was introduced two months ago, requiring airports to now notify all schools within a two mile area from the runway of any major airport construction program. Thus airports are now subject to the same requirements schools have had to follow for years. The latter unfortunately was not in effect when the City o~ Bakersfield realigned the runway at Bakersfield Airpark. ALL~ AMERIC & CITY B A K E R S F I E L D · 1990 August 21, 1991 Mr. Don Steiber 279 Garden Drive Bakersfield, CA 93307 Dear Mr. Steiber: The attached material will be reviewed at the Legislative and Litigation Committee meeting this Friday, August 23, at noon in the City Manager's Conference Room. I hope you find it .helpful as you prepare for your 12:15 p.m. meeting with the Committee members. Sincerely, Irudy Slater Administrative Analyst TS:jp Attachment cc: Legislative and Litigation Committee Members J. Dale Hawley, City Manager bce: Larry Lunardini, City Attorney City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 323-3780 NOISE & OVERFLIGHT ISSUES: BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Summary of Issues: 1, Residents of the Rexland Acres Residential Area experience overflight due to landing approaches to runway 34, 2, Residents of the Rexland Acres Residential Area complain about noise associated with overflight, 3, Residents of the Rexland Acres Residential Area associate safety concerns with.overflight, 4, The Fairview Elementary School has similar experiences and concerns due to overflight to runway 34, Other Issues: 1..Residents and the School charge that the City illegally realigned and lengthened the runway without proper notification of the residents of Rexland Acres or the School. 2. Residents and the School would like mitigation of the above stated concerns and a redress of the procedure to Notify schools regarding extensive airport/runway projects. Measures the City has taken to date: 1. Changed the phone system to better respond to noise complaints and residents concerns. 2. Contacted the School to address the concerns_and met with School Officials. 3. Contacted the Federal Aviation Administration and the DOT/Aeronautics Division regarding the concerns and requested input from the Agencies. 4. Mailed notices to all pilots based at the Airport requesting input and established a meeting for that purpose. 5. Commenced a noiSe/overflight complaint file to track all concerns and establish a profile to ascertain the type of complaint regarding flight procedures, type aircraft, noise or safety issue and residential location of complaint. - 6. Conducted test flights of various flight' tracks in an effort to track traffic to and from the airport but away from the residential area. This effort was coordinated with DOT/Aeronautics. 7. Based_on comments from pilots, flight instructors, DOT/Aeronautics and others, the following flight procedures were instituted: a. Approaches to runway 34: i. No straight-in approaches ii. Left hand pattern entry approaches only iii. Follow 4 deg. glide slope approach b. Departures from 16'(towards Rexland Acres) i. No straight-out approaches ii. 20 deg. left turn out departures iii. Advisory to avoid residential area (It should be noted that all flight track procedures are at the discretion of the pilot due to weather, safety or other concerns the pilot in command may ascertain at the time of arrival or departure. Under no circumstances is the pilot forced to compromise safety in lieu of noise or overflight) 8. The City posted signs at the run-up areas at each end of the runway to indicate the above procedures. 9. The City contacted the publishers of flight guides and advised them of the flight track procedure' for the airport. In addition the City contacted' a noise specialist to get cost estimates to monitor noise at the school and other strategic locations in order to scientifically measure overflight. Additional mitigation measures may be instituted at considerable cost, including noise monitoring. These are: 1. Noise monitoring (1 station/1 month = $2500) 2. Part 150 noise study ($75,000-$150,000) 3. Residential Insulation program (Cost?) 4. Acquisition of Residences to form "green belt"(Cost?) A suggestion was made by Mr. Steiber to flight track the aircraft from a left hand to a right hand pattern approach to runway 34. However, traffic in a right hand pattern to 34 would be diverted into inbound traffic to the ILS (Instrument Landing SyStem) at Meadows Field, as well as traffic flying the Shafter VOR, a radio directional beam leading aircraft near the airport. This flight track could produce catastrophic results. With respect'to legal procedures regarding the environmental process, the City followed all legal requirements, including notification of responsible agencies. New legislation was introduced two months ago, requiring airports to now notify all schools within a two mile area from the runway of any major airport construction program. Thus airports are now subject to the same requirements schools have had to follow for years. The latter unfortunately was not in effect when the City of Bakersfield realigned the runway at Bakersfield Ai'rpark. ADMINISTRATIVE REPO ,~R~e~~ ~,. 3une 5~ 1991 Agenda Section: Counci I Statements Agenda Item: 12. a. TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Approved FROM: City Clerk's Office Department Head(~/~-~'~~~ DATE: May 30, 199! City Manager SUB3ECT: Proposed City of Baker%field 1991 Legislative Pl~t'orm. (Patricia 3. DeMond) RECOVIMENDATION: Motion to be determined by Council. Group Vote. JND: .3 Proposed CitY of Bakersfield 1991 Legislative Platform The City of Bakersfield provides governmental decision making at the level closest to the people. It, therefore, is encumbent upon. its elected officials to provide legislative leadership within the City's borders as well as when dealing with other legislative entities. The following POlicy statements reflect the legislative platform of the City of Bakersfield for 1991. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS Support legislation which enhances the City's ability to finance and economically, efficiently, and effectively provide local discretionary and state Or federally mandated programs. Support legislation which provides for governmental decision making at the level closest to the people whenever it is most likely to produce the most effective and efficient result. Support legislation which enhances local land use decision-making authority. QUALITY OF LIFE Support legislation which promotes safe, efficient, cost effective, and responsible management of the environmental components of. issues such as air quality, transportation, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management. Support legislation which increases city participation in state and federal issues of regional concern. ' Support legislation which enhances tl~e quality of life for California's citizens. Support legislation which provides continued funding of recreational and open space programs of support. ProDosed City of Bakersfield 1991 Legi, slative Platform Page 2 GENERAL GOVERNMENT Support legislation which expands the City's ability t° deal on a state level with state-mandated iSsues affecting the financial condition of the 'city. Support legislation which enhances local control over 'program scope, implementation, and funding. .. Subport legislation which provides for equitable distribution of state funds for local programs. Oppose legislation which intrudes into the local collective bargaining process. FINANCES Support legislation advocating responsible and reasonable methods for the costs of implementation of state-mandated programs if alternative independent sources 'of revenue are provided and sucti legislation is of clear benefit to the city. Oppose the collection of fees at the local level to fund state programs. Support legislation which reduces the negative and financial and 'operational impacts o.f tax increment financing on affected agencies. Support legislation which improves local government's ability to finance discretionary programs. (m0530911 ) MEMORANDUM May 24, 1991 TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS Councilmember Patricia J. DeMond, Chair; Councilmember Lynn Edwards; and Councilmember Patricia Smith FROM: TRUDY THORNTON, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST k-~ SUBJECT: AGENDA INFORMATION FOR MAY 30 MEETING The attached materials will be reviewed during the meeting of the Legislative and Litigation Committee at noon on May 30. There are two referrals which need to be addressed. One is a referral from the Vice Mayor regarding possible charter changes and the other is to finish up on the Legislative Platform if so desired. I have included the Vice Mayor's Referral on charter changes. In the 1988 November election, several Charter changes were ratified regarding dovetailing the City's election procedures~with those of the state. At one point the Charter Review Committee recommended to Council that the nomination and election of the Mayor and Councilmembers be concurrent with the State Primary and State general elections, respectively. The Personnel Committee made different recommendations to Council in Report No. 12-88 and, consequently, the Charter Review Committee's proposals for those sections were not put on the ballot. The City Clerk is gathering information on elections for the Legislative and Litigation Committee's review which will be available for the meeting on the 30th. The City Attorney has mentioned there are two schools of thought regarding whether the City Attorney should'be under civil service. One is that an attorney's clients must have confidence in his ability; if the clients do not, then they should have the ability to replace him. The other school of thought is that under civil service, an attorney could feel more free to give advice. Regarding terms of office limitation, I have included copies of Proposition 140, the statewide initiative which was passed by the voters for state legislative offices as well as an "analysis" of the pros and cons of the issue on the state level. The proposed Legislative Platform that Dale forwarded to the Mayor and Council for review received no written or verbal comments except for the City Attorney's. The Committee needs to consider whether or not the City wishes to advocate having such a platform. LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS AGENDA INFORMATION FOR MAY 30 MEETING May 24, 1991 Page -2- If you have any questions on any of the issues or if I can answer any questions before the meeting, please let me know. TT:jp Enclosures cc: Dale Hawley, City Manager Larry Lunardini, City Attorney Carol Williams, City Clerk B A K E R S F I E L D DRAFT Patricia DeMond, Chair Lynn Edwards Patricia Smith Staff: Legislative: Trudy Thornton Litigation: Larry Lunardini 'AGENDA LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION Thursday, May 30, 1991 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. Vice Mayor Referral.- Charter Issues 2. Legislative Platform MEMORANDUM May 15, 1991 TO: LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION C~ITTEE FRC~: VICE MAYOR KEN PETERSON,~~~- SUBJECT: VICE MAYOR REFERRAL I would like to refer the attached items from Mayor Clarence Medders, to the Legislative and Litigation Committee. Because of the nature of these items and the fact that a decision needs to be made by the middle of 3une in order to get them on the ballot, I would like to urge the Committee'to act as soon as possible on them. The Mayor would like to be invited to that Committee meeting to discuss the advantages of the three points that he is recommending. KP/ndw C:CNCL.76 Attachment cc: 3. Dale Hawley, City Manager Lawrence Lunardini, City Attorney CLARENCE E. MEDDERS MAYOR May 14, 1991 Vice Mayor Ken Peterson 6501 Bridgeport Lane Bakersfield, CA 93304 Dear Ken: I understand that it is your role as Vice Mayor to assign items to Council Committees for study and recommendation. I have three items that I would Like to suggest for charter change. 1. That Council elections be changed to even years. The/rationale for this is that the Councilmanic elections are now the only elections that are held on odd years, and the City has to bear the entire burden of the expense for these elections. It would be much less expensive if it were put on the even. year ballot with the numerous Other items. Additionally, there is a much better voter turnout because federal, state, county, school districts, etc., are on the ballot. It would necessitate each incumbent having one five-year term to initially get on this 'track if it is passed in November of 1991. 2. That the City Attorney position be changed back under Civil Service. 'The reason for this is that the City Attorney ought to be free to give the best legal advice and recommendations possible to the Council regardless of whether it pleases the councilmembers. This job is intended to protect the best interests of the people of our city. 3. I feel that the Council should have a two-term limit for servin9 and that the Masor should have either: one four-sear term, one six-sear term, or an absolute maximum two four-year term limit. If a person has not effectively implemented their campaign promises in two terms, it is unlikely additional terms will prodUce better results. Additionally,.changes on a regular basis would bring fresh ideas and talents into the political process. NobodS is indispensable. P.S. I firmly believe that'one four-year term for the Mayor, with an Administrative Assistant.(not Aide) would be ideal. This would allow for an all-out effort on the part of the City without political concern. 1501 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 - (805) 326-3770 Ken Peterson May 14, 1991 Page 2 The deadline for ballot items for November, 1991 is June 19, 1991. Sincerely, Clarence E. Medders Mayor 140 Limits on Terms of Office, Legislators' Retirement, Legislative · Operating Costs. Initiative Constitutional Amendment i:i' Official Title and Summary: LIMITS ON TERMS ~OF OFFICE, LEGISLATORS' r RETIREMENT, LEGISLATIVE OPERATING COSTS. r INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT c · Persons elected or appointed after November 5, 1990, holding offices of Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Secretary of State, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Board i P of Equalization members, and State Senators, limited to two terms; members of the Assembly limited to three terms, ir · Requires legislators elected or serving after November 1, 1990, to participate in federal Social Security c, program; precludes accrual of other pension and retirement benefits resulting~from legislative service,' except vested rights. · Limits expenditures of Legislature for compensation and operating costs and equipment, to specified amount. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: ~ P · The limitation on terms will have no fiscal effect. · · The restrictions on the legislative retirement benefits would reduce state costs by approximately $750,000 a year. C · To the extent that future legislators do not participate in the federal Social Security system, there would t~ be unknown future savings to the state. : · Legislative expenditures in 1991-92 would be reduced by about 38 percent, or $70 million, al · In subsequent years, the measure would limit growth in these expenditures to the changes in the state's fr appropriations limit, se al al G~ 6/g G90 " Analysis by the Legislative Analyst Background Restrictions on Legislative Retirement Benefits There are 132 elected state officials in California. This · This measure prohibits current and future legislators includes 120 legislators and 12 other state officials, from earning state retirement benefits from their including the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and service in the Legislature on or after November 7, Attorney General. Currently, there is no limit on the 1990. This restriction would not e{izninate retirement benefits earned prior to that.time. number of terms that these officials can serve. · Proposition 112, passed by the voters in June 1990, · This measure requires a legislator serving in the Legislature on or after November 7, 1990 to requires the annual salaries and benefits (excluding participate in the federal Social Security system. retirement) of these state officials to be set by a (However, federal law may permit only current commission. Most of these officials participate in the legislators who are presently participating in the federal Social Security system, and all have the option of federal Social Security system to continue to participating in the Legislators' Retirement System. The . participate in the system. It may also prohibit future vast majority of the. 132 elected state officials participate legislators from participating in the federal Society in this retirement system. The system is supported by Security system.) contributions from participating officials and the state. · This measure does not change the Social Security Funding for the Legislature and its employees is coverage or the state retirement benefits of other state elected officials such as the Governor, included in the annual state budget. Before it becomes Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General. law, the budget must be approved by a two-thirds vote of Limits on Expenditures by the Legislature the membership of both houses of the Legislature and must be signed by the Governor. ' ® This measure limits the total mount of expenditures by the Legislature for salaries and operating Proposal expenses, beginning in the 1991-92 fiscal year. This initiative makes three major changes to the · In 1991-92, these expenditures are limited to the California Constitution. First, it limits the number of lower of two amounts: (1) a total of $950,000 per terms that an elected state official can serve in the same Member or (2) 80 percent of the total amount of office (the new office of Insurance Commissioner is not .money expended in the previous year for these affected by this measure). Second, it prohibits legislators purposes. In future years, the measure limits from earning statb retirement benefits from their future expenditure growth t'o,an amount eqdal to the service in the Legislature. Third, it limits the total percentage change in the state's appropriations amount of expenditures by the Legislature for salaries limit. and operating expenses. Fiscal Effect The specific provisions of this measure are: Limits on the Terms of Elected State Officials.' This Limits on the Terms of Elected State OffiCials provision would not have any fiscal effect. · The following state elected officials would be limited RestrictiOns on Legislative Betirement Benefits. The to no more than two four-year terms in the same Provision which prohibits current and future Members of office: Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney the Legislature from earning state retirement benefits General, Controller, Secretary of State, from legislative service on and after November 7, 1990 Superintendent of Public Instruction, Treasurer, would reduce state costs by. about $750,000 a year. members of the Board of Equalization, and State To the extent that future legislators do not participate Senators. in the federal Social Security system, the measure would · Members of the State Assembly would be limited to result in unknown future savings to the state; no more than three two-year terms in the same Limits on Expenditures by the Legislature. In office. 1991-92, expenditures by the Legislature would be · These liraits apply to a state official who is elected on reduced by about 38 percent, or $70. million. In or after November 6, 1990. However, State Senators subsequent years, this measure would limit growth in whose offices are not on .the November 1990 ballot 'these expenditures to the change in the state's may serve only one additional term. appropriations limit. For text of Proposition 140 see page 137 ;90 G90 · · 69 140 Limits on Terms of Office, LegislatOrs' Retirement, Legislative Operating Costs. Initiative Constitutional Amendment Argument in Favor of PropOsition 140 Proposition 140 will for the first time ever place a limit on the We all remember the saying, "Power corrupts and absolute 1' number of terms a State official may serve in office, power corrupts absolutely." But limit the terms of Legislative A Yes Vote on Proposition 140 will reform a political_system members, remove the Speaker's cronies, and we will also put an f that has created a legislature of career politicians in Califorma. end to the Sacramento web of special favors and patronage. It is a system that has given a tiny elite (only 120 people out of Proposition 140 will end 'the reign of'the Legislature's r 30 million) almost limitless power over the lives of California's powerful officers--the Assembly Speaker (first elected a taxpayers and consumers, quarter of a century ago) and the Senate Leader (now into his Proposition 140; will limit State Senators to two terms (8 third decade in the Legislature). Lobbyists and power bro. ke. rs years); will limit Assembly members to three terms (6 years); pay homage to these legislative dictators, for they control the and limit the Governor and other elected constitutional officers fate of bills, parcel out money to the camp followers and to two terms (8 years). ' 1 hangers-on, and pull strings behind the scenes to decide By reducing the amount they can spend on their persona election outcomes. office expenses, Proposition 140, will cut back on the 3,000 Incumbent legislators seldom lose. In the 1988 election, 100% political staffers who serve the legislature in Sacramento. In the of incumbent state senators and 96% of incumbent members of first year alone, according to the legislative analyst, it will save the assembly were re-elected. The British House of taxpayers $60 million. Lords--even the Soviet Legislature--has a higher turnover Proposition 140, will end extravagant pensions for legislators, rate. Enough is Enough! It's time to put an end to. a syste.m that While most Californians have to depend on Social Security and makes incumbents a special class of citizen and pays them a their own savings, the 'legislative pension system often pays guaranteed annual wage from first election to the grave. Let's more than the legislator received while in office. In fact 50 restore that form of government envisioned by our Founding e former officials receive SR,000.00-per month or more from the Fathers--a government of citizens representing their fellow Legislative retirement fund. citizens: Limiting Terms, will create more competitive elections, so VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 140 TO LIMIT STATE good legislators will always have the opportunity to move up OFFICIALS TERM OF OFFICE! i'~ the ladder. Term limitation will end the ingrown, political nature of both houses~to the benefit of every man, woman and PETER F. SCHABARUM child in California. · . Chairman, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Proposition 140, will remove the grip that vested interests LEWIS K. UHLER v have over the legislature and. remove the huge' political slush President, National Tax-Limitation Committee L funds at the disposal of Senate and Assembly leaders. Proposition 140 will put an end to the life-time legislators, J.G. FORD, JR. who have developed cozy relationships with special interests. President, Matin United Taxpayers Association 12 Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 140 e Proposition 140 is a proposal by a downtown Los Angeles Los Angeles" in government for SEVEN TERMS--OVER ti politician to take away your right to choose vour legislators. He TWENTY YEARS. b has a history of taking away voting rights, lie and two political Practice what you preach, "Mr. Downtown Los Angeles," e cronies voted to spend $500,000.00 in tax dollars to hire a Peter Schabarum. Cut your own budget and limit your own _ personal lawyer to defend him against Voting Rights Act terms. Don't be piggy and take away people's rights after you violations in Federal Court. Newspapers call it an "outrageous. have fully eaten at the table. back room deal." There is no need for 140. The vast majority of the Legislature His "Big Bucks" friends, including high-priced lobbyists, have already serves less than 10 years. lined his pockets with campaign contributions to help control That's your choice. who you can vote for. Keep it. s( · IF 140 PASSES, LOBBYISTS COULD SUBSTITUTE T H E I R O W N P A I D E M P L O Y E E S F O R T H E Stop Downtown Los Angeles' power grab. ti INDEPENDENT STAFF RESEARCHERS OF THE Vote no on 140! c; LEGISLATURE' ELIMINATED BY THIS MEASURE. ED FOGLIA f~ · 140 MISLEADS YOU ABOUT THE SO-CALLED "HIGH" President, California Teachers Association st COST OF THE LEGISLATURE--THE COST IS LESS b THAN l/a PENNY PER TAX DOLLAR. DAN TERRY · THE BIGGEST LIE IS THE FACT THEY DON'T TELL President,. California Professional Firefighters g~ YOU THAT 140 IS A LIFETIME BAN. . LINDA M. TANGREN This is a blatant power grab by Los Angeles contributors and State Chair, California National Women's Political Caucus Pet lobbyists who have been wining and dining "Mr. Downtown ti le ri FIE t~ tc C tko m~thnrs.and have not be. en checked for accuracy by any official agency. G90 Limits on Terms of Office, Legislators' Retirement, Legislative Operating Costs. Initiative Constitutional Amendment 140 Argument Against Proposition 140 Proposition 140 claims to mandate term limits. But in fact, it No eligible citizen should be permanently banned for life te limits our voting rights, from seeking any office in a free society. And we should not be ye This measure takes away the cherished constitutional right to permanently banned from voting freely for the candidate of an freely cast a ballot for can'didates of our choice, our choice. · We are asked to forfeit our right to decide who our individual Resist the rhetoric. Proposition 140 is not about restricting .' s representatives will be. the powers of incumbency. It's about taking away our powe, rs ~ a lis PROPOSITION 140'S LIFETIME BAN to choose. ~rs 140 does not limit consecutive terms of office. Instead 140 PHONY PENSION REFORM ne says: Proposition 140's retirement provisions also are misdirected ad · After serving six years in the Assembly, individuals will be and counterproductive. ~e constitutionally banned for life from ever serving in the 140 does not eliminate the real abuses: double and triple Assembly. .% · After serving eight years in the Senate, individuals will be dipping--the practice of taking multiple pensions. Instead it raises new barriers to public office by banning our of constitutionally ba~nedfor life from ever serving in the future representatives from earning any retirement except of Senate. er · Similar lifetime bans will be imposed on the their currentsocialsecurity. ~at Superintendent of Public Instruction and other statewide 140's retirement ban won't hurt rich candidates. It will hurt '.. a offices, qualified, ordinary citizens who are not rich and have to work t's There are no exceptions--not for merit, not for statewide hard to provide economic security for themselves and their ag emergencies, not for the overwhelming will of the people, families. )w Once banned, always banned. PROPOSITION 140 GOES TOO FAR PROPOSITION 140 IS UNFAIR It upsets our system of.constitutional cheeks and balances, ?E It 'treats everyone--good and bad, competent and forcing our representatives to become even more dependent on entrenched bureaucrats and shrewd lobbyists. incompetent--the same. No matter how good a job someone does in office, they will If its proponents were sincere about political reform, they wouldn't have cluttered it with so many .unworkable provisions. be banned for life. No matter xvhat cause they mav be fighting for or how badly VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 140 we, the people, want to reelect them, they will be bannedfdr STOP THIS RADICAL AND DANGEROUS SCHEME! life. PROTECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGIffI~. VOTE NO ON You won't even be able to write-in their names on your PROPOSITION 140'S LIFETIME BAN. ballot. If you do, your vote won't count. That's just not fair. DB. REGENE L MITCHELL -- LIMITS OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE President; Consumer Federation of California The backers of 140 don't trust us, the people, to choose our LUCY BLAKE elected officials. So instead of promoting thoughtful reforms Executive Director, California Leagu~ of Conservation :R that help us weed out bad legislators, they impose a lifetime Voters ban that eliminates good legislators and bad ones alike at the DAN TERRY s," expense of our constitutional rights. President; California Profe~ional FireJighte~ OU Rebuttal to Argument Against Proposition 140 lFe Proposition 140 restores true democracy, gives you real Do career legislators really earn their guaranteed salaries, choices of candidates, protects your rights to be represented by extravagant pensions, limousines, air travel and other luxury someone who knows and cares about your wishes. It opens up benefits? No. They use your money and your government to the political svstem so everyone--not just the entrenched buy themselves power and guaranteed reelections. career politiciahs--can participate. Who really opposes Proposition 1407 It isn't ordinary people Proposition 140 will bring new ideas, workable policies and who have to work for-a living. It's incumbent legislators and fresh cleansing air to Sacramento. All are needed badly. A their camp followers. Beware of movie stars and celebrities in stench of greed, and vote-selling hangs over Sacramento million-dollar TV ads, attacking proposition 140. They're doing because lifetime-in-office incumbents think it's their the dirty work for career politicians. government, not yours. Californians polled by the state's largest newspaper say "most VOTE "YES!" ON PROPOSITION 140. ENOUGH, IS · politicians are for sale," and "taking bribes is a relatively ENOUGH! · us common practice" among lawmakers. Proposition 140 cuts the W. BRUCE LEE, II ties between corrupting special interest money and long-term Executive Director, California Bueine~ League __ legislators. Why don't more people vote? Because incumbents have ~ LEE A. PHELPS rigged the system in their favor so much, elections are Chairman, Alliance of California l'a~paffe~ meaningless. Even the worst of legislators get reelected 98% of ART PAGDAN, M.D. the time. Honest, ethical, truly representative people who want National 1st V.P., Filipino-Ame~i~n Political Asso~iati°n to run for office don't stand a chance. Gg0 Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. 71 ,90 6alifornia, support emerging California industries, or create jobs for a deficient (4) Allocations for support of family pursuant to state statute, court order, or lati~r market agreement by the prisoner. 2717.6. (si ,% contract shall be executed with a joint venture employer that Section 6. Section 14672.16 is added to the Government Cede to read: will initiate employment by inmates in the same job classification as non-inmate 14672.16. (a ) Notwithstanding Section 14670, the Director of General employees of the same employer who are on strike, as defined in Section 1132.6 of Services, .with the consent of the Department of Corrections or the Department of the Labor Code. as it reads on ]anuary l. 1990. or who are subject to lockout; as the Youth Aut~ority may tet in the best interest of the state, any real property deft'ned in Section 1132.8 of the Labor Code. as it reads on January 1, 1990. located within the grounds of a facility of the Department of Corrections or the tb J Total daily hours worked by inmates employed in the same job Department of the }butt Authority to a public or private entity for a period not classification as non-inmate employees of the same joint venture employer who are on strike, as defined in Section 1132.6 of the Labor Code, as it reads on to exceed 20 years for the purpose of conducting programs for the employment January L 1990, or who are subject to lockou~ as defined in Section 1132.8 of the and training of prisoners or wards in institutions under the jurisdiction 'of thq Labor Code. as it reads on January 1, 1990. shall not exceed, for the duration of Department of Corrections or the Department of the Youth Authority. tbe stnke, the aceraee daily hours worked for the precedina six months, or if the lb) The lease may provide for the renewing of the lease for additional program has been in operation ]br less' than'six month~ the average Jbr the period successive lO-year terms, but those additional terms shall not exceed three in ~'operation. . number Any lease of state property entered into pursuant to this section may be ( c ~. The determination that a condition described in para£raph fb ) above shall at less than market value when the Director of General Semices determines it will be made by the Director after notiftcation by the union representing the workers serve a statewide public purpose. on strike or subject to lockout. The limitation on work hours Shall take effect 48 Section 7. Section 17053.6 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code to hours at?er reC~pt bu the Director of written notice of the condition by the union, read: 271~. 7. Notwithstanding Section 2812 of the Penal Code or any other 17053.6. There shall be allowed as a credit against the "net tax" (as defined procision of law wtsich restricts tile sale of inmate-provided services or by Section 17039) an amount equal to lO percent of the amount of wnges paid to. inmate-manufactured goods, services peo~brm~d and articles manufactured by each p. risoner who is employed in a joint venture program established pursuant tb joint venture programs)nay be sold to the public. Art!cie 1.5 of Chapter 5 of Title I of Part 3 of the Penal Cod~ through agreement wit~ the Director of Corrections. 2717.8. The compensation of prisoners enaaited itl programs pursuant to contract between the Department of Correction$ ahdjoint venture employers for Section 8. Section 23624 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code to read: the purpose of conductin~ programs which use inmate labor shall be comparable 23624. There shall be allowed as a credit against the "tax" (as deft'ned by to waaes paid by the joint ceniure employer to non-inmate employees perfbrming Section 23036) an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount o£ wages paid to each similar work for that employer. If the joint venture employer does not employ prisoner who is employed in a joint venture program established pursuant to such non-inmate employees in similar work. compensation shall be comparable to A rticte 1.5 of Chapter 5 of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Penal Code, through agreement wastes paid for work ora similar nature in the locality itl which the work is to be with the Director of Corrections. pe~tbrmed. Such wages shall be subject to deductions, as determined by the Section 9. If any provision of this measure or the applieatiun thereof to any Director of Corrections. which shall not itl the aggreeate, exceed 80 percent of person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity shall gross wages and shall be limited to thefidlowine:~ not effect other provisions or applications of the measure which can be given ~ 1~ Federal. state, and local taxes, effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions ~2~ Reasonable charges jbr room and board, which shall be remitted to the of this measure are severable. Director of Corrections. Section 10. The statutory provisions contained in this measure may not be (3/ Any law]bl restitution fine or contributions to any fund established by amended by the Legislature except to further its purposes by statute passed in law to compensate the victims of crime of not more than 20 percent but not less each house by roll call vote entered in the journal, two thirds of the membership than .5 percent, of ~ross wages, whwh shall be remitted to the Director of concurring or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the Corrections Jbr disbursement' electors. ' Proposition 140: Text of Proposed Law This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the SEC. 4. Section 4.5 is added to Article IV of the California Constitution, to provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution. read: This initiative measure expressly amends the Constitution by amending and SEC. 4.5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution or adding sections thereof; therefoi'e, new provisions proposed to be inserted or existing law, a person elected to or serving in the Legislature on or after added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. :Vovember 1, 1990, shall participate in the Federal Social Security (Betiremen~ · Disability, Health Insurance) Program and the State shall pa~ only the PROPOSED LAW employer's share of the contribution neceesary to such participation. No other SECTION 1. This measure shall be known and may be cited as "The Political penf. ion or retirement benefit shall accrue as a result of service in the Legislature, Reform Act of 1990." ' suct: service not being intended as a career occupation. This Section shall not be SEC. 2. Section 1.5 is added to Article IV of the California Constitution, to construed to abrogate or diminish any vested pension or retirement be~._t which read: may have accrued under an existing law to a person holding or having held offwe SEC. 1.5. Tile people find and declare that the Founding Fathers established itl the Legislature, but upon adoption of this Act no further entitlement to nor a system of representative government based upon free. fair. and competitive vesting in any existing program shall accrue to any su~h person, other than Social Security to the extent herein provides( elections. The ivcreased concentration of political power in the hands of SEC. 5. Section 7.5 is added to Article IV of the California Constitution, to incumbent representatives has made our electoral system less free. less read: competitive, attd less representative. SEC. 7.5. In the fisoal year immediately following the .adoption of this Act; The ability of legislators to serve unlimited number of terms, to establish their the total aggregate expenditures of the Legislature for the compensation o_f own retirement system, and to pay Jbr staff and support services at state expense ~em. be, rs and employees of,.and the opemtin~ expenses and equipment for, the contribute heavily to the extremely high number of incumbents who are ~.e~mature may not exceecl an am.punt equal to nine hundrad fifty thousand' reelected. These unfair incumbent advantages discourage qualified candidates dollars ($95~,O00)_per.member for that fi, cai year or 80 ;xnvent of the amount of from seeking public office and create a class of career politicians, instead of the mone7 expended)or those purpos? in i~. preceding fiscal f~ear, Whichever is leds. citizen representatives envisioned by the Founding Fathers. These career .For each fiscal year t. hereafter, the total aggregate expenditures may not exceed politicians become representatives of the bureaucracy, rather than of the people an. amount equal to that expended for those purpm~, in the preceding, fucol year, whom they are elected to represent . adjusted andcompounded by an amount equal to the percentoge inoreast in the appropriations limit for the state established pursuant to Article XIII B. SEC. 6. section 2 of Article V of the C_,alifomia Gomtitution is mended to To restore a free and democratic system of fair elections, and to encourage qualified candidates to seek public office, the people find and declare that the powers of incumbenc~ must be limited. Retirement tienefits must be restricted, read: . state-financed incumbent staff and support services limited, and limitations SEC. 2. The Governor shall be elected every fourth year at the same time placed upon the number of terms which may be served, and places as members of the Assembly and hold office from the Monday after SEC. 3. Section 2 of Article IV of the California Constitution is amended to January I following the election until a suece~or qualifier. The Governor shall be read: an elector who has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of this State SEC. 2. (a) The Senate has a membership of 40 Senators elected for 4-year for 5 years immediately preceding the Governor's election.. The Governor may terms, 20 to begin every 2 years. No Senator may serve more than 2 terms, not hold other public office. No Governor may serve more than 2 terror The Assembly has a membership of 80 members elected for 2-year terms. No SEC. 7. Section 11 of Article V of the California Constitution is amended to member of the Assembly may serve more than 3 terms, read: Their terms shall commence on the first Monday in December next following SEC. 11. The Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Controller, Secretary their election. . of State, and Treasurer shall be elected at the same time and places and for the {b} Election of members of the Assembly shall be on the first Tuesday after same term as the Governor. No Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General the first Monday in November of even-/~umbered years unless otherwise Controller, Secretary of State~ or Treasurer may serve in the same offive for more prescribed by the Legislature. Senators shall be elected at the same time and than 2 terms. places as members of the Assembly. SEC. 8. Section 2 of Article IX of the C_,alifornia Constitution is amended to (e) A person is ineligible to be a member of the Legislature unless the person read: is an elector and has been a resident of the legislative district for one year, and a SEC. 2. A Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be elected by the citizen of the United States and a resident of California for 3 years, immediately qualified electors of the State at each gubernatorial election. The Superintendent preceding the election, of Publie Instruction shall enter upon the duties of the office on the first Monday . (d) When a vacancy occurs in the Legislature the Governor immediately shall after the first day of January next sueeeedilig e~eh ~i. bernateriel election. No earl an election to fill the vacancy. Superintendent of Public lnstmetitm ma!l ~rvs mom than £ t~raz . 090 137 SEC.'9. Section 17 of Article XIII of the California Constitution is amended to unmodified retirement allowance or its actuarial equivalent to any person who on read: or after January 1, 1987, entered for the first time any state.~£fice for which SEC. 17. The Board of Equalization consists of 5 voting members: the membership in the Legislators' Retirement System was elective or to any Controller and 4 members elected for 4-year terms at gubernatorial elections. The beneficiary or survivor of such a person, which exceeds the higher of ( 1 ) the state shall be divided into four Board of Equalization districts with the voters of salary receivable bv the person currently serving in the office in which the retired In', each district electing one member. No member may serve more than 2 terms, person served or i2) the highest salary that was received by the retired person SEC. 10. Section 7 is added to Article XX of the California Constitution, to while serving in that office.' ' i idea~ read: (b) The Judges' Betirement System shall not pay any unmodified retirement i ever' SEC. 7. The limitations on the number of terms prescribed by Section 2 of allowance or its actuarial equivalent to any person who on or after January. 1,1987,; Article IV, Sections 2 and H of Article V, Section 2 of Article I.X and Section. 17of entered for the first time any judicial office subject to the Judges' Retirement lettb Article XIII appl~l only to t~rrns to which persons are electea or appointed on or System or to any beneficiary or survivor of such a person, which exceeds the after November 6~1990, except that an incumbent Senator whose offive is not on higher of (1) the salary recei;,,able by the person currently serving in the judicial ques the ballot for the general election on that date may serve only one additional office in which the retired person served or (2) the highest salary that was answ term. Those limitations shall not apply to any unexpired term to which a person received by the retired person while serving in that judicial office. Yo is elected or appointed if the remainder of the term is less than half of the full (c) The Legislature may define the terms used in this section. term. (d) If any part of this measure or the application to any person or comt SEC. 11. Sectionll (d) is added toArticle VII of the Calffornia Constitution, circumstance is held invalid, the invalidity shall not affect other provisions or will to read: applications which reasonably can be given effect without the invalid provision confi SEC. 11. (a) The Legislators' Retirement System shall not pay any or application. , sllrv~ 1. ¸6. °t7. 138 90 G90 PROPOSITION 140 "Schabarum Initiative" August 28, 1990 Analysts: Steve Trout, Senator Bill Leonard. Title: Terms of Office. Legislators Retirement. Legislative Operating Costs. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. "Political Reform Act of 1990" Source: L.A. County Supervisor Peter F. Schabarum, J.G. Ford Jr., Lewis K. Uhler. Status: Qualified - November 6, 1990 General Election baJIot. Abstract:. Proposition 140 imposes a maximum two-term limit on all Senators and executive constitutional officers, as well as a three-term limit on members of the Assembly. It will eliminate legislative pension plans, 'and place a limit on legislative expenditures. ACco.rding. to a Legislative Counsel opinion, the elimination of legislative pensions ~s effective November 7, 1990. All legislators elected prior to November 1, 1990, will be entitled to receive benefits accrued prior to November 7 based upon the salary they are recieving at the time of retirement from the Legislature. Existing vested rights are not effected. Beginning November 7, however, the only retirement plan provided for legislators will be Social Security. The provisions regarding legislative budget reductions have been interpreted by Senate Rules Chief Executive Officer Cliff Berg as taking effect at the beginning of the first fiscal year following the November 6, General Election, thus' July 1, 1991. Berg estimates Proposition 140 will require the Senate to cut between 44 and 51 percent of its current expenditures, which will be largely absorbed by Senate staff. Proponents: This initiative will clean up the Legislature by limiting the length of time legislators. can serve. It will sweep the Capitol clean of corruption and self-serving arrogance and retum state govemment to a collection of citizen legislators instead of professional career politicians. By eliminating special pension ; dvileges and limiting legislative expenditures, the state will save an estimated 60 million annually. Supporters: Senator Don Rogers Campaign to Emit California Terms, A Special Project of the National Tax Limitation Committee, Treasurer-Lewis Uhler ($147,539); Coalition to Emit Terms of Office'- Operation New Broom, Treasurer - Oswald Lake ($12;907) Californians for a Citizen Government, Treasurer - Robert Weiss . California Committee to Limit Terms, Treasurer-Ted Costa ($47,740) 17rawbacks: Expenditure limits will drastically reduce the amount of legislative support staff. This measure will also reduce the incentives to become a legislator since the state pension will be eliminated, and the maximum length of service will be eight years. When these factors are combined, concerns will be raised over having a government run by individuals with little or no public policy experience. However, the public's real concern should focus on the significantly increased role senior legislative staff will play in post-Schabarum state government. On the theoretical side, term limits are anti-democratic since they infringe on the First Amendment right of free speech, not to mention they are an indictment of the public's ability to judge their representatives. MEMORANDUM April 15, 1991 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND. CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: SB 169 and SB 203 A Senate Local Government Committee public hearing on April 10, 1991, on Senate Bill 169 and Senate Bill 203 resulted in the bills being re-referred to the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, respectively. I have forwarded copies of the Council Resolution supporting SB 169 and opposing SB 203 to the new committees. JDH:jp cc: Trudy Thornton Larry Lunardini City Clerk News Media File BAKERSFIELD 1990 April 15, 1991 The Honorable Wadie Deddeh Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee Chair State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Deddeh: Attached please find Resolution 39-91 from the 'City of Bakersfield supporting SB 169. Please consider this information in your deliberations before the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, City Manager Attachment cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 323-3780 ~-~ ' AI.L-AM£RICA CiTY B A K E R S F I E L D . 1990 April 15, 1991 The Honorable Robert Presley Senate Appropriations Committee Chair State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Presley: Attached please find Resolution 39-91 from the City of Bakersfield opposing SB 203. Please consider this information in your deliberations before the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Thank you for your consideration. ~ Sincerely, City Manager - Attachment cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office ° 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield ° California ° 93301 (805) 326-3751 ° Fax (805) 323-3780 RESOLUTION NO . 39 - 91 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING SENATE BILL 169 (BOATWRIGHT) WHICH REPEALS THE BAD. PUBLIC POLICY CREATED IN SB 2557 AND PROVIDES A STABLE AND GROWING FUNDING. SOURCE FOR COUNTIES TO SUPPORT NI~I~ED PROGRAMS NO LONGER PAID FOR BY THE STATE. WHEREAS, with the passage of SB 2557, the State directed counties to charge cities, school districts and special districts for the county function of administering the property tax and authorized counties uo charge cities for booking prisoners arrested by city employees: and WHEREAS, these shifts of city revenues to counties were specifically enacted to replace cuts in sta~e revenue for counties that should have funded state responsibilities carried out by counties, and imposes double taxation upon city residents for services for which they already pay; and WHEREAS, SB 2557 legalized fiscal irresponsibility, is poor public policy, rods from one local government to finance another, and results in no real solution to the continuing financial problems facing all levels of government in California; and WHE~S, SB 169 repeals the inequities created through SB 2557 and, as currently constituted, provides a stable and growing funding source.for counties to support needed progrs3ns nc longer paid for by the State and provides an'end to local fighting for revenues: and WHEREAS, SB 203, another bill designed to clarify SB 2557, merely implements the bad public policy created in SB 2557. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REsoLvED, by the Council of the City of Bakersfield that SB 169, as currently constituted, is hereby endorsed as a viable alternative to SB 2557 and SB'203, which implements provisions of SB 2557, is hereby fully opposed. ........... o0o I HEREBY CERTIFY that the ~oregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on MAR ? 7 1991 , by the ' following vote: AYES. COUNCILMEMBERS EDWARDS. DeMOND. SMITH. ~,qU;;;;: P£TERSON. M,.;';,;RMC~. SAI. VAGGIO NOES. COUNCILMEMB~RS ABSENT COUNCIL~MBERS ~,-~ ABSTAIN COUNCILMEMBERS "[:!T¥ CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED ~,tAR 2 7 t991 CLAP~NCE E. M~.mDF/{S MAYOR. of the ~"- -~..F of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: LAWRENCE M. LUNARDINI ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfiel'd LCM/meg SUPPORT. SB .~ 21/9i - 2 - MEMORANDUM April 3, 1991 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER ~ SUBJECT: CITY LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM Some of the members of the City Council have expressed an interest in establishing a City Legislative Platform which would identify the City's legislative priorities. The idea behind the platform i~ threefold: (1) to promote a unified legislative direction for the Mayor and Council and the City as a whole; (2) to concentrate resources on issues of greatest importance; and (3) to provide guidance to staff for quick responses on important issues. A legislative platform,.commonly updated each year, is designed to illustrate current legislative concerns within an overall legislative policy. Attached is a draft 1991 City legislative policy. After the City draft, you will find a copy of the County's 1991 Legislative Platform. I would appreciate your reviewing the attached City draft, with a focus on both the feasibility of establishing a Legislative Platform and the draft document itself. Please add any areas of concern you feel are important as well as make whatever changes/deletions you feel are needed. I look forward to your comments on this proposal. Please return your comments by April 12, 1991. JDH:jp Attachments DRAFT 4/3/91 City of Bakersfield 1991 Legislative Platform The City of Bakersfield provides governmental decision making at the level closest to the people. It, therefore, is incumbent upon its elected officials to provide legislative leadership within the City's borders as well as when dealing with other legislative entities. The following policy statements reflect the legislative platform of the City of Bakersfield for 1991. GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS Support legislation which enhances the City's ability to finance and economically, efficiently, and effectively provide local discretionary and state or federally mandated programs. Support legislation which provides for governmental decision making at the level closest to the people whenever it is most likely to produce the most effective and efficient result. Support legislation which enhances local land use decision-making authority. QUALITY OF LIFE Support legislation which promotes safe, efficient, cost effective, and responsible management of the environmental components of issues such as air quality, transportation, wastewater treatment, and solid waste management. Support legislation which increases city participation in state and federal issues of regional concern. Support legislation which enhances the quality of life for California's citizens. Support legislation which provides continued funding of recreational and open space programs of support. GENERAL GOVERNMENT Support legislation which expands the City's ability to deal on a state level with state-mandated issues affecting the financial condition of the city. Support legislation which enhances local control over program scope, implementation, and funding. DRAFT 4/3/91 City of Bakersfield 1991 Legislative Platform Page -2- Support legislation which provides for equitable distribution of state funds for local programs. Oppose legislation which intrudes into the local collective bargaining process. FINANCES Support legislation advocating responsible and reasonable methods for the costs of implementation of state-mandated programs if alternative independent sources of revenue are provided and such legislation is of clear benefit to the city. Oppose the collection of fees at the local level to fund state programs. Support legislation which reduces the negative and financial and operational impacts of tax increment financing on affected agencies. Support legislation which improves local government's ability to finance discretionary programs. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN (Please add any items you feel are important to the City as a whole.) Support legislation Support legislation Support legislation Support legislation DRAFT 4/3/91 City of Bakersfield 1991 Legislative Platform Page -3- Support legislation Support legislation Support legislation Support legislation Support legislation Oppose legislation Oppose legislation Oppose legislation KERN COUNTY 1991 LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM GENERAL POLICY STATEMENTS Support legislation which provides for governmental decision making at the level closest to the people whenever it is most likely to produce the most effective and efficient result. Support legislation which enhances the Count's ability, to finance and economically, efficiently, and effectively provide local discretionary, and State or Federally mandated programs. Support legislation which enhances the quality, of life for California's citizens. LOCAL CONTROL Support and encourage legislation authorizing inter- and inrra-regi0nal planning when it is of clear benefit to the Counrfs citizenry. Support and encourage legislation transferring State and Federal programs to the local level if guaranteed, independent revenue sources are provided and the transfer is of clear benefit to the Counrv"s citizenry. - Oppose legislation which erodes local land use decision-making authority. FINANCES GENERAL Support legislation which improves local government's ability to finance discretionary programs. - Support legislation which reduces the negative financial and operational impacts of tax increment financing on affected agencies. Oppose the collection of fees at the local level to fund State programs. STATE MANDATED AND STATE INTEREST PROGRAMS · Support legislation requiring the State to provide full cost reimbursement to counties for all mandated programs and/or the elimination of mandates for programs which are not fully funded by the State. - Support legislation which permits the most cost-efficient management of state- mandated programs. - Support legislation which provides for a more equitable d~u'ibution of eategorkal GENERAL GOVERNMENT GENERAL Support legislation which enhances local control over program scope implementation, and funding. Support legisl.ation leading to tke simplff-ieafion of regulations and the reduction of data gathering/reporting reqmrements. Support legisLation which expands the Count3gs ability to contract with private entities for the provision of government services. LABOR RELATIONS - Support legislation modifying the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to permit adjustable work schedules to meet the needs of management and labor. Oppose legislation which inu-udes into the loeal collective bargai~ti~g process and interferes with the Counts ability to manage its personnel resources. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SUpport legislation which improves the County's ability to administer laws and regulations concerning solid waste, hazardous waste, and air qUality. Support legislation which promotes the safe, efficient, and cost-effective management of enviromnental matters. OUALITY OF LIFE - Support legislation which improves access ro quality, affordable child care. - Support legislation which improves access to quality, affordable medical care. Financial swategies to provide this care should provide revenue sources which will relieve counties of the burden of uncompensated and undercompensated health care COSts. To: J. DALE 'HAWLEY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JACK HARDISTY, P!ANNING DIRECT~R/'~ SUBJEC?: STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISH JXaND G~I~E FEES This memo is in response to the Council's question regarding the implementation of the State Department of Fish and Game fee now required on projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. The fee is required by Assembly Bill 3158 (Costa), Chapter 1607, Statutes of 1990, and became effective on January 1, 1991. The purpose of the fee is to help defray the cost of wildlife protection and managemen~ by the DeparSmen% of Fish and Game on those projects which consume California's wildlife resources through urbanization and development. The fees are collected by the County Clerk at the time of posting the Notice of Determination. The fees are $1,250 on projects for which a Negative Declaration was prepared and $850 on projects for which an Environmental Impact Report was prepared. Fee exemptions are allowed for the following projects: 1. All projects statutorily exempt from the provisions of CEQA. 2. All projects categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental documen%. 3. All projects found to be "de minimis" when a lead agency finds and certifies that, as a result of its environmental review, a project has no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively on wildlife resources. As defined in Section 711.2(a) of the Fish and Game Code "...wildlife' means and includes all wild animals, birds, plants, amphibians, and related ecological communities, including the habitat, upon which the wildlife depends for its continued viability..." Staff has utilized "de minimis" findings (exempted) on approximately 30% of the 42 Notices of Determinations filed with the County Clerk since January 1, 1991. These cases could be categorized as expansion of existing buildings, the replacement of one building by another, or projects involving property which is completely urbanized. This is in conformance with the direction provided by Fish and Game at meetings with local public agencie~ intended to clarify implementation of the law. J. Dale Hawley, City Manager March 21, 1991 Page 2 Staff now notifies all applicants of this fee requirement, and includes a letter explaining the law with every development application. Ail discretionary approvals include a condition of approval that this fee must be paid and no subsequent permits will be released on any project until proof is supplied demonstrating that the fee has been paid. The condition on subdivisions allows deferral of the fee to recording of the map. We have worked closely with County Clerk to devise a system of record keeping and procedures intended to implement this law as best we can. Failure to pay the required fee leaves the city or developer vulnerable to legal challenge by Fish and Game or any others, indeed, the law specifically states that until the fees are paid no approval is operative, vested, or final. Some applicants have requested that the fee payment be deferred as long as possible because they have heard that the sSate might rescind the requirement. The Planning Commission has conditioned tract maps to require payment to time of final recording. This practice has caused some concern in the City Attorney's office and it will be discussed with the commission at its next meeting. The legal problems are that the statute of limitation is extended indefinitely and eventual payment of the fee falls on the city as an obligation. The practical problem is that the tracking of fee payments or non-payments over several years introduces a factor of error or oversight. It should be noted Department of Fish and Game may collect all monies spent in collection of the fee from those who have not paid. The State Controller may off-se5 the amount owed the state from funds the state owes the city or individual. I did oppose imposition of the fee and supported its revision but the law clearly requires payment of it. In addition, the City and County are about to submit the final Habitat Conservation Plan to the Department of Fish and Game for adoption, this program is 3 years in the making, has cost local public agencies over $300,000, is of vital importance to the local development community and would possibly be jeopardized if we failed to implement State law. mg a:city MEMORANDUM Marci~ 6. 1991 TO' J. DALE HAWLEY, CITY HANAGER FROM: TRUDY THORNTON. ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST ',~'F~¢~,./" '-' SUBJECT' AB 3 (REGIONAL GOVERNMENT) AND GOVERNOR'S iNTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON GROWTH MANAGEHENT Zt was requested recently that a comparison De made of the Governor's in~eragency Council on Growth Management and AB 3 (Regional Government) as proposed by Willie Brown. There are some basic s~mi]arities as we~.l as substantial differences between the two. .' AB 3 is a !eqislative attempt to deal with the problem of growth management. The bill declares there is a need for the Legislature to reorganize local 9overnment to create a means for regional action on regional problems. ,As proposed, it would create an overseeing body (the State Growth Management Commission) which would review submissions from seven different geographic regions (.organized into Regional Oevelopment and infrastructure Agencies). The Commission would succeed to the responsieiiities of the Governor's Office of ?lanning and Research w~ich would serve as staff to it. The Aqenc~es would succeed to the pow'ers and duties of councils of 9overnmen~s? regional transportation planning agencies, air quality management districts, air poiiution control districts, and :-egionai water quality control boards. The Commission would consist of 19 persons appointed from lists submitted by specified organizations. Each Agency would consist of 13 members, nominated ~nd elected in .~ccordance with the provisions of the Elections Code for qen¢ral d~strict elections? for two-year terms. Salary amounts for commission and agency members are not delineated in the proposed bill. No reimbursement would be made for costs mandated by the State pursuant to this act. The interagency Council on Growth Management is a council created by the Governor (executive) on January 22, 1991. Its members consist of the appointed oositions of the Director of the Department of Finance; the Secretary of Business, TransPortation, and Housing; the Secretary of Resources- the Secretary of Environmental Affairs; the Secretary of Health and Welfare- appropriate departments within the jurisdiction of those agencies; and the Director of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. The Director of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research also serves as the head of the Growth Management Council. The members serve without compensation. The Council is to make recommendations to the Governor by · January i, 1992. The proposed bill and the newly created Council both have as a purpose the inteiligent planning for future growth on issues including traffic congestion? J. 3AcE HAWLEY March 6, 1991 Page 2 ... waste disposal and sewage capacity, affordable housing, water and air Quality. They eotn u~ilize the Office of Planning and Research for assistance, and they born zeeK qnDU% from the public and private sectors to assist in establishing ~eaiist~c future expectations for she state's growth. Both propositions approach ~e problem of growth management from the perspective that greater effec;iveness will be gained from a comOinea utilization of the experiences of the differing agencies wnic~ are involved in growth issues. Subs~ant:al ~ifferences exist between the proposed AB 3 and the Governor's ¢cunc:i. A@ ~ is a legislative attemo~ to deal with growth management issues caiiing for the establishment of State law; =he Council is a body appointed by ;he Governor. Authority grante~ in AB ~ calls for the legislative establishment of new levels of government; the Council is an extens.ion of the executive ~rancn [using curren~ positions.) and serves as a recommending body to ~ne Governor. Ccmmission and Agency members will be paie specific amounts (.unKnown at this time) for the duties they perform through AB 3; members of the Council will receive no reimbursement for their work on the Council. The Commission and Agencies will be on-going; the Council's task (~o make reccmmenoations to the Governor) should be completed by January 1, 1992. The :assage of AB S will have an immediate impact on cities. Many land use development and conservation decisions at the local level will be superceded or 'mcac=ed by State law. The Central Valley Region (one of seven proposed) would include the City of Bakersfield. (.The requirement to create a Regional Oeveiopmen~ an~ Znfras=ructure Agency s~all not apply in certain instances where a number of conditions are met.~ Each Agency is to prepare a regional alan, consistent with State law, consisting of a number of elements (including a~r :uaii~y, water quality, transportation, housing, sphere of influence, pro;ec=ion of agr3cultural land and natural resources, regional capital fac:i:~ies, and open space). A regional plan is to be completed by no later ~han ~wo /ears from the date of the organ3za:ional meeting of the first agency board. The Governor's Znteragency Council on Growth Management consists of cabinet level ~os~tions. These positions each nave a professional staff member to ass~s~ ;he Council in its du:~es. The Council will present recommendations to ;he Governor for his consideration in ensuring the appropriate state role in addressing growth an~ growth management issues. The Council is a recommending body ;o the Governor. The Governor's actions upon the Council's suggestions will impact the State's cities. As a cabinet-level committee, cities are not Jnvoive~ in %he appointment process, but they can have considerable impact at the :nforma~ion gathering stages when the Council is seeking ~nput from the puDiic and private sectors. it would be advantageous to monitor ~n an on-going Dasis the status of both AB 3 aha the Council. Currently, AB 3 is Oefore the Assembly Committee on Local . J. C, ALE ?.AWL? March 6, ~9gl Page 3 Government and is not yet scheduled for the Committee's calenaar. The first meeting of ~ne Council was held Feoruarv 18. Council meetings will 2roOaoly be scneauled during She last week of eacn mont~. Please let me Know if Z can De of.fur%~er assistance. ;m0305913)