The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/10/1993 B A K E R S F I E L D Patricia M. Smith, Chair Patricia J. DeMond Lynn Edwards Staff: Trudy Slater Larry Lunardini AGENDA LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITFEE Monday, May 10, 1993 12:00 noon City Attorney's Conference Room 1. Smoking 2. Campaign Contributions Limitations 3. AB 1484. Emergency Medical Services 4. Legislation Update 5. Set Next Meeting BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May 10, 1993 TO: MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST SUBJECT: REPORT ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS VENDING MACHINES SURVEY RESPONSES At a March 15, 1993 Legislative and Litigation Committeemeeting, I was directed to send out a tobacco products vending machines survey to those in the city who might be financially affected by an ordinance on tobacco vending machines in the City. A survey was consequently sent to ~5 different organizations: a) who had business licenses with the City for vending machines (not split out by whether they were tobacco or not), b) who were listed in the yellow pages of the phone book, or c) were listed with the Board of Equalization office forthe Bakersfield area. Of the 65 surveys, 34 responses were received. Of those 34, 28 organizations indicated they had no involvement with tobacco products vending machines. Six responded in the affirmative and were included in a composite of responses which was distributed as an enclosure in a general information memo from the City Manager. This composite view is attached. The number of returns.is consistent with the information provided by the local Board of Equalization office, which indicated seven businesses are licensed for the Bakersfield area. Of the six who did respond, five opted to identify their responses and one did not. (Identification was optional; all responses to the questionnaire are confidential.) One individual asked to be notified of the results of the survey. The six companies responding to the survey indicated that they accounted for 85 different tobacco vending machines throughout the City; one respondent did not indicate how many machines his organization had. One respondent indicated that his machines were accessible to the buying public from 4 to 24 hours a day depending on location, and four indicated the length of accessibility was from 13 to 16 hours a day. Five respondents indicated that machines were placed in hallways, entryways, or main entrances; four near enough to employee work stations to be monitored; and four in areas accessible only to adults. However, of the six respondents three indicated that machines were placed easily accessible to minors, while three indicated the machines were not. No respondent indicated that machines were placed.outside the establishment. The comments on the impact a smoking vending machine would have on the respondents ranged from closure of the business to having no effect. Locking mechanisms were universally rejected as impractical investment-wise. One LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE REPORT ON TOBACCO PRODUCTS VENDING MACHINES SURVEY Page 2 May 10, 1993 respondent indicated that the banning of the sale of a legal product across the board would be litigated by his company. Two respondents were concerned with the legality of instituting a-vending machine ban. One respondent indicated that restricting the sale of tobacco products to minors through a vending machine ordinance would not effectively accomplish the intended goal as only 3% of cigarette sales are through vending machines. Another indicated that his organization was more than willing to work with individuals who had problems with the placement of tobacco vending machines regarding access to minors. Of the six respondents, one indicated that a ban on tobacco vending machines would have little effect on business. All others indicated that it would have a negative effect on their businesses in one form or another. Of those who responded, two said 5% or less of their businesses were represented by tobacco vending machines. The remaining four respondents indicated that tobacco vending machines represented from 6% to 75% of their businesses. Reasons identified for not instituting a tobacco vending machine ban included loss of jobs in the community as well as sales taxes and city and county taxes. The survey did not ask how many employees each business had, although one respondent indicated that a banning of tobacco vending machines would result in the loss of at least an additional three of his employees. (m0510931) Enclosure cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager City of Bakersfield Tobacco Products Vending Machines Su~e¥ Responses March 1993 Instructions: Mark only those areas that affect your businesses within the City of Bakersfield. Answer all questions as clearly as possible. 1. Do you own, operate, or distribute any type of tobacco products vending machine within the City of Bakersfield? Responses: 6 Yes 28 No If the answer to I is' yes, please answer the following: 2. Which of the following apply to your business in Bakersfield? Responses: 4 I own and operate tobacco products vending machine(s) in Bakersfield. 1 I operate tobacco products vending machine(s)in Bakersfield. 1 I distribute tobacco products vending machine(s) to others in Bakersfield for their use. 1 Other: Please explain: Glass front vending machine were tobacco products are offered/hotel location 3. How many tobacco products vending machines do you own, operate, or distribute within the City of Bakersfield? Responses: 5 responses, 68 machines - I own (1,2,_,58,7) tobacco vending machine(s) which I use in my business. 2 responses, 60 machines - I operate (2,58) tobacco vending machine(s) which t use in my business. 1 response, 17 machines - I distribute (17) tobacco vending machine(s) to others in Bakersfield for their use. 1 response Other: Please explain: Machines are placed in locations not owned by myself 4. What portion (%)of your business is represented by the sale of tobacco products through tobacco products vending machines? Responses: 1 Up to 1% 1 ~ 1% to 5% ~ 2 6% to 10% 0 11% to 25% 1 26% to 50% 1 51% to 75% 0 More than 75% 5. Where ars the tobacco products vending machines placed, in your businesses? (List all that apply.) Responses: 0 Outside business establishment 5 In hallways, entryways, or main entrances 4 Near enough to employee work stations so that employees may monitor vending machine sales 4 In areas accessible only to adults (i.e., bars, adult entertainment areas, etc.) 0 Other: Please explain: Tobacco Products Vending Machines Survey Responses Page 2 (March 1993) 6. How many hours s day are yoUr tobacco products vending machines accessible to the buying public? Responses: ._ 0 Up to 8 hours in a 24-four hour period. 0 9 to 12 hours in a 24-four hour period. 4 13 to 16 hours in a 24-four hour period. I 24 hours a day. 1 Handwritten comment: From 4 to 24 hours depending on location 7. Are the tobacco products vending machines placed so that they are easily accessible to minors? Responses: 3 Yes Comments: (a) lobby of hotel (b) We have one machine in a hotel lobby that may be accessible to minors. (c) Entryways or rest room areas 3 No · Comments: (a) Totally unaccessible in bar locations, however in coffee shops they would be 'accessible but are supervised. 8. If the City of Bakersfield enacts a tobacco products vending machine ordinance, what effect will it have on your business In the City of Bakersfield? Please make comments below. Restrictions on Placement of Machines: Responses: (a) None. (b) Very little. (c) Would probably cause accounts to eliminate machines in all but bar locations. (d) For several years, our company has been aware of the need to restrict the use of cigarette vending machines by minors. In that regard, of our current 58 machines within the City of Bakersfield, 31 are at locations permitting only adult occupancy, 15 are at locations where the machines are under observation and use can be monitored and only 12 machines are located so as to provide free access. Obviously the effect on our business of an ordinance restricting the placement of cigarette vending machines would depend on the severity of the ordinance that would be eventually passed, but without question it could result in the permanent closure of our business if it totally bans cigarette vending machines. (e) Will not effect business. (f) I suggest you consult Section 308 of the California Penal Code before you challenge State law which preempts local government from passing ordinances with respect to alcohol and tobacco. I am against any ordinance that would cost jobs in our company. Requirements for Locking Mechanisms on Machines: Responses: (a) ? (b) Significant initial cost. Possible problems reconciling inventory and money collected. (c) Would not be willing to make investment. (d) Since the machines are already locked, we assume by this question you mean a mechanism that must be activated priOr to the machine being operated. Truthfully, this would be such a burden and inconvenience on the location that it would make such'a system intolerable. Also, it would be a definite inconvenience for the customer, to such an extent that we feel it would result in a substantial loss of revenues and would probably make operations uneconomical. (e) Return on the investment for locking mechanisms would further the decline inprofits. Tobacco sales are declining to the level they are a breakeven proposition. (t) Locking mechanisms are costly and not realistic in any location except the higher sale account. They should only be considered as an alternative where minors have access and supervision not · ' available. Tobacco Products Vending Machines Survey Responses Page 3 (March 1993) Banning the Use of Tobacco Products Vending Machines In the City of Bakersfield: Responses: (a) Would not effect business - (b) This situation is presently in litigation and may prove to be illegal. (c) Will. cost that much of the business. (d) The banning of tobacco products vending machines would cause our company to reduce our staff by at least three more employees. Whether or not we could stay in business would depend upon the income generated from our other activities but as noted in Item #4 above these machines generate income constituting betWeen 51% and 75% of our business. (e) Loss of jobs to the community. (0 Banning the sale of a legal product across the board would be litigated by our company. 9. Please make any comments you feel are Important regarding the passage of a City ordinance restricting/eliminating the use of tobacco products vending machines within the City of Bakersfield as it might/would affect your business. Responses: (a) Would take pressure off to supply an extra machine for vending a Iow-profit item. (b) Reasonable restrictions to prevent sales to minors are to be expected in any sales. environment. Preventing one class of merchant from selling a product that all other classes of merchants are permitted to sell seems to me to be not only unfair, but illegal. (c) Think its another infringement on rights. Hamburgers contribute to heart disease. Are they next?. (d) Due to the declining economy, wehave been forced to cut the number of our employees from ten to the present level of seven. Any restrictions of tobacco products vending machines would require a further reduction and the total banning of tobacco products vending machines would result in a reduction of at least three. Our company has been doing business in Bakersfield since 1938 and while our contribution to the overall economy may be minimal, to our seven employees it means having a paycheck every week and full care health benefits for themselves and their families. It has come to our attention that you have letters and complaints on file regarding the operation of tobacco products vending machines by minors. We do not know if these complaints concern any of our machines. However, we would think that a system of notifying the operator of any complaints would be preferable to severe restrictions on the total banning of the machines. Certainly our company, in the interest of continuing our business, would investigate any complaints to insure that minors are not in a position to operate the tobacco products vending machines and, if necessary, would remove the machine from the location if the owner of the location was not willing to provide the appropriate and necessary security. Finally, although again perhaps not on a large figure, our sales also contribute to the economy through sales taxes and city and county taxes, all or a portion of which would be lost depending on the severity of the ultimate ordinance. (e) It make sense to restrict tobacco machines to adult locations or Where such machines can be seen by a clerk or location repreSentative. (0 It depends on the city's intent. If it is the minors issue, I feel that banning machines where minors have access is not going to cure a problem..Fewer than 3% of all cigarettes sold are sold from machines. Therefore, minors will simply continue to make purchases as they always have from convenience stores, etc., for a fraction of the cost as opposed to vending, where the retail price is substantially higher. OPTIONAL: Name of Responder Company · Address · Phone ALL RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ARE CONFIDENTIAL. AGGREGATE DATA WILL BE USED TO DEVELOP A TOBACCO PRODUCTS VENDING MACHINES USE PROFILE. Please return questionnaire to.' Trudy Slater, City Manager's Office, City of Bakersfield, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 by April 7, 1993 in the attached, self-addressed envelope. (L&LVEND2) D2 SUNDAY, APRIL 4, 1993 .... LOS ANGELES TIME - Policy " SACRAMENTo /BRADLEY INMAN ~'~ '"' Legislator Again Fanning Flames'to Get a Smoking Ban,in the Workplace A ssemblyman Terry~ Fried~ also support the legislation from business and labor is one a chamber committee in February, ment. . ..... man (D-Sherman Oaks) The willingness of business to reason that AB 13 won 7-t approv- there was substantial support for "Businesses have an important believes that he can crack support more regulation shows al'from the powerful Assembly the measure, according to mem- legal obligation to provide a,safe the political clout of the t~oacco how traditional industry coalitions Labor and Employment Commit- bers in attendance. Representa- and.healthy workplace,'~ she said. industry :in Sac~'amento bye. per- can break down amid heightened tee, which killed a similar measure tives from Philip Moms Co. will The concern is intensified by the. suading oth~iTM businesses to support legislation:that'would ban smo~ awareness of the liabilities associ- last year. make their case against the mca- recent release of an Environmental in'the workpl, ay~e. And he's makir~g°~ ated with environmental and "In the past, it was the regular sure at a chamber session April 16. Protection AdministratiOn Study health issues, lineup of health groups against the Soon after, the chamber will an- that showed passive smoke c.an progress.-'.:":-:.,',:' · Indeed, Friedman argues that it powerful tobacco industry, but to- nounde i~s position, cause illness and even death. ; A n~r.i;':0f companies and makes sense for business to Sup- day we have business and labor If the Legislature approves the .However, Hemminger also Friedma~/'~!'i~:eas~retrade gr~UP~: have lined (ABUP behind13),, port the workplace smoking ban groups supporting, the ban," Leon- measure, "it would rank California pointed out th'at there is no. specific · · because "it will protect employers ard said. . as the only state in the nation with regulatiori on workplace smokirig which would,prohibit any employ- from increased workers' compen- Though tobacco companies that such a Draconian law," said Walk- in the state Occupational and Safe er from ?kii~figly permitting the sation and disability claims." belong to the California Chamber er Merryman, vice president of the ty and Health Act--the rules tha~ smoking:'0f~.t~bacco products in an In a letter to Friedman voicing of Commerce will offer vigorous Tobacco Institute in Washington. define a "safe and healthy" work-' enclosed SPac~.:at a place of em- support for the bill, Robert C. resistance, there!s a good possibili- And though the chamber may place in California. . · ' ' ployment.?~.Ttie measure also Freckmann, Mervyn's director of ty that even the conservative busi- support the Friedman bill. an anal- Gov. Pete Wilson has not taken'a would p.'t~h'ibit workers from employee relations, wrote that a ness trade group will support the ysis of the measure by the group position on the bill. But ff he smoking:~ri:thejob. . smoking ban can have a "positive Friedman bill. concluded that a smoking ban applies the same reasoning to pti:' MervYn.!~..iDepartment Stores, financial impact" on businesses. The chamber surprised some ob- could put "California businesses at rate employers as he did to the Building Owners and Managers The Hayward-based retailer servers--and angered tobacco in- a competitive disadvantage, espe- eminent offices, he maybe willifl~ Assn. and'~th~' California Restau- adopted its own workplace smok- terests--when it remained neutral cially in the areas of tourism and to approve a smoking ban bill. rant Assr~:~_w. hich last year aban- F. rLI~N~.WEBB/t~ ~nge~ ~mes Lug ban in May, 1991, a step that on last year's smoking ban bill. conventions." In late February, he .signed afl- doned itZ~10ngstanding opposition F'reckmann said has led to lower This year, chamber lobbyist Me- Regardless, some employers are executive order bannihg smo .~g to smoking.~--are among those groups expected t6 get on the health care costs and workers' lanie Wiegner said, "We are look- getting nervous about their legal in all state-owned buildings who sup. po?~'-ithe measure. Other anti-smoking bandwagon include compensation claims. Maintenance lng at [Friedman's measure] very liability if they permit smoking in leased space. In his message, the San Diego and Oakland chain- costs are reduced as well, he said. closely," because a number of firms the workplace, according to Los son said, "smoke-free workplaces' BRADLEY INMAN/s an bers of commerce. The California Cathy Leonard, consultant to the want the business group to support Angeles attorney Pamela Hem- improve the health of; workers~ Oakla~d~riter specia[i~ng in Labor Federation and the Building. Assembly Labor and Employment the bill. minger, who specializes in employ- raise their productivity and~boo~t. Californidbusiness/ssues. and Construction Trades Council Committee, believes that support When Friedman made a pitch to ment law representing, manage- morale." '. .'.,; · , oo Much Smoke in Sacramento The tobacco industry is now million to influence state and ronmental Protection Agen- spending huge sums of money local elected officials in just ey's report in January, doeu- · to influence state and local the last two years, according menting the risks of cigarette elected officials. No surprise to a report from UC San smoke even to nonsmokers. there, in light of the fact that al~rancisco, explicitly puts tobacco in the Iong-term effort to restrict The tobacco industry same categoryas asbestos and smoking in the California spends twice as much on Calf- other deadly carcinogens. wor~tplace is gathering mo- fornia lawmakers as it spends State lawmakers have long ..mentum. per member of Congress. In assumed a clear responsibility This state still represents a the 1991-92 session, for ex- to prevent involuntary expo- huge marl(et for cigarettes, ample, California's legislators sure to carcinogens. Why even as the percentage of received contributions, on ay- should tobacco continue to be smoi(ers statewide continues erage, of $10,402 .each: As- in a separate--and privi- to shrink. That's why the sembly Speaker Willie Brown leged--category? ~obacco industry's big guns (D-San ?rancisco) was the All of which raises a trou- are trained on AB 13, the largest recipient, reaping bling question: Does money proposed comprehensive $221.367. All that mares the buy just about anything in s~atewide ban on smoking in tobacco industry the second- Sacramento? State lawmakers ~he workplace. They're trying largest source oi state cam- must prove that is not the case ~o counter it with AB 996. a paign funds, after the Califor- and that nobody--no matter patchworic of meaningless and nia Medical Assn. how well-heeled--can deflect burdensome changes support- Yet the health risks of ciga- ~his state from sound public ed by tobaccolobbyists, rette smoking are clear and health policy. Passing AB 13. Cigarette manufacturersare grave, despite the industry's without further delay--and worried. And when the tobac- public relations smoke screen burying AB 996--would be a co industry is worried, it and its generosity in political heartening sign of political zpends lots of money--S7.6 contributions. The U.S. Envi- integrity. - [EDITORIA 86 APRIL, 27. 1993 . The Right Bill to Ban Smoking This year the Legislature is Ingiewood), could get its first through vending machines, it again considering a bill that hearing this week in the As- unreasonably requires met- would ban smoking in all en- sembly Governmental Organ, chants · to retain copies of dosed places of employment ization Committee. The As- statements signed by each throughout the s~ate. AB 13 is sembly, should not waste its employee verifying that he or concise, well-drafted legisla- time on this patchwork of she understand state law pro- .tion. And as the percentage of tepid provisions, hibiting the sale of cigarettes Californians who smoke con- That the tobacco industry to minors. tinues to shrink--and evi- may apparently be more com- Friedman's comprehensive dence about the risks of fortable with AB 996 than AB workplace ban is the'far bet- smoking, even for nonsmok- 13 should alone make Califor- ter approach. It has the sup- ers, continues to mount--the nians uneasy. But worse still, port of an unprecedented co- bill is long overdue, the bill's provisions are need- alition, including the Calfornia This year, AB ·13, intro- lessly complex and burden- Restaurant Assn. and the Cat- duced by Assemblyman Terry some to businesses without ifornia Medical Assn. A work- B. Friedman (D-Brentwood), advancing protections for place smoking ban does not stands a good chance of pas- nonsmokers. Current state aim at punishing the 20% of sage. It has already cleared law permits any employer to Californians who smoke-- the Assembly Labor Commit- ban smoking in the workplace they can still smoke out of the tee and is now before the · but requires none to do so. workplace--but at protecting .Ways and Means Committee. Tucker's bill doesn't change those 80% who don't from So it should be no surprise that but specifies a statewide having their health impaired. that those opposed to a tough minimum percentage of non- There is simply no defensible statewide ban have quickly- ' smoking restaurant seats, air- reason for legislators to reject drafted a countermeasure. AB port terminal space and hotel the workplace smoke ban. 996, sponsored by Assembly- rooms. While the bill wisely And a weak substitute--AB man Curtis R. Tucker Jr. (D- restricts the sale of cigarettes 996--won't do the job. BAKERSFIELD 1990 April 22. 1993 The Honorable Diane Watson. Chair Senate Health and Human Services Committee The State Senate State Capitol Building, Room 4040 Sacramento. CA 95814 Dear Senator Watson: This letter is being written in opposition to SB 1154 and AB 1484, which give counties veto power over the provision of emergency medical services authority over incorporated areas. SB 1154 would ~ve the county emergency, medical services authority total discretion over EMS services provided within incorporated, as well as unincorporated, areas. Although SB '1154 is purportedly in response to a California court decision which ruled that cities do have the right to establish their own EMS services without county approval, if SB 1154 becomes law, cities would be barred from entering into any agreements for ambulance service without the county EMS authority's prior approval. AB 1484 (Speier). sponsored by the California State Association of Counties. is similar in nature to SB 1154 and also is opposed. Please vote no on these two p{oposed bills which will damage cities' abilities to provide adequate emergency medical services to their citizens. Sincerely, ._~.~--. //' /,~(AI an Tandy' / City Manager / AT:jp / cc: Honorable Mavor and Members of the City, Council John Stinson. Assistant City Manager Trudy Slater. Administrative Analyst City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 325-9162 Distribution list for April 22. 1993 letter re oppose EMS Services Authority proposed hills STATE SENATE IlEALTlt AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE STATE ASSEMBLY tlEALTll COMMITTEE The Honorable Diane Watson. Chair The tlonorable Butt Margolin. Chair Senate Health and Human Services Committee· Assembly Health Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building. Room 4040 State Capitol Buildinl~, Room 4112 Sacramento~CA 95814 Sacramento. CA 95814 The Honorable Frank Hill. Vice Chair The Honorable Margaret Snyder. Vice Chair Senate Health and Haman Services Committee Assembly Health Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building. Room 5064 State Capitol Building. Room 5144 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Marian Bergeson The Honorable John Burto,~ Senate Health and Human Sen'vices Committee Assembly tlealth Committee The State Senate The State Asse. mbly State Capitol Building. Rmm~ 3063 State Capitol Building, Room 3152 Sacramento. CA 95814 .Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Charles Calderon The Honorable Mickey Conroy Senate Health and lluman Services Committee Assembly Iteaith Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 4048 State Capitol Building, Room 4102 · Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Wadie Deddeh The Honorable Martha Escutia Senate Health and llum:~n Services C~mmittee Assembly tleaith Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building. Room 3048 State Capitol Building, Room 2137 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento~ CA 95814 Tbe Honorable Teresa ilughes The Honorahle Mike Gotch Senate Health and iluman Services Committce Assembly Health Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 4090 State Capitol Building, Room 4146 Sacramento. CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Tim Leslie The Honorable Trice Harvey Senate Health and iluman Services Committee Assembly Health Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 4081 State Capitol Building, Room 4162 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento. CA 95814 The llonoroble ttenry Mella The Honorable Paul Horeher Senate Health and iluman Services Committee Assembly llealth Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Rm~m 313 State Capitol Building, Room 3123 Sacramento. CA 95814 Sacromento, CA 95814 The tlonorahle llerschel Roseuthal The Honorable Phillip lsenberg Senate ileaith and lluman Services Committee Assembly Health Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 4070 State Capitol Building, Room 6005 Sacramento. CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Mike Thompsou The Honorable Johan KJehs Senate Health and tluman Services Committee Assembly Itealth Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building. Room 3056 State Capitol Building. Room 2013 Sacra~uento. CA 95814 Sacramento. CA 95814 The tlonorable Cathie Wright The lionorable William Knight Senate ilealth and tlnnmu Services Comnlittee Assembly Health Committee The State Senate The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Itoom 4082 State Capitol Building, Room 2196 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 STATE ASSEMBLY HEALTI! COMMITTEE continued The Honorable Barbara Lee .. Assembly Health Committee The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Rm~m 2179 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tbe Honorable Ricbard Polanco Assembly ltealth Committee The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 2188 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Jackie Speier Assembly ileaith Committee The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 4140 Sacramento. CA 95814 The Honorable Stun Statham Assembly Health Committee The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Rmm~ 4098 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Paul Woodruff Assembly tleaith Committee The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 5164 Sacramento, CA 95814 LOCAL STATE LEGISLATORS The Ilonorable Ken Muddy The State Senate State Capitol Building, R~mm 305 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Jim Costa The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 2158 Sacramento. CA 95814 The Honorable Trice ilarvey (included on ile~'dtb Committee list) 05/10/93 Page 1 · City of Bakersfield 5452 CA AB 1484 AUTHOR: Speier TITLE: Emergency medical services INTRODUCED: 03/04/93 · LOCATION: Assembly Health Committee CODE SECTIONS: An act to amend Section 1797. i78 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to emergency medical services. SUMMARY: Requires ambulance services and emergency medical services pursuant to existing law governing fire protection districts or ambulance services by or pursuant to the above-described contracts, service area districts, and regulations subject to the approval of the local EMS agency and would make other changes of a technical nature. AB 1484, as introduced, Speier. Emergency medical services. Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act (hereafter, the EMS Act), provides for state and local administration of emergency medical services system to coordinate and integrate effective and efficient emergency medical services throughout the state. Existing law requires that the local county EMS agency plan, implement, and evaluate an emergency medical services system, in accordance with the EMS Act, consisting of an organized pattern of readiness and response services, including, but not limited to, ambulance services, based on public and private agreements and operational procedures. Existing law authorizes cities or counties to contract for ambulance services, authorizes fire protection districts to provide emergency medical services and ambulance services, and provides for the establishment of a county, service areas for the provision of ambulance services. Existing law also permits local regulation of ambulance services. This bill would require ambulance services and emergency medical services pursuant to existing law governing fire protection -districts or ambulance services by or pursuant to the above-described contracts, service areas districts, and regulations to. be subject to the approval of the local EMS agency and would make other changes of a technical nature. By requiring that the local EMS agency, approve these contracts, service areas, and regulations and provision of emergency medical services and ambulance services by fire protection districts, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain .costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if the statewide cost does not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program:, yes. STATUS: 03/04/93 INTRODUCED. 03/18/93 To ASSEMBLY Committee on HEALTH. 04/13/93 In ASSEMBLY Committee on HEALTH: Failed passage. Reconsideration granted. 04/20/93 In ASSEMBLY Committee on HEALTH: Not heard. 04/27/93 In ASSEMBLY Committee on HEALTH: Failed passage. VOTES: 04/13/93 Assembly Health Committee F 6- 6 04/27/93 Assembly Health Committee F 8- 6 END OF REPORT 05/10/93 Page 1 City of Bakersfield 5452 CA SB 1154 AUTHOR': Watson TITLE: Emergency medical services INTRODUCED: 03/05/93 COMMITTEE: Senate Health and Human Services Committee HEARING: 05/12/93 1:30 pm CODE SECTIONS: An act to amend Section 1797.178 of, and to repeal Section 1797.201 of, the Health and Safety Code, relating to emergency medical 'services. SUMMARY: Repeals the provision .of law requiring a county to enter into a written agreement with the city or fire district regarding the provision of emergency medical services. SB 1154, as introduced, Watson. Emergency medical services. Existing law, the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, permits each county to develop an emergency medical services program and requires a county developing the program to designate a local EMS agency. Existing law requires a county, upon the request of a city or fire district that has contracted for or provided prehospital emergency medical services as of June 1, 1980, to enter into a written agreement with the city or fire district regarding the provision of emergency medical services for the city and fire district, and prohibits reduction of services until the agreement is reached. This bill would repeal this provision'. Existing law prohibits any person or organization from providing advanced life support and limited advanced life support unless the person or organization is an authorized part of the local EMS system. This bill would instead, and notwithstanding other provisions of law, prohibit local governmental entities and any person or organization from providing or arranging for the provision of prehospital emergency medical services without authorization by the local EMS agency and would make other changes of a technical nature. .This bill would, with regard to services provided pursuant to contracts, apply only to services provided pursuant to those contracts executed, amended, or revised after January 1, 1994. By requiring the local EMS agency to approve services ' provided by these agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if the statewide cost does not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Vote: majority. ApproPriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. STATUS: 03/05/93 INTRODUCED. 03/18/93 To SENATE Committee on HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. 04/21/93 In SENATE Committee on HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: Not. heard. 04/28/93 In SENATE Committee on HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: · Not heard. END OF REPORT BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City, Manager May 3. 1993 The Honorable Ken Maddv The State Senate Room 305 State Capitol Building Sacramento. CA 95814 SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR SB 450 (DILLS) Dear Senator Maddv: This letter expresses support for SB 450. which clarifies an ambiguity, in existing law and reaffirms the authority of local governments to regulate solid waste and recycling services. It also clarifies that anyone may' give away or sell his or her source separated recvclable materials. Current law provides local governments with broad authoriw to determine how best to handle solid waste and recycling services in their communities. They may provide collection services themselves. contract with another agency,, or provide the service by issuing contracts, business licenses, or exclusive or nonexctusive franchise. They may also determine rates, levels of service, and/or days. of collection. The ability, of local governments to maintain this regulatory, authority, and flexibility. is a basic issue of local control and of importance to all cities. Opposition to SB 450 wants to be able to collect source separated recyclable materials, tbr a fee. even if this would violate local policy. · to the contrary. This could have serious impacts on residential curbside collection programs, which are most through exclusive franchise, and many exclusive or nonexclusive commercial franchises. Please vote '.'yes" on SB 450. SinCere!y~ ~ z~Cai'fTandy 'City, Manager A!:jp xc: The Honorable Governor Pete Wilson The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Bakersfield City Council Gene Bogart. Water and'Sanitation Department Mike Sides. Sanitation Superintendent _ Trudy Slater. Administrative Analyst II League of Califo[nia Cities City of Bakersfield· · City Manager's Office · t501 Truxtun. Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 B A K E R S F I E E D Alan Tandy · City Manager Mav 3. 1993 The Honorable Phil Wyman The State Senate · State Capitol Building Sacramento. CA 95814 SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR SB 450 (DILLS) Dear Senator Wyman: This letter expresses support tbr SB 450. which clarifies an ambiguity 'in existing law and reaffirms the authority, oflocat governments to regulate solid waste and recycling services. It also clarifies that anvone may give away or sell his or her source separated recyclable materials. Current law provides local governments with broad authority, to determine how best to handle ·solid waste and recycling services in their communities. They may provide collection services themselves. contract with another agency, or provide the service by issuing contracts, business licenses, or exclusive or'nonexclusive franchise. They may also determine rates, levels of service, and/or days of collection. The ability of local governments to maintain this regulatory authority, and flexibility is a basic issue of local control and of importance to all cities. Opposition to SB 450 wants to be able to collect source separated recyclable materials, for a fee. even if this would violate local policy. to the contrary. This could have serious impacts on residential curbside collection programs, which are most through exclusive franchise, and many exclusive or nonexclusive commercial franchises. Please vote "yes" on SB 450. 'City Manager AT:jp . ,/ xc: The Honorable Governor Pete Wilson The Honorable Mayor.and Members of the Bakersfield City Council Gene Bogart. Water and Sanitation Department Mike Sides. Sanitation Superintendent Trudy Slater. Administrative Analyst II League of California Cities City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 ~'~r~; 9, '9 (~_ :t "7 ~1 · IrA\ tRt3~ 2nq_Olf.,9