P. 1
Vargas Transcript - Volume 1

Vargas Transcript - Volume 1

|Views: 57|Likes:
Published by Mark Dierolf
Vargas v. City of Salinas appeal from order granting motion to strike per CA CCP 425.16.

Transcript - Volume 2

Added to the record on appeal for Vargas Fee issue.
Vargas v. City of Salinas appeal from order granting motion to strike per CA CCP 425.16.

Transcript - Volume 2

Added to the record on appeal for Vargas Fee issue.

More info:

Published by: Mark Dierolf on Aug 10, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial No-derivs

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/09/2014

pdf

text

original

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF MONTEREY Reserved for Clerk's File Stamp

240 Church St.
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 775-5400
Morfin. An'gelina Vargas et at,
Plaintiff/Appellant
VS.
City of Salinas, et al.,
DefendantlRespondent
ON APPEAL FROM MONTEREY COUNTY Court of Appeal No. H027693
Superior Court No. M61489
Hon. Robert A. O. Farrell Presiding CLERK'S TRANSCRIPT ON APPEAL

Volume f of VI

Pages 1 ~299

STEVEN J. ANDRE 26540 Carmel Rancho Blvd.

Carmel, CA 93923

Attorney for the Appellant

M. CHRISTINE DAVI DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF SALINAS

200 Lincoln Ave.

Salinas, CA 93901

Attorney for the Respondent

Page 1 of 1

CI Cover letter

ALPHABETICAL INDEX
MORFIN VS. CITY OF SALINAS
CASE NUMBER - M61489
DOCUMENT PAGE VOLUME

Appellants' Notice to Prepare Clerk's Transcript 1540 VI
Clerk's Certificate to Record 1548 VI
Complaint for Violation of Constitutional Rights and for Injunctive Relief; 1 I
Damages; Equitable Relief; Declaratory Relief
Complaint for Violation of Constitutional Rights and for Injunctive Relief; 718 '"
Damages; Equitable Relief; Declaratory Relief (Supplemental)
Declaration of Angelina Morfin Vargas in Support of Injunctive Relief 392 II
Declaration of Ann Camel 750 '"
Declaration of Brett Landon in Opposition to Motion to Strike 1458 V
Declaration of Daniel Hernandez 902 IV
Declaration of Daniel Ortega 1120 IV
Declaration of David Mora 852 III
Declaration of David Mora in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for 418 II
Temporary Restraining Order
Declaration of Gary Reagan 1054 IV.
Declaration of John Copeland in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application 460 II
for Temporary Restraining Order
. Declaration of John Fair 1056 IV
Declaration of Jorge Rife 1092 IV Page 1 of5

ALPHABETICAL INDEX
DOCUMENT PAGe VOLUME

Declaration of Julia M. Orozco 1147 IV
Declaration of Ken Davis ' 1203 V
Declaration of M. Christine Davi 866 III
Declaration of Mark Dierolf in Opposition to Motion to Strike 1263 V
Declaration of Mark Dierolf in Support of Injunctive Relief 13 I
Declaration of Mark Dierolf in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 664 III
for Leave to Amend Complaint
Declaration of Reggie Lee 1167 IV
Declaration of Richard E. Nosky, Jr. 1235 V
Declaration of Steven J. Andre in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for 1497 VI
Reconsideration
Declaration of Steven J. Andre with Annexed Deposition Transcript of John 1402 V
Copeland in Opposition to Motion to Strike
Declaration of Tom Kever 942 IV
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion 693 III
for Preliminary Injunction ,
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for a Preliminary Injunction 609 III
Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show 11 I
Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction Page 2 of5

ALPHABETICAL INDEX
DOCUMENT. PAGE VOLUME

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion to 735 III
Strike Plaintiffs' Complaint in its Entirety Under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16
Minute Order 01-30-04, Motion Hearing Preliminary Injunction 715 III
Minute Order 05-07-04, Motion Hearing Strike 1493 V
Minute Order 05-23-03, Civil Law & Motion 635 III
Minute Order 06-25-04, Motion Hearing Reconsideration 1535 VI
Minute Order 10-16-02, Hearing on Pltf's: Request for TRO and Prelim Inj. 465 II
Minute Order 11-08-02, Plaintiff's Hearing on Preliminary Injunction 630 III
Notice of Appeal 1538 VI
Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Complaint in its Entirety 732 III
Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16
Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for Leave to Amend Complaint 639 III
Notice of Motion for Reconsideration 1494 V
Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration 1516 VI
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order 409 "
and Request for Hearing
Order 1536 VI
Order (Amended) 1514 VI
Order After Submission 716 III Page 3 of5

ALPHABETICAL INDEX
DOCUMENT , PAGE VOLUME

Order Denying Plaintiffs' Request for a Preliminary Injunction 633 '"
Order Denying Plaintiffs' Request for a Temporary Restraining Order 631 '"
Order From Court of Appeal 638 III
Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 636 lit
Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Supplemental 1512 VI
Complaint in its Entirety
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Opposition to Motion to 1243 V
Strike
. Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for 1501 VI
Reconsideration
Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts in Opposition to Motion to Strike 1259 V
Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for 655 III
Leiwe to Amend Complaint
Points & Authorities in Support of Request for Temporary Restraining Order 399 II
and Preliminary Injunction
Proof of Service 458 II
Proof of Service 463 "
Proof of Service 617 III
Proof of Service 701 III
Proof of Service 1232 V Page 4 of5

ALPHABETICAL INDEX
DOCUMENT PAGE VOLUME

Proof of Service 1491 V
Proof of Service 1546 VI
Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 619 III
Reply to Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration 1527 VI
Reply to Opposition to Motio,} to Amend Complaint and Motion for 703 III
Preliminary Injunction
Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' 1484 V
Complaint in its Entirety Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16
Request for Reporter's Transcript on Appeal 1543 VI
Respondent's Designation of Additional Documents for Clerk's Transcript 1545 VI
Supplemental Declaration of Mark Dierolf in Support of Preliminary Injunction 466 II
Supporting Declaration of Steven J. Andre Re: Temporary Restraining Order 407 II
and Certification Re: Notice Page 5 of 5

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
MORFIN VS. CITY OF SALINAS
CASE NUMBER ~ M61489
DOCUMENT PAGE VOLUME

Complaint for Violation of Constitutional Rights and for Injunctive Relief; 1 I
Damages; Equitable Relief; Declaratory Relief
Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show 11 I
Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction
Declaration of Mark Dierolf in Support of Injunctive Relief 13 I
Declaration of Angelina Morfin Vargas in Support of Injunctive Relief 392 "
Points & Authorities in Support of Request for Temporary Restraining Order 399 "
and Preliminary Injunction
Supporting Declaration of Steven J. Andre Re: Temporary Restraining Order 407 "
and Certification Re: Notice
Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order 409 II
and Request for Hearing
Declaration of David Mora in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for 418 II
Temporary Restraining Order
Proof of Service 458 "
Declaration of John Copeland in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application 460 "
for Temporary Restraining Order
Proof of Service 463 II
Minute Order 10~16-02, Hearing on Pltfs. Request for TRO and Prelim Inj. 465 "
Supplemental Declaration of Mark Dierolf in Support of Preliminary Injunction 466 II Page 1 of 5

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
DOCUMENT PAGE VOLUME

Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for a Preliminary Injunction 609 III
Proof of Service 617 III
Reply to Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction 619 '"
Minute Order 11-08-02, Plaintiffs Hearing on Preliminary Injunction 630 Iff
Order Denying Plaintiffs' Request for a Temporary Restraining Order 631 III
Order Denying Plaintiffs' Request for a Preliminary Injunction 633 III
Minute Order 05-23-03, Civil Law & Motion 635 III
Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 636 III
Order From Court of Appeal 638 III
Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for Leave to Amend Complaint 639 III
Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and for 655 Ilf
Leave to Amend Complaint
Declaration of Mark Dierolf in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction and 664 III
for Leave to Amend Complaint
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion 693 III
for Preliminary Injunction
Proof of Service 701 '"
Reply to Opposition to Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion for 703 '"
Preliminary Injunction
Minute Order 01-30-04, Motion Hearing Preliminary Injunction 715 III Page 2 of5

.~.

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
DOCUMENT PAGE VOLUME

Order After Submission 716 III
Complaint for Violation of Constitutional Rights and for Injunctive Relief; 718 III
Damages; Equitable Relief; Declaratory Relief (Supplemental)
Notice of Motion and Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Complaint in its Entirety 732 III
Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendants' Motion to 735 III
Strike Plaintiffs' Complaint in its Entirety Under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 425.16
Declaration of Ann Camel 750 III
Declaration of David Mora 852 III
Declaration of M. Christine Davi 866 III
Declaration of Daniel Hernandez 902 IV
Declaration of Tom Kever 942 IV
Declaration of Gary Reagan 1054 IV
Declaration of John Fair 1056 IV
Declaration of Jorge Rife 1092 IV
Declaration of Daniel Ortega 1120 IV
Declaration of Julia M. Orozco 1147 IV
Declaration of Reggie Lee 1167 IV
Declaration of Ken Davis 1203 V Page 30f5

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
DOCUMENT PAGE VOLUME

Proof of Service 1232 V
Declaration of Richard E. Nosky, Jr. 1235 V
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Opposition to Motion to 1243 V
Strike
Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts in Opposition to Motion to Strike 1259 V
Declaration of Mark Dierolf in Opposition to Motion to Strike 1263 V
Declaration of Steven J. Andre with Annexed Deposition Transcript of John 1402 V
Copeland in Opposition to Motion to Strike
Declaration of Brett Landon in OPPosition to Motion to Strike 1458 V
Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' 1484 V
Complaint in its Entirety Under Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16
Proof of Service 1491 V
Minute Order 05-07-04, Motion Hearing Strike 1493 V
Notice of Motion for Reconsideration 1494 V
Declaration of Steven J. Andre in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for 1497 VI
Reconsideration
Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion for 1501 VI
Reconsideration
Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Supplemental 1512 VI
Complaint in its Entirety
Order (Amended) 1514 VI Page 4 of5

CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX
DOCUMENT PAGE VOLUME

Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration 1516 VI
Reply to Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration 1527 VI
Minute Order 06-25-04, Motion Hearing Reconsideration 1535 VI
Order 1536 VI
Notice of Appeal 1538 VI
Appellants' Notice to Prepare Clerk's Transcript 1540 VI
Request for Reporter's Transcript on Appeal 1543 VI
Respondent's Designation of Additional Documents for Clerk's Transcript 1545 VI
Proof of Service 1546 VI
Clerk's Certificate to Record 1548 VI Page 5 of5

13 ~

20
21
, 22
23
24
ci 25
;?'---\
~
w
UJl
iU... 2

1 Steven J. Andre

Attorney at Law #132633 26540 Ca!:rnel Rancho Blvd.

Garmel, CA 93923 (831) 624-5786

3

4 Attorney fo r Plaintiffs,

ANGELINA MORFIN VARGAS, MARK DIEROLF

5

6

7

9

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CbUNTYOF MONTEREY

11

12

14

Case No.: No. M

uwL\\i\rfW

M61489

ANGELINA VARGAS MORFIN, MARK DIEROLF,

)

15 Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF

) CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FOR

16 vs. ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; D.AMAGES; EQUITABLE ) RELIEF; DECLARATORY RELIEF [U. s.

17 CITY OF SALINAS and DAVID MORA# and ) CONST., AMENDMENT 1; CODE OF CIVIL

) PROCEDURE SECs. 526(a) and 1040]

18 DOES 1-50, )

)

19

Defendants

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

(Interference With the Democratic Electoral Process)

1. Plaintiff Angelina Morfin Vargas is a resident, taxpayer and

registered voter in the City of Salinas.

2. Plaintiff MARK DIEROLF is a resident, taxpayer and registered voter

in the City of Salinas.

- 1

1

000002

3. Defendant, CITY OFcSALINAS, is a public entity, a municipal

2 corporation which collects tax revenues and allocates these funds for various

3 services and governmental purposes.

4 4. Defendant DAVID MORA, is the City Manager for defendant CITY OF

5 SALINAS.

6 5. Defendants named herein as Does 1 - 50 are sued herein under

7 fictitious business names because their true names and capacities are unknown

8 to plaintiffs. When their true names and capacities are ascertained,

9 plaintiffs will amend this complaint to assert their true names. plaintiffs

10 are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that each of the

11 fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the

12 occurrences alleged herein and that the harm suffered by plaintiffs' was

13 proximately caused by those defendants.

,,~.

14 6. Measure 0 is an initiative measure sponsored by the committee for

15 Utility Tax Relief that will appear on the November 5, 2002, ballot. Measure

16 0 would reduce and ultimately eliminate the Utility Users' Tax.presently

17 imposed upon Salinas utility users.

18 7. In response to Measure O's qualifying for the ballot, defendant CITY

19 OF SALINAS r utilized public resources and funds to prepare and distribute

;20 'pamphlets, newsletters and website materials (hereinafter "campaign

21 materials") which falsely portray the effects of Measure 0 as resulting in

22 the devastation and reduction of numerOus specified services. Defendant's

23 campaign materials do not provide a balanced analysis of the arguments in

24 favor of and against Measure O. The benefits to the community which will

25 result from passage of Measure 0 are not mentioned. The detriments the ,~

community will suffer if Measure 0 is not passed are not mentioned.

- ?

-

1

8. Arguments in favor of Measure O~ if nbt altogether ignored, are only

000003

2 mentioned in the campaign materials by way of attacking them. Defendant's

3 campaign mat.e.r La.l s present the arguments of opponent of Measure 0 regarding

4 their opinions concerning the impact of Measure 0 in extensive detail, while

5 ignoring or attacking the position taken by Measure 0 proponents.

6 9. Defendant's campaign materials are biased because they detail

7 emotionally charged claims about the negative effects attributed to Measure

8 0, citing claims of loss of public safety and increased threat of biological

9 terrorism and proliferation of drug labs. No mention is made of the negative

10 effects if Measure 0 does not pass, such as the harm to lower income and

11 fixed income persons, the harm suffered by small businesses who pay a

12 disproportionate share of the tax, or such as the continuation of government

~ 13 waste, financial mismanagement and overspending of taxpayer dollars.

14 10. Defendant's campaign materials were designed primarily for the

15 purpose of influencing the voters at the upcoming election to vote against

16 Measure O.

17 11. Defendant's expenditure of public resources and public funds to

18 campaign against Measure 0 'Ls not authorizec;i by any legislation.

19 12. Defendant;s expenditure of public resources and public funds to

20 engage in political advocacy with regard to pending Measure 0 is a violation

21 of the California State Constitution, Article 1, Section 2, and the United

22 States Constitution, Amendment L

23 13. The campaign materials are not proper informational activities in

24 that they fail to provide a fair presentation of the facts, including all

25 consequences, good and bad of Measure 0, not only the harmful consequences to ~

- .3

1

000004

government services, but also the reduced tax rate and its economic benefits

2 to Salinas residents.

3 14. De f eridant;" s campaign materials endanger the democratic electoral

4 process and harm Salinas voters because a governmental entity's taking sides

5 in the election contest bestows an unfair advantage on the opponents of

6 Measure 0, distorting the proper outcome of the election.

7 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

8 (Recovery of Illegally Expended Public Resources and Funds)

9 15. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate herein and reallege as though

10 fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

11 14 inclusive, above.

12 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendant DAVID MORA

13 authorized and directed employees of defendant CITY OF SALINAS to use City .. ~

14 work time and resources to engage in partisan political activity opposing

15 Measure O. The improper expenditure of public resources and public funds for

16 preparing and distributing campaign literature opposing Measure 0 is in an

17 amount which plaintiffs are unable to ascertain, but which plaintiffs are

18 informed and believe exceeds $250,000.00.

19 17. Defendants DOES 1-40, are employees, agents Of representatives of

20 defendant CITY OF SALINAS, who wrongfully authorized such improper

21 expenditures • Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the value of these Lmp ropez

22 expenditures of public resources and funds on behalf of themselves and other

23 city taxpayers who were deprived of the Proper value and benefit to be

,

24 enjoyed from those resources and funds. plaintiffs will request leave to

25 amend this complaint to allege the exact amount of damages and the actual

,_...--...~

- 1

1

000005

names of the defendants and the exact basis for their liability once they are

2 determined through discovery.

3 18. Defendant DAVID MORA at all times herein mentioned had a duty to

4 exercise due care to determine whether the allocation of public funds and 5 resources was not made for partisan political purposes.

6 19. Defendant DAVID MORA was negligent in that he failed to exercise

7 reasonable dilig.ence in authorizing the allocation of funds and public

8 resources and, as a proximate result of defendant's negligence, public funds 9 and resources were expended for an improper partisan political purpose.

10 20. Defendant DAVID MORA personally benefited from the expenditure of 11 public funds and resources to oppose Measure 0 in that it served to prevent 12 the passage of Measure 0, which would personally affect him by requ:i,.ring him

~13 to efficiently manage the City, would subject his management abilities to 14 scrutiny, exposing his mismanagement and failure to conserve public tax 15 dollars, and would place his job in jeopardy.

16 21. Defendant DAVID MORA' s improper use of public funds and resources

17 has damaged plaintiffs and all taxpayers and voters in an am.ount which

18 plaintiffs are presently unable to precisely ascertain, but which plaintiffs 19 are informed and believe exceeds 250,000.00. Plaintiffs will request leave 20 to amend this complaint to allege the exact amount of damages once they are 21 determined through discovery. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover these

22 damages from defendant DAVID MORA for the CITY OF SALINAS on behalf of all 23 taxpayers of the CITY OF SALINAS.

24

25

/...-......,

- .5

~ 1 2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

~13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

~25

0('0006

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief)

22. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate herein and reallege as though fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1- 21, inclusive, above.

23. An actual and present controversy exists between the parties in

that plaintiffs believe the use of Salinas city public resources, supplies, equipment, employee time and funds to prepare and distribute the campaign materials is illegal and violates the constitutional rights of Sa.linas taxpayers whose tax dollars are being diverted to promote a partisan political cause which they do not support, whereas defendants believe the campaign materials and preparative activities are valid in all respects.

24. Plaintiffs desire a judicial determination of the rights and duties of the parties, including a declaration regarding the propriety of the campaign materials and the expenditure of public funds to prepare and distr~bute the campaign materials.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Injunctive Relief)

25. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporate herein and reallege as though fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

241 inclusive, above.

26. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the harm and injury that will be caused to the democratic electoral process by defendant's

- 6

1

- 7

000007

partisan involvement in the election contest and interference with and

2 distortion of that process in that an unfair advantage is bestowed upon the

3 opponents of Measure 0 which threatens to jeopardize the outcome of the

4 election.

5 27. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the harm and injury

6 that will be caused by the Imp rcpe r use of public resources and funds for the

7 preparation and publiCation of the campaign materials.

8 28. Irreparable harm and injury will follow and be suffered by

9 plaintiffs and Salinas residents unless the actions and conduct of defendants

10 are enj oined in that taxpayer dollars will continue to be spent for improper

11 purposes rather than for proper pUrposes benefiting Salinas residents.

12 29. Irreparable harm and injury will follow and be suffered by

13 plaintiffs and Salinas residents unless the actions and conduct of defendants .~

25 ~.

14 are enjoined in that the outcome of the election may be tainted and skewed to

15 result in an erroneous election result.

16 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

17

18

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION {Equitable Relief)

19

30. plaintiffs refer to and incorporate herein and reallege as though

20

fully set forth herein each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-

21

29, inclusive, above.

22

31. An equitable remedy for the harm done to the democratic electoral

23

process hy defendant's improper campaign materials .should involve not only an

24

injunction requ.;Lring defendant to cease and desist from such activity, but

specific performance by defendant correcting the damage done and balancing

1 ~,

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

.~13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

.~25

000008

the presentat;ion thus far given to the voters, by requiring defendant to either finance or to prepare and distribute literature info~ng the voters of the position of the sUpporters of Measure 0, the benefits they will enjoy from the passage of Measure 0 and the harm they will suffer if Measure 0 does not pass, or determining that the election on Measure 0 is invalid and ordering defendant to place the Utility Tax Relief Initiative on the next election ballot.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth.

PRAYER

Plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants as follows:

1. That defendant DAVID MORA be ordered to repay the expenditure of public funds and resources illegally authorized by him to oppose Measure 0, in an amount exceeding $250,000.00, according to proof;

2. That defendant be ordered to determine which of its agents were responsible for any unauthorized expenditures of public resources and funds and hold each of them accountable for repaying such amounts;

3. For a declaration that the campaign materials are improper and violate voters' rights and that defendant CITY OF SALINAS' expenditure of public resources and funds to produce and distribute the campaign materials is, likewise,improper, illegal and violates taxpayer rights;

4. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction ordering defendant CITY OF SALINAS to remove the improper campaign materials from any flyers, newsletters, pamphlets, websites, brochutes or other literatUre or communication to the general public, and to refrain from engaging in partisan political activities, at public expense or otherwise, immediately and in the future;

5. For an award of such other equitable relief as this court may determine to be proper to achieve justice based upon the facts of this case,

- 8

3

- Q I

ooooo~

1 6. For an award of plaintiffs' reasonable attorney's fees under the

r ..........

~25

10

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

2 private attorney general statute (CCP 1021.5).

7. For plaintiffs' costs of suit.

8. For such other and further relief as this court may deem proper.

4

b

---'

5

2002.

Dated: october

6

7

8

9

Steven J. Andre Attorney for Plaintiffs ANGELINA MORFIN VARGAS, MARK DIEROLF

1

2

3

000010

VERIFICATION

4 I, Angelina Morfin Vargas, am a plaintiff in the above-entitled

action. I have read the foregoing complaint and know its contents. The

5 same is true of my own knowledge; except as to those matters that are alleged in the complaint on information and belief, and as to those

6 matters, I believe them to be true.

7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of

California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this

8 verification was executed on October ~, 2002, at Salinas, County of Monterey, California.

9

10

11

12

13 .~

14

VERIFICATION

I, Mark Dierolf, am a plaintiff in t~e above-entitled action. I

15 have read the foregoing complaint and know i~ contents. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters 'that are alleged in

16 the complaint on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

'---'\

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on October ~, 2002, at Salinas, County of Monterey, Californ~a.

- 10

13 .~.

25 ~

1

- 1

2

Steven J. Andre

Attorney at Law #132633 26540 Car.mel Rancho Blvd. Carmel, CA 93923 (831)624-5786

3

4

Attorney for Plaintiffs,

ANGELINA MORFIN VARGAS, MARK DIEROLF

5

6

7

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

8

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

9

10

11

Case No.: No. M

rM61489

ANGELINA MORFIN VARGAS, MARK DIEROLF,

12

Plaintiff,

) ) EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY

) RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW. ) )

) ) ) )

vs.

CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

14

CITY OF SALINAS and DAVID MORA and

Date: November B, 2002 Time: 9:00 a.m.

15

DOES 1 - 50,

Dept, Law & Motion

16

Defendants

17

18

Plaintiffs ANGELINA MORFIN VARGAS and MARK DIEROLF apply for a

19

temporary restraining order ordering defendant CITY OF SALINAS, and its

20

agents, servants and employees to remove all mention of Measure 0 from any

21

flyers, newsletters, pamphlets, websites, brochures or other literature or

22

communication to the general public now being distributed or being prepared

23

for distribution, with the sale exception of basic, balanced, factual

24

informational material describing what Measure 0 is, and to refrain from

mention of any supposed harm to city services in the event of Measure O's

25 ~.

1

0000.1'2

passage and. front engaging in partisan political activities, at public expense

2 or otherwise, immediately and until this matter can be heard.

3 This application is made on the grounds that plaintiffs and all Salinas

4 taxpayers and voters are being subjected to and threatened with continuing

5 violation of their rights and great and irreparable harm is imminent and will

6 result to plaintiffs before this matter can be heard on notice.

7 Plaintiffs have not previously applied to any judicial officer for

8 similar relief.

9 This application is based on the verified complaint on file in this

10 case, the supporting declarati9n of Steven J. Andre, the declaration at

11 Angelina Morfin Vargas, the declaration of Mark Dierolf and the exhibits

12 attached to those declarations, and on the memorandum of Points and

14

Authorities submitted in support of issuance Dated: October~, 2002

15

16

Attorney for Plaintiffs

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

13 /~

25 .r>.

2

- 1

000013

steven J. Andre

Attorney at Law #132633 26540 Carmel Rancho Blvd. Cannel, CA 93923 (831)624-5786

3

4

Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANGELINA MORFIN VARGAS, MARK DIEROLF

5

6

7

8

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MONTEREY

9

10

11

. .

Ca'. No.: No. Mr M61489

12

ANGE~INA MORFIN VARGAS, MARK DIEROLF,) )

Plaintiff, )

)

VB. )

) CITY OF SALINAS and DAVID MORA, and ) )

DOES 1 - 50, )

)

Date: Nov. 8, 2002 Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept: Law & Motion

14

DECLARATION OF MARK DIEROLF IN SUPPORT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

15

16

17

Defendants.

18

19

I, Mark Dierolf, declare:

20

1. I am a resident of the City of Salinas, a utility

21

taxpayer, and I am a plaintiff herein.

22

2. I am the author of the ballot initiative known as the

23

"Utility Tax Relief Initii'itive of 2001" and designated "Measure 0." Measure

24

o was intended to require the City of Salinas to reduce and then repeal on

January 1, 2005, the tax burden imposed upon utility users in Salinas and to

12
13
~
14
15
16
17
18 1

require the City of Salinas to achieve a higher level of fiscal

000014

2 responsibility and to reduce its wasteful spending. Measure 0 would benefit 3 the community by placiI1g productive dollars back into the local economy where 4 these funds would increase spending, resulting in more jobs and an increase

5 in living standards for the community.

6 3. Measure 0 would result in reductions and then the eventual

7 repeal of the Utility Users' Tax.

This will mean the reduction of the City

8 of Salinas' almost $100 million annual operating budget by about $8 million 9 dollars upon repeal. An objective of Measure 0 is to require the City of

10 Salinas to achieve a higher level of fiscal responsi~ility and to reduce

11 wasteful spending.

4. Measure 0 would eliminate a disparity in what is paid between low and fixed income utility users and other utility Users. Low income users

unfairly pay proportionately more 9f their income for the tax. The Utility

Users' Tax puts small business owners at a disadvantage in comparison to large businesses l:?ecause the tax represents a larger portion of their overhead. It is more difficult for them to pass this expense on to consumers, undermining their ability to compete with larger companies and chain stores.

19 Many large businesses enjoy caps on their utility users' tax based upon their 20 high utility costs. These caps are not realistically available to small

21 businesses and low and fixed income pefsons.

22 5. It has been a major bone of contention between Measure 0 proponents

23 and opponents whether its passage would necessitate any substantial reduction 24 of any services. Measure 0 proponents, including myself, have argued that

25 more efficient use of resources should be implemented and that cuts should be

-~,

first made from upper management positions. The City is well acquainted with

- ?

1

000015

the position advocated by Measure 0 proponents. We have submitted a detailed

2 economic analysis report on savings which could be achieved through means

3 other than the cutbac~s proposed by the City of Salinas. We have explained 4 our position at City Council meetings, in the pressf and in our ballot

5 argument.

6 6. Recently, the Mayor of the City of Salinas requested assistance by

7 an independent, nonprofit organization, "Reason Pub.Li c Policy Institute"

B (RPpI} which specializes in analysis and recommendations for government

9 management reforms that result in tax savings and better service. In

10 response, RPPI advised the Mayor of potential reforms that could save more 11 than $8, OOQ, 000 annually which would be feasible by following specified

12 examples. RPPI explained to the Mayor how other cities have been able to 13 meet similar financial challenges and still be able to meet service levels .

. ~

14 RPPI' s website , provides numerous examples of methods cities may employ to 15 overcome budget cuts •

16 7. A publication entitled City Round Up News Le t-t.e r (hereinafter

17 "Newsletter") arrived in my mail a week ago. The Newsletter is published and 18 distributed by the city of Salinas.

19 B. I am familiar with the City's Newsletter publication. I am Ln fozmed

20 and believe it is mailed to every household in Salinas - around 40,000 homes. 21 This recent Newsletter (Exhibit A} is apparently a special issue timed to

22 target voters one month before the election. It is apparent that it is not 23 the usual quarterly issue of the newsletter because the issue and year, which 24 are stamped in the upper corner of the regular quarterly newsletters, is

25 absent.

/--"'\

1

00001e

9. Four of the Newsletter's eight pages were devoted to a detailed

2 accounting of supposed devastation that the City argues will result from

3 passage of Measure O. The City's description of what it perceives to be the 4 consequences of passage of Measure 0 is not even acknowledged to be political 5 argument, but is presented in the authoritative manner of a newspaper

6 reporting established facts.

7 10. On the second page of the Newsletter is the photograph of a

8 Methamphetamine lab. Beneath the photograph of the illegal drug lab is the

9 suggestion that Measure 0 proposes to eliminate certain police units and that 10 passage of Measure 0 would result in an increase in crime: "The p ropos ed

11 elimination of the Narcotics and Vice Up-it will hamper Police Department' 5

12 abili ty to promote the City Council's #1 goal of maintaining a 5 afe and

13 peaceful community." Actually, it is the City Council that has proposed the ~,

14 elimination of the Narcotics and Vice Unit in response to Measure O.

15 11. Pages one, four and five of the Newsletter are devoted to detailing 16 cuts the City argues will Qe made if Measure 0 should pass. Page one falsely 17 claims, "The Utility Users Ta~ was instituted in 1969 to provide police,

18 fire, library, parks, recreation, and capital improvements for Salinas'

19 residents.U Police~ fire, parks and recreation services all existed prior to

20 1969 in Salinas.

21 12. The page goes on to mislead readers by stating, "If the utility

22 Users Tax is repealed, the following program and service reductions will be 23 completed by March 31, 2003." It proceeds to list approximately 40 services 24 under headings, "Facilities To Be Closed'" "Programs/Services To Be

25 Eliminated," "Community Funding To Be Eliminated," "Programs/Services To Be ~.

Reduced."

- .o!I

000017

1 13. Page four describes how Measure 0 "would force the City to cut

.~

2 programs and services Ln the Police Department totaling $1.7 mi Ll.Lon . II A 3 chart is set out listing police programs and the supposed impact on each.

4 14. Page five describes supposed necessary cuts to fire department

5 services, including "Elimination of Program/Eliminates a first line of

6 defense against Bio/Chemical terrorism." Page five also lists supposedly

7 necessary cuts to recreation-park services. "The impacts of these cuts will 8 result in the closure of the following facilities: Breadbox Recreation

9 Center, Closter Park Recreation center, Central Park Recreation Center, El 10 Dorado recreation Center, Firehouse Recreation Center, Hebbron Heights

;1.1 Recreation Center and the Municipal Swimming Pool." The Newsletter goes on 12 to list other programs regarding which it states, "If the utility Users Tax 13 is repealed, the following programs will be eliminated.n

>~

14 15. All these statements are misleading because the city council has

15 other options available that avoid these cuts. These other options are

16 ignored and the statements are asserted as unquestionable.

17 16. Also, no mention of the detrimental effects of the Utility Users'

18 Tax upon low income persons and small businesses is made in the Newsletter. 19 Similarly, no mention of the benefits to be bestowed upon Salinas voters by 20 the passage of Measure 0 is made anywhere in the Newsletter. For example, 21 the beneficial effect of injecting $8 million dollars back into the local

22 economy, which will result in more spending, more jobs and generally benefit 23 the local community; the beneficial effect of eliminating wasteful government 24 spending, initiating management reforms for innovation, cost savings and

._..-...._,25 better city services.

1

17. There is no mention in the Newsletter of the position of Measure 0

000018

2 proponents that the City of Salinas is unwilling to engage in better

3 management that would preserve the earmarked services.

4 18. On July 16, 2002, the Salinas City Council responded to Measure 0

5 by adopting recommendations by City Manager David Mora identifying specif~ed

6 services earmarked to be eliminated Or reduced should the voters pass Measure

7 O. Obviously the actual decision on where to trim will be made by elected

8 officials after passage of Measure O. Threatening the voters with the cuts

9 proposed by David Mora and this City Council action is a scare tactic, and

10 has no valid purpose in addressing how to trim the City's budget. rts only

11 practical purpose was to frighten voters into believing that Measure 0 would

12 result in drastic losses of basic safety services and provide fodder for the

13 City's campaign against Measure O. This political campaign statement has ~

14 been repeated in the Newsletter as factual information. The Newsletter

15 repeatedly recites that Measure a will result in listed services being

16 eliminated or cut, althOUgh all that is really known for certain is that the

17 City' sannual revenues will be eventually reduced by about 8 million dollars

18 when the tax is repealed in 2005. The City's detailed claim specifying

19 services that are going to be cut is pure propaganda and should not be

20 disseminated to the voters as factual information. The position of Measure 0

21 proponents that these service cuts are unwarranted is ignored by the

22 Newsletter's partisan attack on Measure O.

23 19. The Newsletter lists numerous "Budget Reduction" amounts, but fails

24 to provide consistent comparisons for the targeted services. The bias here

25 is obvious - the prospective voter sees the City's spin on each of the ~.

service reductions that will paint the picture in the most negative light

1

- 7

000019

possible.

For an example, the total budget for the police department is not

2 given, but the total budget amounts are given for other service areas. The

3 potential voter is deprived of information revealing how bloated the police

4 budget is and how room existf for efficiency in administration, such as,

5 competitive bidding of parking enforcement.

6 20. At the bottom of page one of the Newsletter, the reader is advised.

7 that more information on Measure 0 is available in a Report available at the

8 three city libraries and city hall and the city's website (which I describe

9 below). The Report contains detailed descriptions of how Measure 0 opponents

10 believe services .and programs will be harmed by Measure 0' s passage. The

11 Newsletter fails to provide reference to any resources describing the

12 position of Measure 0 proponents (how taxpayers will benefit and how the

13

services in question will not need to be cut). Such resources are the ballot

14 argument in favor of Measure 0 or the "Salinas Utility Tax Relief Initiative:

15 Initial Report" which have both been available for public review since August

16 2002.

17 21. I believe the City will be publishing its regular quarterly

18 Newsletter, as well as other literature, shortly before the election and that

19 this material will contain more of the same partisan campaign material and

20 involve expenditure of more taxpayer money for this purpose.

21 22. In the last tew days, I visited the City of Salinas' website

22 (www.ci.salinas.ca.us). In the dead centiez of the home page is a large box

23 purporting to provide "Utility Users Tax Repeal Information" (Exhibit B)

24 Hundreds of pages are devoted to the subject of Measure O's supposed impact

25 upon City services. ~~.

1

- R

000020

23. Clicking on the first item, ~Facilities and Services To Be

2 Eliminated Or ReducedH brings up the City Councilrs proposal for services it

3 identified for cutbacks . It falsely proclaims, "These services would have to

4 be eliminated or reduced in order to balance the City's budget if the Utility

5 Users' Tax is repealed." (Exhibit C) A list of services is provided.

6 Clicking on each of these brings up information regarding each service. The

7 determination of how to deal with the constraints imposed by passage of

8 Measure 0 is properly made by elected officials after Measure 0 becomes law.

9 What services mayor may not be cutis purely the subject of conjecture and

10 campaign rhetoric at this juncture. The position of Measure 0 supporters,

11 including myself, which is well known to the City, is that the City should

12 focus on eliminating wasteful spending and initiate management reforms for

13 better service for less money, such as, competitive bidding for city ~

14 services.

15 24. The second item is "Report on the Impact of the Utility Users' Tax

16 Repeal Initiative." Clicking on this item. brings up content presented to the

.17 Ci ty Council by the City Manager, David Mora. I am informed and believe Mr.

18 Mora was previously the City Manager of Oxnard. He lost this job after the

19 City Council of Oxnard repealed the Utility Users' Tax there and Mr. Mora's

20 talents were not adequate to balance the City's budget. When Mr. Mora came

21 to the City of Salinas he accomplished an increase in the Utility Users' Tax

22 to its current rate of 6%. Mr. Mora's bias in favor of this tax is the

23 result of his personal interest in avoiding scrutiny of his management

24 abilities. This report is unnecessary to state the glaringly obvious fact

25 that Measure 0 would eventually cut the City's revenues by $8 million

r: -. ... \

dollars. This report presented by him is, far from being an impartial

1

- Q

000021

/

analY$is of the impact of this loss of income, sheer supposition as to how

.2 the City might suffer assuming certain cuts are made. (Exhibit D) It remains

3 to be seen, howeve r , exactly how the City of Salinas will respond to a

4 message from the voters that taxes are too high and management reforms are

5 necessary to reduce costs. Ten years ago, faced with a recession, City

6 employees voted to take a cut in pay rather than suffer other cutbacks.

7 Reduction in top heavy management and improved management skills would reap

8 huge savings not accounted for in Mr. Mora's report. The bottom line is that

9 this "report'" is nothing other than conjecture, ballot scare tactics and

10 fodder for campaign speeches. and does not belong in city literature

11 purporting to provide unbiased information on city-related issues.

12 25. The third item, "Departmental Impacts,'" falsely states, "The

13 Utility Users' Tax isa major source of General Fund Revenue. Repeal of the

/--"""

14 Utility Users' Tax will require the elimination and/or reduction of programs

15 and services. Departmental programs and services shown in the following

16 reports will be eliminated and/or reduced by March 31, 2003 if the Utility

17 Users' Tax is repealed.N (Exhibit E) The, numerous appended presentations

18 give each city department director's speculation and parade of horrors on how

19 budget cuts might affect their department. Such speculation and hand-

20 wringing is premature given the fact that Measure 0 has not yet passed and it

21 is not yet known how the City will reduce costs in response to the voters'

22 determination to cut a tax.

23 26. The fourth item; "City's response To Proponents' Proposal" refers

24 to the proposal prepared by Measure 0 proponents, but does not show it. No

25 mention is made that RPPI has advised the mayor of potential savings of more ~,

than the tax or of RPPI's examples of how savings can be achieved. The

1

000022

content of this item is a lengthy, biased presentation of the Measure 0

2 proponents' proposal and analysis of its points. It is not an impartial

3 review of any alternatives to the City Council's proposal. It is, in fact, a 4 partisan attack denouncing alternative proposals and describing the City

5 Council's proposed cuts as necessary.

(Exhibi t F)

6

27. Measure 0 is on the ballot for the November 5, 2002, election. An

7 injunction is necessary to prevent the City of Salinas from improperly using 8 additional tax dollars and from improperly influencing the outcome of ·the

9 election in the interim. An injunction is required to have the City of

10 Salinas zemcve any material concerning Measure 0 from its website and

11 elsewhere which is anything other than basic information providing a fair and 12 impartial presentation of the relevant facts in the manner of a ballot

13 analysis by the Legislative Analyst. An injunction is required to prevent

.. ..-.....,

14 the City of Salinas from engaging in any such additional interference with

15 the electoral process campaigning against Measure 0 through the date of the 16 election, in order to allow the voters to make their own evaluation of the 17 merits of Measure O.

18 28. The City's website continues to carry the slanted material

19 regarding Measure O. The City continues to distribute the Newsletter 20 containing the partisan attack on Measure o.

21 29. I am informed and believe the work involved in posting this

22 information on the website would have wasted at least a considerable sum of

.23 Salinas taxpayer dollars. Based upon the size of the Newsletter-publication, 24 the postage and number of households to which it would have been distributed, 25 the amount of taxpay.ers' dollars wasted on that propaganda is at least

/~

$20,000.

- 1 ()

1 .~

000023

30. I have checked with other volunteers of the Committee for Utility

2 Tax Relief. The City has not contacted any of us to get our input on the

3 material prepared for the Newsletter, city website, or any other publication

4 by the City.

5 31. Damage to the voters' ability to evaluate the issues is presently

6 occurring and is ongoing as the result of the City's campaign to disseminate 7 biased and partisan information regarding the initiative.

8 32. The City of Salinas' inclusion of improper ca~aign material in the

9 form of "informational" material endangers the election process and poses a

10 threat of immediate and irreparable harm to the fairness of the election

11 process and its outcome.

12 33. The City of Salinas' taking sides in the electoral process bestows

~13 an unfair advantage on the opponents of Measure 0 over its supporters.

14 34. There is no real harm suffered by the City of Salinas from

15 enjoining the website and further distribution of materials concerning

16 Measure 0 until the election. EVen proper, unbiased information is really 17 for the voters' benefit, not the City's. Othe~ uncontaminated, proper

18 avenues are available for voters to obtain information.

19 35. There is no legislation authorizing the City of Salinas to expend

20 public resources and funds in a political campaign against Measure O.

21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of

22 California that the foregoing facts are true and are personally known to me 23 or that I am informed and believe them to be true, and that this declaration 24 was executed on October ~, 2002, at

~ 25 California.

Mark Dierolf

_ 11

000-024

.~.

A

Join the City's Volunteer Services Program in celebrating "Make A

{Ji;~~t.;<?;!T Difference

Day" on Saturday, October 26, 2002. Salinas residents, as part of this national day to help others, will participate in projects designed to beautify City parksas well as home repair projects such as exterior house painting, fence repairs, and landscaping for senior citizens and low-income residents. If you

~I\fould like to volunteer for this Nonderfuladventure of the heart, please contact Cindy Rogers, Volunteer Services Coordinator at 758~7382;

Inside This Edition

Community Decides Fate 1

of Utility Users Tax

HighWays 68 and 183 2

Sr:heduled for Improvements

Utility Users Tax - 3

Frequently Asked Questions

Measure 0- 4

Impact on Polir:e Services

Utility Users Tax - 5

Impar:t on Fire, Rer:reation

and park Services

Salinas Quiz .~

":ouncil Promotes Strong Neighborhood Initiative

6

7

Directory of Services

8

Community to Decide Fate of Utility Users Tax

On November 5,2002 Salinas' voters will determine whether to continue or eliminate the City's Utility Users Tax and the services provided by the tax. The Utility Users Tax was instituted in 1969 to provide police, fire, library, parks, recreation, and capital improvements for Salinas' residents. This year, the City expects $8,060,000 in General Fund revenue or 13% of the City's total General Fund budget from the Utility Users Tax. .

On July 16, 2002, the Salinas City Council unanimously identified the services that would be eliminated or reduced if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. These services would be eliminated or reduced in order to balance the City's budget if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. If the UtilitY Users Tax is repealed, the following program and service reductions will be completed by March 31, 2003.

-------- Facilities To Be Closed --------

Breadbox Recreation Center Central Park Recreation Center

EI Dorado Park Recreation Center Firehouse Recrealion Center Municipal Pool

------Programs I Services To Be Eliminated ------

Volunteer Servlces Neighborhood Services

School Crossing Guards Hazardous Materials Control

Paramedic Services Water Conservation Planning

Graffiti Abatement Literacy Services

Narcotics & Vice Unit

Community Funding To Be Eliminated ------

Rodeo Carnival

Kiddie Kapers Parade California International Airshow

Arts Council Suicide Prevention / Crisis Center

Oldtown Maintenance Second Chance Youth Program

Cultivating Peace Initiative Sunrise House

Chamber of Commerce Community Human Services Project

Sister City Association Youth Commission

------- Programs I Services To Be Reduced -------

School Resource Officers Code Enforcement

Cesar Chavez Library

Closter Park Recreation Center EI Gabllan Library

Hebbron Heights Recreation Center

Fire Prevention

Park Maintenance Animal Control Services

Facilities Maintenance Street Tree Maintenance

An overview of the repeal's impacts on the Fire Department, Police Department and RecreationPark are highlighted in this edition of the Newsletter. Detailed information about the elimination and/or reduction of City programs and services is contained in the June 24, 2002 "Report on the Impact of the Utility Users Tax Repeal Initiative." The report is available at City Hall, at each of the three City libraries as well as available on the City's web site at www.cLsalinas.ca.us.

State of California Sets Date for Hwy 68 and Hwy 1.83 Road Improvements .

California State Highway 68 and Highway 183 are two of the major thoroughfares running through Salinas.The present pavement condition of Highway 68 (South Main and John Streets) and Highway 183 (West Market BtrE.et) is .poor, .Astreet.reconstruction, the .most.expensbze.street.rehabilltation process may be required to bring these segments of roadway up to City standards. Street reconstruction requires removing the existing pavement section and constructing entirely new street segments. The cost estimates for street reconstruction of arterial streets is approximately $1.5 million per mile.

The deteriorated road condition has resulted in many Salinas residents contacting City Hall and requesting that the City complete immediate repairs similar to those done on other local streets in the past two years. Residents who call are surprised to learn that the City does not own or have jurisdiction on these two segments of roadway to comply with their request.

,~ California cities including Salinas are only allowed-to make minimum

pairs to state roadways such as pothole repairs; In an effort for the state to make these road projects apriority, the City has worked closely with the regional CALTRANS office to get the projects scheduled. As a result of the City's efforts, the State of California Department of Transportation (CAL~ TRANS) has programmed in its budget funding for street pavement rehabilitation of those portions of Highways 68· (South Main and John Streets) and 183 (West Market Street) that run through the City of Salinas.

Completion of roadway repairs to Hwy 68 and Hwy 183will result in an increase to 92% of all City streets undergoing pavement rehabilitation since the City's aggressive street maintenance program began three years ago. This aggressive street repair program in conjunction with City Council's commitment to adequately fund an ongoing preventive maintenance program will result in an expanded life-span of our community's roadways. Residents with specific questions or concerns about the City's street repair program should contact Senior Civil Engineer Frank Aguayo at 758-7427.

0006e26

Map of Hwy 68 Through Salinas

Highway 68, which runs through Salinas along South Main Street ttom John Street to Blanco and John Street to HWY 1D1(Hwy 68) is scheduled for street reconstruction in 2004-20'05 ata cost of approximately $ 12. Omilfion.

Map of Hwy 183 through Salinas

Highway 183, which funs through Salinas along West Market Street from Davis Road to Monterey Street is scheduled for pavement rehabilitation by,CALTRANS in 2'0'05-2'0'06 at

a cost of approximately $8 million. The Hwy 183 project will include pavement rehabilitation, new pedestrian ramps that meet the requirements

of the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) curb returns, drainage and street trees.

00002~

ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Lsted below are frequently asked questions about the Utility Users Tax. Residents who would like more detailed information in regards to these questions can visit the City's web site at www.cLsalinas.ca.us or request a copy of the Utility Users Tax report from City Hall or any of the City libraries.

What is the Utility Users Tax?

-Ths-Utility-Users Tax ls a-6% tax on the following utility charges: gas, electricity, cable television, water and telephone. The Utility Users Tax is the only one of the four major General Fund revenue sources that the City receives 100% of the tax collected. All Utility User Tax dollars stay in the community and are spent entirely for the benefit of City residents. The Utility Users Tax, unlike the other three major General

Furid revenue sources: sales tax, property taxes and vehicle license fees are not shared with the state of California, other municipalities or special districts.

When did the City first begin collecting the Utility Users Tax? .

The City began collecting the Utility Users tax in 1969. The original tax rate was 5%. The tax was increased to 6% in 1994.

Were Citizens ever given an opportunity to vote for the implementation of the Utility Users Tax? No, however, the Salinas City Charter allows for the repeal of any adopted ordinance by a majority of the voters. The residents of Salinas and their elected representatives on the City Council could have considered the repeal of this tax anytime during

the last thirty-three years.

How much revenue is generated by the Utility Users Tax?

This year, the City expects approximately $8 million in General Fund revenue or 13% of the City's total General Fund budget from the Utility Users Tax.

How much does the average resident pay annually in Utility Users Taxes?

It is estimated that the average Salinas Household pays approximately $124.00 each year in Utility User Taxes. This is approximately .34 cents a day.

What does the City do with the money collected from the Utility Users Tax?

The Utility Users Tax dollars are deposited in the City's General Fund budget and it is used to provide funding for important government services including Police, Fire, recrea:tion programming, library services and park maintenance as well as the City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program.

Do residents currently have a voice in how the Utility Users Tax revenue is spent?

Yes, the Utility Users Tax is considered General Fund Revenue. Unlike revenue received from the federal or state government, the Salinas community determines how this money is spent each year. Residents are encouraged to participate in the annual budget process to determine what services are provided for the benefit of the community.

Is there any fixed income exemptions for the Utility Users Tax?

No, however, the City encourages low-income residents to apply for a variety of programs sponsored by utility companies that reduce utility bills. Examples of these programs include: PG&E's CARE Program, which provides low-income households a 20% discount on monthly energy bills; and Pacific Bell's Universal Lifeline Telephone Service that provides discounted residential telephone service to its customers who meet certain requirements.

Do Other Cities Collect a Utility Users Tax? Yes. Many other cities in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties as well as throughout the state have a utility users tax. Cities with utility users taxes include the City of Monterey, City of Santa Cruz, King City, Gonzales, Pacific Grove and Watsonville.

· _- ~.

()0002§

CUTS TO POLICE SERVICES EXPECTED '

IF MEASURE 0 IS APPROVED BY VOTERS

T he magnitude of budget reductions resulting from the potential passage of Measure 0, the initiative to repeal the Utility Users Tax, would force the City to cut programs and services in the Police Department totaling $1.7 million. The $1.7 million in proposed service cuts include: elimination of the School Crossing Guard Program, reductions in Support Services, such as removal of abandoned vehicles from public streets, elimination of the Narcotics and Vice Unit, reductions to the School Resource Officer Program, and reductions in the Animal Services Program. According to Police Chief Daniel Ortega, each of the programs to be eliminated or reduced significantly impact Salinas' "community policing philosophy" and the Department's ability to tailor services to meet specific community needs.

TIw -ohart -illustrates the flscallmpeots -ef -11113 -proposes-cuts~_

PROGRAM

School Crossing GlJards

$163,000

Elimination of Pro grain

$109,000

Reduction in Services Such as Vehicle Abatement

Support Services

Narcotics and Vice

$768,000

Elimination of Program

School Resource Officers

$585,100

Reduction in-Number of Schools Served

'~Animal Control

Reduction in Animal Shelter Services

$111,200

TOTAL

$1,737,300

Residents interested in learning more about the potential impacts to Police Services can visit the City's Web Site at www.ci.salinas.ca.us or pick up a copy of the City Manager's Utility Users Tax report at the City Hall or at any of the three City libraries.

Methamphetamine lab.

The proposed elimination of the Narcotics and Vice Unit will hamper Police Department's ability to promote the City Council's #1 goal of maintaining a safe and peaceful community.

Students at 27 Salinas schools will lose the benefit of supervised street crossing as a result of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax.

REPEAL Uri UUT IMPACTS ON FIRE SERVICES

/~ T he Fire Department's budget, if Measure 0, the Utility Users tax is repealed, will result in an annual budget reduc-

lion of $1,036,000 ($1.036 million). This cut of approximately 10% of the Department's $9.9 million budget will result in the elimination or reduction of the following programs.

IMPACT OF BUDGET CUTS

EriminationofPrograrn/Slowei'resp()n~etime forel11ergencYITlE:!dicalresponsecall

Hazardous MatenalsControll Response

·.EJirnin~ti()n ofProgr~rn/Eiiminates a . first line defense. against Bio/Chemical terrorism'

.. Adetailed reportof the potentialimpa6ts br Measure Oon th~DitlsFireDep{3r1ment pudgef'i'edddtions areavaiJabJe on line attheCity'$ Wet> Site (www.ci.salinas.ca,us). Paper copies of'. the ptyManagei's:UtiJity Users Tax' Report are available a(CityHall or at any ()fthe, .

three City libraries. ',. . . .'. . '.' .' . .. ',

/~, FINANCIAL IMPACTS: ELIMiNATIOl\l()FUTltttfUS.ERS TAX

ON RECREATION-PARK SERVICES" .

. - : ' .....

", .

The Mission of the City's Recreation-Park Department is to enhancelifethroughhigh quality recreation,e~ucationar, social and cultural programs, events and leisure activities which are responsive to a diversepopulation.Thepotential impacts of the proposed repeal of the Utility Users Taxwlll.makelt.dlfficultfcr the Recreation-Park Department to sue-

cessfully carry out this mission... ..' .. '.... '. . '" " . ..

The Department's approved operating budget for fiscal year 2002-2003 that began July 1 st is $3,791,700. The '.

proposed Utility Users Tax repealwill result in bLidget cuts totaling $1,153,700 or 30% of the Department's total operating budget. The impacts of these cuts will result in the closureotthe following facilities: Breadbox Hecreatlon Center,C1oster Park Recreation Center, Central Park Recreation Center, EI. Dorado recreation Center, Firehouse RecreationCenter,

Hebbron Heights Recreation Center and the MLlnicipaISwimmingPool.· .. ' .. " ... '.' .

More than 600,000 uses for Recreation-Park programming and .servlces .ars recorded annually. (f the. Utility Users

Tax is repealed, the following programs will be eliminated: . .' . . .

• Senior Program atthe Firehouse Recreation . '.

• Tiny Tots Day Program for 3t05 years olds eliminated at central Park, Closter Park and EI Dorado Park

• Closure of the City's Skateboard and BMX Facilities

• Elimination of drop-in programs at the Breadbox,.Gloster Park, Central Park, the Firehouse and Hebbron Heights

• Elimination of cultural, arts and athletic programs at all facilities scheduled for closure .

• Closure of the City's only year round public swimming pool

A detailed report of the potentis: impacts of Measure 0 on Recreation-Park is available by visiting the City's Web Site at www.ci.salinas.ca.us or by picking up a copy of the City Manager's Utility Users Tax Report at City Hall or at any otthe three ~City libraries.

. ,

.~ A popular hummingbird seen in the

.. gardens· of Salinas are Anna's.

Hummingbirds fly upward, forward, backward, sideways, upside down and hover. The hummingbird, in order to carry out these aeronautical feats, beats its wings at a rate of __ times per second.

(a) 100

(b) 200

(c) 300

(d) 400

§. Backyard birders know the best way to bring an American Goldfinch, with its bright yellow feathers, to their property is to set up a feeder containing: (a) Sunflower Seeds

(b) Blackberries

00003(

.1. Raptors such as haWks, falc:~ns a.nd oWlsassistill . keeping down Salina::{rodenfpopulation. A nesting . pair of barn owls with young·; ban capture ~etween

.. #~to #_ .. _ rodents each night ... .

{a)6t010 .. .

(b) 12 to 15

. (6)15 to 18 (d) 20 to 25

9. Natividad Creek Park located on Nogal Drive is the home to many different species of birds. Birdwatchers are always in for a treat When this small falcon is seen hovering or perched on wires hunting insects and small mammals.

(a) Prairie Falcon

(b) White·tailed Kite

(c) Peregrine Falcon

(d) American Kestrel

1(1. Michael Jackson had birds on his mind when he sang this famous song that raced to the top of the charts: (a) Ben

(b) Fly Robin Fly

~W~6~S~L~9~5~4~~~d~j : SJ6MSU\f

OOO@3J

City Council Promotes Strong Neighborhood Initiative

.~

T he Salinas City Council in its efforts to promote strong neighborhoods has developed the Neighborhood Problem Solver. The Neighborhood Problem Solver is a 70-page step-by-step "how to" guide that is designed to assist residents in improving their neighborhood's overall quality of life.

The idea for the Neighborhood Problem Solver was developed by City Council at meetings held with concerned residents. City Council acknowledged that the City could not solve every resident's concern through a telephone call to City Hall. However, City Council did promise residents that it would seek out new 'tools" and resources to provide residents assistance in solving problems that extended beyond the City's jurisdiction or available resources.

City Council, as a result of these meetings, requested that the City Administration identify new ''tools'' and resources that would assist residents:

• Experiencing a problem or series of problems that requires significant resources and time to resolve;

• Unable to determine where to tind assistance in resolving a community problem; and

• Already involved in active neighborhood organizations but are in need of technical assistance.

The Neighborhood Problem Solver does this and more. The Neighborhood Problem Solver and the optional technical training provided by the Neighborhood Services Coordinator are designed to assist residents in creating solutions that meet specific community needs. The Neighborhood Problem Solver is written in English and Spanish offering assistance in:

• Problem identification

• Organizing and rallying the community around a problem or set of issues

,....--.....\. Conducting effective meetings

• Assistance in finding meeting room space

• Organizing a neighborhood cleanup

• Identifying community resources

• Dealing effectively with the media

The Neighborhood Problem Solver is not a "magic potion"

or panacea for ending problems in Salinas. However, City Council is confident that this new "tool" is empowering and will assist Salinas residents in improving the quality of life of their neighborhoods. The Neighborhood Problem Solver is available on-line at www.ci.sallnas.ca.usorat the reference counter of the City's three libraries. Salinas' residents interested in learning more about the Neighborhood Problem Solver and its related training can. contact Anna Velazquez, Neighborhood Services Coordinator at 758~7229.

Jaclyn and Taide are graffittiabatement volunteers.

Salinas Kids House organized a community planting event on Seiber Street.

.~.

PL9 'ON IIVlU::l3d 'r;f'J r S'r;fN nvs

OIVd sovisoa 's'n OI:l'r;fON'r;flS 0311:l0S3l:1d

.,.---.....

._------'

W6£6 'V'J 'SBU!IBS '811'V UIOOU!l DOG IIBH AI!'J

Who do I call about ...

Abandoned/I noperative Veh icles: 831. 758.7316

Animal Control /Shelter: 831.758.7285

Assessors Office (Monterey County): 831.755.5035

Barking Dog Complaints: 831.758.7285

Building Permits: 831.758.7251

Business Licenses: : 831.758.7211

Dog Licenses: 831.758.7211

City Clerk (City Records/Meeling Agendas): •••.••••••••••••••. ; •••. 831.758.7381

Code Enforcement: 831.758.7157

Conflict Resolution (Mediation Center of Monterey County): .• 831.424.4694

Garage, Yard, Patio 8ales: , 831.758.7211

Garbage Service (BFI): 831.775-3840

Garbage Accumulation (trash, junk, debris): 831.755.4500

Graffiti: 831,758.7926

.~ Hazardous materials disposal: 831.758.7928

Home businesses: 831.758.7206

Home Repair loans (Qualified Low tncome Residents): •.•••• 831.758.7334

John Steinbeck Library: 831.758.7311

Marriage license, Birth Certificates,

Death Certificates (Monterey County Recorders IlHice): 831.755.5041

Municipal Swimming Pool: 831-758-7301

Noise Complaints (Loud Music, Loud Parties]: 831.758.7321

Police - non-emergency number: 831.758.7321

Neighborhood Watch Programs: 831. 758.7264

Parking Tickets: 831.758.7211

Recycling/Solid Waste Authority: 831. 755.1300

Sidewalk/Street Maintenance: 831.758.7233

Sherwood Hall/Community Center. 831.758.7351

Street Light Outages: 831.758.7233

8treet Sweeping: 831.758.7233

Street Trees: 831.758.7233

Traffic Signals & Signs: 831.758.7233

Weed Abatement: 831.758.7119

Zoning: 831.758.7206

000033

.' ~

Salinas, California - Official City Web Site

Page lRf2 u0003 •

• HOMS

• City~~D ~ Meetings

Members

~ public Notices

• BoarchI, Committe •• a. Co*,unhNJions

• Departlnflnts Administration I City Manager' Airport

City Attorney Community Development

Development and permits

~ Fire Ubrary f.Ql!M

Public Works Recreation-Park Redevelopment

• MIIP5

• G.ne .... Pl.,.

• Municipal Code

• Govemment links

• Privacy Statemenl

• Legal DisClaimer

• ColtmctUs

http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us!

Search The Site

City of Salinas, California Official Web Site

!~at~hALL";~rd~_ li:!~~~@,j!~,1

Mayor's Welcome Message

.. Quick Links

• Citr ".ilill "'u.s

• atr HOn.VS

• CommuniJy Profile

• Employm_t

• Neighborhood Problem Solver

• PelS. Qf Tb. Wuek

• Fkoc .. km&

l.c!.fsure ActlVItlos-

• Site Updates

• UtiJ1tlt Services

• Who Do I CaU Ai)Qvt •••

Utility Users Tax Repeal Information

Facilities and Services To Be Eliminated Or Reductd

Report on the Impact of the Utility Users Tax Repesllnitiative •

Departmental Impacts

City's Response To Proponents' Proposal

Voter Infonnation • November 2002 Election

*Somtl, dotumenh on IhI; site. rsquire the trIg Adc,l)l'I AnlDblill Reader whloh ~$lIllh mot~ CD~. YoUll8tl gllU~ ora/lllP9fllde,~ c:liddng th huHall! 0410 .. _

City Roundup Newsletter·

Summer Issue

Senior Newsletter October Issue

Development and permits Newsletter' Summer/Fallls$ue

• ClTYCOUNCI". UPDATE

Previous Information Bulletins

"- .. - .. - .. ~'- .. - .. ~~,~~-

• crrYHALL NeWS

Permit Center Fire - Temporary Relocations Qualified Candidates For Mayor and Council Seats

10/512002

· Salinas, California - Official Citv Web Site

Page 2 of2

000035

Neighborhood problem Solver - A Solutions Guide Safer School Crossings - New Speed Sign Salinas Airshow - October 4 - 6 - Featuring The Blue Angels

National Make A Difference Day - Saturday. Oct 26th Community Cleanup

Holiday Craft Faire

Snow In The Park

Previoys News Articles

http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/

10/5/2002

000036

/..--.....\

saunas U UT Facrtrues to Close

Page 1 of3

000037

• HOME

• City Qoundl ~ Meetings

Members Minutes PubilCNotices

• Boards, Coft'lftdtt ••• &O~OftS

• Oft~1tt$ Administration I

City Manager J AIrport

City Attornev Community Deyelopment

Development and Permits

Finance m ~ Police

Public Works Recreation-Park Redevelopment

.Map$

• General Plan

• Municipal Code

• Government Links

• Privacy Statement

• Legal Disclaimer

• ConfactUs

REPEAL OF THE UTILITY USERS TAX

On November 5, 2002 Salinas' voters will determine whether to continue or eliminate the City's Utility Users Tax and the services provided byiheiax.

The Utility Users Tax was instituted in 1969 to provide police, fire library, parks, recreation and capital improvements for Salinas' residents. This year, the City expects $8,060,000 in General Fund revenue or 13% of the City's total General Fund budget from the Utility Users Tax.

On July 16, 2002, the Salinas City Council unanimously identified the services that would be eliminated or reduced if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. These services would have . to be eliminated or reduced in order to balance the City's budget if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. If the Utility Users Tax is repealed, these program and selVice reductions will be completed by March 31, 2003.

Facilities To Be Closed

Breadbox Recreation Center

Closter Park Recreation Center

El Dorado Park Recreation Center

Central Park Recreation Center

Hebbron Heights Recreation Center

Firehouse Recreation Center

El Gabilan Library

Municipal Pool

Cesar Chavez Library

Programs I Services To Be Eliminated

Volunteer Services

Neighborhood Services

School CrOSSing

Hazardous

http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/Admin/UUT/uutimpact.html

Search The Site

Match~7AI.i..;ordS'.· ._. _ 1;\§~~£~n.,:4 n __

._ickUnk$

utilitY Users Tax Report

City Manager's 2002·2003 Budget Recommendations

2002-2003 Adopted Budget - Slide Presentation

Departmental Impacts

Analvsis of Proponents' Proposal

10/5/2002

eaunas u U 1 1:' aeumes 10 Close

t'age 1. 01 j

000038

Guards

Materials Control

Paramedic Services Water

Conservation Planning

Graffiti Abatement Literacy Services

Narcotics & Vice Unit

Community Funding To Be Eliminated

Rodeo Carnival
Kiddie Kapers California
Parade International
Airshow
Suicide Prevention I Arts Council
Crisis Center
Oldtown Second Chance
Maintenance Youth Program
Cultivating Peace Sunrise House
Initiative
Community Human Chamber of
Services Project Commerce
Sister City Youth
Association Commission Programs I Services To Be Reduced

Fire Prevention

Code Enforcement

Park Maintenance

Facilities Maintenance

Animal Control Services

Street Tree Maintenance

Detailed information about the elimination and/or reduction of these programs and services is contained in the June 24, 2002 Report on the Impact of the Utility Users Tax Repeal Initiative. The report is available in City Hall and in all City libraries.

http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/AdminlUUT/uutimpact.htmI

1015/2002

000039

fx.O

saunas UU 1 l'aCllltleS to Close

Page 3 01"3

000040

,.---..._.

http://www.ci.salinas.ca.us/Admin/UUT/uutimpact.html

101512002

000041

CITY OF SALINAS

Report on the Impact of the Utility Users Tax Repeal Initiative

June 24,2002

CITY OF SALINAS

Councilmember District 1

Roberto Ocampo Council member Disfrict2

Janet Bames Counoilmember Districl3

Daniel Ortega Police Chief

John Fair

Director of Public Works

John Copeland Director of Finance

Charmaine Geiger Director of Development

David Pasquinelli

Director of Development & Permit Services

Anna Caballero Mayor

Dave Mora City Manager

Jim Sanchez City Attorney

Gloria De La Rosa Councilmember District 4

Jan Collins Councilmember District 5

Jy1 Lutes Councilmember Dlstrict 6

Larry Bussard Director of Redevelopment

Daniel Hernandez Fire Chief

Gary Davis Director of Recreation

Julia Orozco Ubrary Director

Jorge Rifa

Assistant City Manager

000042

000043

CITY OF SALINAS ~ UTILITY USERS TAX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL FINANCIAL SUMMARIES

Exhibit· A General Fund and Utility Users Tax - Revenue Collection History , 1

Exhibit· B FY 02-03 Budget - Status Quo and Full Impact of Utility Users Tax Repeal 2

Exhibit - C FY 02-03 Through FY 05-06· Utility Users Tax Revenue 3

Exhibit - 0 FY 02-03 Utility Users Tax· Repeal Impact through March 2003 ..4

- ExllibiF cry-OZ.;o:nJtiiiW Users Tax~ Repeai impacl througH june "2003 .•.. " -:-:5

Exhibit - F FY 02-03 Revenue - General Fund and Restricted Funds " 6

Exhibit· G FY 90-91 through FY 00-01 • General Fund Revenue 7

Exhibit - H FY 90-91 through FY 00·01 • General Fund Revenue-Major Sources 8

Exhibit - I FY 02-03 through FY 10·11 -Impact Restoration 9

UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL - PROGRAM & SERVICE REDUCTIONS

Summary of Recommended Program and Service Reductions 11

Administration

Volunteer Services , ~ 13

Neighborhood Services 14

Finance

Information Systems 15

City Attorney's Office

City Attorney's Office 16

Non-Departmental

Community Programs 17

Joint Powers Authorities 18

Other AgenCies and Programs 19

Police

School Crossing Guards 20

Support Services 21

Narcotics I Vice 22

School Resource Officers 23

Animal Control Services 24

Fire

Suppression - Paramedic Rescue Squad 25

Emergency Medical Servfces 26

Prevention 27

Hazardous Materials Control 28

Development & Permit Services

Code Enforcement 29

00004~

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Public Works

Water Conservation Planning ., 30

Graffiti Abatement 31

Facilities Maintenance , 32

Park Maintenance 33

Street Tree Maintenance 34

Maintenance Services Support 35

Recreation Parks

Administration 36

Breadbox Recreation Center 37

Closter Park Recreation Center 38

EI Dorado Park Recreation Center 39

Central Park Recreation Center 40

Aquatics - Municipal Pool 41

Firehouse Recreation Center 42

Hebbron Heights Recreation Center 43

Library

Administration 44

Cesar Chavez Library 45

EI Gabilan Library , 46

Literacy Services 47

UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL - ALTERNATIVES

Summary of Alternative Program and Service Reductions 49

City Council

Travel I Training I Community Support 50

Administration

City Manager's Office , 51

Human Resources , 52

Finance

Purchasing 53

City Attorney's Office

City Attorney's Office 54

Community Development

Planning & Development 55

Non-Departmental

Other Services - Training 56

Police

Traffic Unit 57 .

Violence Suppression Unit , 58

000045

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

TABLE OF CONTENTS

.' ~

Fire

Suppression - Rotating Station Closure 59

Training I Disaster Preparedness 60

Public Works

Administration 61

Facilities I Water Engineering 62

Development I Transportation Engineering 63

Street Maintenance 64

Recreation Parks

Recreation Center 65

Library

Administration : 66

Technical Services 67

Steinbeck Library , 68

000046

MEMORANDUM

DATE: June 24, 2002

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: Dave Mora, City Manager

SUBJECT: Utility Users Tax Repeal

Introduction

On July 16m, the City Council will begin its deliberation of the impacts associated with the proposed repeal of the Utility Users Tax. The repeal is scheduled for a vote on November 5, 2002.

On Election Day, Salinas' residents will go to the polls to determine the quality of life for their community. The repeal initiative proposes to eliminate the City's six (6%) percent Utility Users Tax. Under the provisions of the repeal, the tax will be reduced from six (6%) percent to three (3%) percent immediately, followed by a reduction to one (1%) percent on January 1, 2004 and elimination on January 1.2005. The magnitude of the revenue loss - in excess of thirteen (13%) percent of the General Fund results in significant permanent reductions in programs and services.

Background

In order to correctly assess the real impacts of repealing the Utility Users Tax, there must be an understanding of the history of the Utility Users Tax, its importance to City finances, and Salinas' financial status.

Salinas Utility Users Tax

So what is the Utility Users Tax? It is a tax established by ordinance almost thirty-three (33) years ago, on July 28, 1969. As a locally determined and approved ordinance, the tax has been subject to consideration by the residents of Salinas since the day it was first enacted. The residents of Salinas and their elected representatives on the City Council could have considered the repeal of this tax anytime during the last thirty-three (33) years. This fact is offered because of the statement by proponents of the repeal, that the tax has never been approved by the voters and that Proposition 218 gave residents the ability to repeal the tax. This fact is one of many that will be offered in this report in response to inaccurate statements made by the repeal proponents.

The tax was enacted to support General Fund programs and services, including police, fire, recreation, parks, streets, libraries, and the capital improvement program. Exhibit - A on page 1 recaps the history of Utility Users Tax and General Fund revenue collections. The tax is paid on cable television, electricity, natural gas, telephone, and water utilities. The initial rate was five (5%) percent with a $500 cap. The cap was increased to $1,500 in FY 1990-91 and to $2,000 in FY 1994- 95. The rate was increased to six (6%) percent in FY 1994-95. Since its inception, the Utility Users Tax has ranged from 8.40% to 13.60% of the City's General Fund revenue. In the last ten (10) years, the Utility Users Tax has averaged 12.75% of the City's General Fund revenue. In simple terms, the Utility Users Tax is a consistent, reliable, locally controlled source of revenue to provide police, fire, recreation, parks, streets, libraries, and the capital improvement program - just as it was

000047

,~ UTlLITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 2

intended in 1969.

In the last seven (7) years of actual collections -- since the six (6%) percent rate has been in place -- total collections have increased approximately $405,800 per year. To a large extent, this growth is directly attributable to additional homes and businesses in the City paying the tax. The FY 2000- 01 collections were double the average increase -- $830,839. This fact is noted to identify the socalled "windfall t1 that has been characterized as one reason to repeal the tax. If there was a "windfall", it was approximately $425,000 ($830,839 less the average annual increase). The "windfall" characterization is yet another reason cited by proponents of the repeal to eliminate the Utility Users Tax. The "windfall" characterization is associated with the utility rate increases during the winter and spring of 2000-01. Yes there were definitely increases in residents' PG&E rates and charges for a period of months in FY 2000-01. The fact is that the increases were not permanent. This fact can be determined by anyone taking his/her PG&E bill and specifically identifying the

months when the charges were higher than average. In fact, PG&E rates returned to pre- FY 2000-01 levels shortly thereafter.

Interestingly, rates for the other utilities subject to the tax did not "spike" during FY 2000-01 nor have they increased substantially. The utility users tax based on PG&E bills represent approximately fifty (50%) percent of the City's utility users tax revenues. The other fifty (50%) percent of the utility users tax revenue is based on telephone, water, and cable television services. Yet the repeal proponents argue that the entire tax should be repealed because of the increases in utility rates.

A final comment on the "windfall" issue; the "windfall" has been specifically identified by one repeal proponent as $3,000,000. The facts - actual Utility Users Tax revenue to the City - indicate a $425,000 above average collection in FY 2000-01. If one is to attempt to identify this as the socalled "windfall", the fact is that it is no where near the claimed $3,000,000.

Salinas General Fund

,-" ..

The Utility Users Tax does not stand in isolation. As already stated, the Utility Users Tax is a

General Fund revenue. The City's General Fund budget is the primary financing vehicle providing programs and services to residents at little or no cost other than the taxes paid by those residents. General Fund revenues support libraries, parks, recreation, police, fire, street maintenance, administrative services (e.g. finance), community development, and similar services. The overall per capita: General Fund tax base for the City of Salinas is well below California and Monterey County and City averages. The adopted FY 2002-2003 General Fund budget represents an investment of approximately $431 per resident.

This potential for investment in services for Salinas' residents ranks lower in comparison (with the exception of Seaside) to the larger cities in the local area. By way of comparison for FY 2001-2002:

FY 2001-2002 2001 PER
COMMUNITY GENERAL FUND POPULATION CAPITA
Monterey s 42,855,183 29,702 s 1,442.83
Santa Cruz 47,720,182 55,028 867.19
.~. Gilroy 28,175,232 43.539 647.12
Watsonville 27,837,121 47,707 583.50 000048

r>. UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 3

Seaside 13,186,500 32,079 411.06

The potential for investment in services also ranks lower than most comparably sized jurisdictions in California. Byway of comparison for FY 2001·2002:

FY 2001-2002 2001 PER
COMMUNITY GENERAL FUND POPULATION CAPITA
Irvine $ 95,546,070 150,077 $ 636.64
Santa Rosa 94,999,000 150,928 629.43
Ontario 97,454,717 162,332 600.34
Hayward 101,900,000 144,037 707.45
Oceanside 74,124,253 165,415 448.11
Pomona 61,182,931 154,741 395.38
Santa Clarita * 48,965,349 155,124 315.65
Moreno Valley* 42,421,861 146,505 289.55 *Both Santa Clarita and Moreno Valley contract for police and fire services.

The per capita comparison gives evidence of at least two (2) conclusions. The City has significantly less current General Fund revenue than other communities and City services are relatively efficient as services are provided with less than average resources. At the same time, it must be concluded

...-....\ that the City is not flush with funds and that any decrease in revenue will result in a decrease in services and programs supported by that revenue.

FY 2002-03 General Fund Programs / Services

Although the available resources are not as rich as most other communities, those resources provide necessary public services in a variety of areas. The FY 2002-03 adopted Geneml Fund budget details departmental expenditures as follows:

Police Department s 23,134,400 (36.2%)
Public Works Department 11,086,800 (17.4%)
Fire Department 9,927,700 (15.5%)
N on-Departmental 4,088,800 ( 6.4%)
Library Department 3,482,800 ( 5.5%)
Finance Department 3,204,700 ( 5.0%)
Recreation R Parks Dept 3,180,900 ( 5.0%)
Development & Permit Dept 2,436,500 ( 3.8%)
Administration Department 1,470,500 ( 2.3%)
Community Development 956,500 ( 1.5%)
City Attorney's Department 598,900 ( 0.9%)
City Council Department 174,400 ( 0.3%)
Block Grant and Housing 143.300 ( 0.2%)

.: ~. Total $ 63,886,200 (100.00%) 000049

~\ UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page#4

Public Safety expenditures (Police and Fire Departments) represent 51.7% of the Operating Budget. As a primarily service providing organization with services provided by employees, Employee Services expenses represent a large percent of the budget -- 80.96% of the General Food expenditures. The FY 2002-03 allocation of expenditures in major categories is as follows:

Employee Services Supplies and Materials Outside Services Other Charges

Capital Outlay

Total

s 51,727,800 2,286,700 6,893,800 2,834,900

143.000

s 63,886,200

( 80.97%) ( 3.58%) ( 10.79%) ( 4.44%) ( 0.22%)

(100.00%)

Given the percentage of the budget dedicated to public safety (51.7%) and the percentage dedicated to salaries and benefits (80.97%), it is obvious that any significant reduction in expenditures will require reductions in both employee services and in public safety.

FY 2002-03 General Fund Revenue

Assuming that there is agreement that General Fund expenses are as stated, we now must tum to the source of revenues that provide for services. As already noted, the Utility Users Tax has been, since 1969, a significant and reliable source of General Fund revenue. It is today one of'four (4) major revenue sources accounting for over seventy-six (76%+) of the City's General Fund. The FY 2002- 03 adopted budget lists those four (4) primary sources as follows:

Sales Tax $ 21,425,000 (34.9%)
Property Tax 8,990,300 (14.7%)
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 8,200,000 (13.4%)
Utility Users Tax 8,060,000 (13.1%)
Subtotal s 46,675,300 (76.1%) Other General Food resources for FY 2002-2003 include:

Other Revenue Interfund Transfers Reserve Transfers Fund Balance

s 14,652,000 375,300 1,900,000 561,344

Of the four major General Fund revenue sources, only the Utility Users Tax is returned to Salinas' taxpayers in its entirety. The City of Salinas receives slightly less than one cent for every seven and one-quarter cents paid by residents in sales tax. Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees are collected by the State and allocated to cities based on population, with the allocation subject to the Legislature's and Governor's annual approval.

000050

---\ UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 5

Property Tax revenue requires more explanation, especially since most residents may feel that their property tax pays for City services. In FY 2000-01, Salinas' property owners paid $54,889,123 in basic property tax. Of that amount, $7,577,277 or 13.8% of the total paid by City property owners came to the City of Salinas. The shift in property tax distributions begun by Sacramento in the early 1990's has resulted in a County-wide property tax distribution system. The result for Salinas -- the City of Salinas receives approximately $3.00 for each $100 paid County-wide. The conclusion that can be drawn from these facts is that property tax, although a significant revenue source, is entirely subject to the whims of Sacramento with both political parties feeling at liberty to take these funds from cities and counties.

Getting back to the Utility Users Tax issue, the City of Salinas receives 100% of the Utility Users Tax. It is the only tax paid by most (if not all) residents that it is used solely for services and programs in the City.

Fixed Costs

There is one additional item of background information required before any specific impacts of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax can be assessed. Although Employee Services account for almost eighty-one (81 %) percent of the total expenditures, there are other expenditures that represent programs and services that are so critical to residents that those expenses cannot be reduced. These fixed costs include traffic signals and streetlights that require electricity; PG&E requires a payment for that electricity. Fixed costs also include Monterey County booking fees and the City's fair share of operating the County-wide 911 emergency communications system. City debt service payments must be made for fire engines and facilities (e.g. animal shelter). Insurance policies must bepaid, The FY 2002-03 General Fund budget includes approximately $4,150,500 for these fixed costs. These items cannot be considered for reduction in the event that the Utility Users Tax is repealed.

Repeal of the Utility Users Tax

With apologies for the extent of the background provided, it is now appropriate to discuss the impacts of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax. The City Council has previously received two (2) separate reports identifying potential impacts of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax. A summary was presented in June 2001 with the submission of the recommended FY 2001-02 and FY 2002-03 budgets. The summary described an alternative that maintained all police and fire services. In order to do so, all library and recreation centers were closed, all General Fund support to community programs was eliminated, and there remained a requirement to reduce all other programs by over ten (10%) percent.

,~

Later in 2001, a second report identified potential reductions in all departments (including police and fire) that could be used for discussion purposes in order to provide alternatives toward meeting the objective of reducing the General Fund in an amount equal to the Utility Users Tax. The total cost of programs and services identifted was almost $17,000,000. These reductions were identified solely for the purpose of providing alternatives for consideration. It was never suggested that all the items identified for consideration be eliminated from the budget. Rather, the list

<~ UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 6

000051

provided potential reductions that could be made in every City General Fund supported department. The current report takes the next step. specifically identifying approximately $8,000,000 in reductions by department and program. A second list of potential reductions is also identified in order to provide the community and the City Council with alternatives.

The estimated Utility Users Tax in FY 2002-03 is $8,060,000, an amount lower than former estimates before the recession began to take its toll. $8,060,000 is 13.1% of the City's General Food revenue. This report identifies the full impact of the repeal, discusses the so-called "phasing" of the reduction, and provides alternatives for the City Council and community to consider -- what services should be maintained and what services should be reduced or eliminated?

Although done with great reluctance, this report specifically identifies permanent program and service reductions required to balance the City's General Fund budget if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. Although these reductions are identified as recommendations, they are provided only because there is no choice but to identify them. The City of Salinas cannot spend more than its income.

Exhibit - B on page 2 outlines the full impact of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax. A summary of the $8,077,800 of department reductions identified for consideration is on pages 11 and 12. Departmental reductions include:

Administration Finance

City Attorney Non-Departmental Police

Fire

Development & Permit Services Public Works

Recreation & Parks

Library

Less: Municipal Pool Revenues

Department Reductions

$ 160,700 164,500 91,900 700,800 1,737,30G 1,036,000

208,300 1,908,700 1,153,700 L058,900 8,220,800

(143,000)

$ 8,077,800

The amount of reductions - $8,OOO,OOO+/~ - is not debatable; there wi1I be no revenue to offset the expenditures. The specific reductions can and should be a matter of debate. The debate and determination of specific reductions should he made well before the November election. The residents of Salinas should know what is at stake in the repeal of the Utility Users Tax.

There are alternative reductions that can be made to those outlined on pages 11 and 12. Alternatives are included in this report on page 49 and in summary include the following departments:

000052

.~ UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 7

City Council Administration Finance

City Attorney Community Development N on-Departmental

Police

Fire

Public Works Recreation & Parks Library

Total

$ 16,000 $ 175,500 $ 60,400 $ 137,600 $ 131,300 s 60,000 s 987,800 $ 921,800 s 742,000 $ 61,700 $2.423.900

$5,718,000

This second list provides alternatives so that the recommended list can be reviewed with a possibility of maintaining some program or service. However, the retention of a program from the recommended list (e.g. school resource officers) requires that a reduction be made in some other General Fund program.

Phasing of Reductions

One matter of debate that hopefully can be settled with this report, is how quickly the reductions must be made. The requirement for a timely reduction in expenses quite simply is mandatory in order to maintain the financial integrity of the City.

Three (3) exhibits in this report are the cornerstones of staff's recommendation regarding the need to reduce expenditures quickly if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. Exhibit - C on page 3 identifies the flow of Utility Users Tax revenue from FY 2002~03 through FY 2005~06 if the tax is repealed. The exhibit includes a monthly straight-line revenue forecast as well as a modest growth assumption. In summary, Utility Users Tax revenue for the so-called "phase-out" period is as follows:

Normal
Fiscal Year UUT Revenues Year's Loss Ctnnulative Loss

FY 2002~03 $8,060,000 $2,350,800 $2,350,800
FY2003-04 $8,382,400 $2,915,000 $5,265,800
FY2004-05 $8,717,700 $2,067,600 $7,333,400
FY2005-06 $9,066,400 $ 726,600 $8,060,000 ..r-, Exhibit - D on page 4 details a FY 2002-03 expenditure plan for the programs and services included in this report for elimination if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. Assuming that these necessary

000053

~, UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 8

programs and services are maintained through at least the November election date and more likely through December 31,2002 prior to consideration of reductions, $4,101,150 will be spent. This six (6) month expenditure represents seventy-two (72%) percent of the estimated total Utility Users Tax revenues ($5,709,200) that will be collected in FY 2002-03 if the tax is repealed. Given employee layoff processes mandated in agreements between the City and its employees, many of the programs and services will continue to operate for months after the repeal of the tax. The best case scenario for program and service reductions assuming repeal of the tax would likely see full elimination of all services (on average) by March 31, 2003. If all programs and services are eliminated in that time frame, the additional requirement for use of the City's operating reserve would be $236,200 leaving a reserve balance of$1,423;800.

Exhibit - E on page 5 illustrates that the worst case scenario for so called "phase-out" would be all programs and services continuing through June 30, 2003. In that case, the additional contribution from the City's General Fund Operating reserve would be $2,368,600 creating a deficit Operating Reserve balance of $708,600 -. The City would be operating in a deficit situation inasmuch as the estimated Operating Reserve balance for June 30, 2003 in the adopted status quo "recession" budget is $1,660,000. This detail is presented for the sole purpose of addressing the so-called "phasing" issue that the proponents of repeal are presenting. The "phasing" argument is similar to the "windfall" argument - inaccurate at best.

,~ In summary, assuming all programs and services included in the $8,077,800 repeal recommendations are implemented no later than March 31, 2003, the June 30,2003 Operating Reserve will be reduced to $1,423,800 as follows:

UUT FY02-03 Use of Reserve
Revenue EXQenditures Reserves Balance
$ 1,660,000
July - December $ 3,694,100 s 4,101,150 s 407,050 1,252,950
January - March 1,007,550 1,844,250 836,700 416,250
April-June 1,007,550 0 0 1,423,800 Should all programs and services included in the $8,077,800 repeal recommendations continue through June 30, 2003, the June 30, 2003 Operating Reserve will be reduced to a negative $708,600 as follows:

UUT FY02-03 Use of Reserve
Revenue EXQenditures Reserves Balance
s 1,660,000
July - December s 3,694,100 $ 4,101,150 $ 407,050 1,252,950
January - March 1,007,550 1,844,250 836,700 416,250
April-June 1,007,550 2,132,400 1,124,850 ( 708,600) 'The last entry - a negative $708,600 - is not possible. The City cannot spend more than is available in General Fund resources. The case is obvious. Programs and services must be reduced as soon as legally possible if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. Otherwise, the City will

000054

~\ UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 9

be in a deficit spending situation. Other Impacts

If we assume that the City is reasonably successful in reducing all required programs and services in a timely manner - say March, 2003 - there are other implications that will be immediately seen. One of the more serious impacts will be the absence of any General Fund Capital Improvement Program for at least a couple of years. The General Fund CIP is funded by savings each year, in the General Fund - the difference between revenues and expenditures. The loss of the Utility Users Tax will eliminate the single largest General Fund revenue source guaranteed for use in the City of Salinas as the Utility Users Tax is not subject to state intervention (takeaway) as has been the case with Property Tax and Vehicle License Fees (VLF) and frightfully legally possible in the case of the Sales Tax. There will be no investment in preventive maintenance and little if any activity other than that which might be classified as life threatening. As an alternative, as equipment (e.g. playground equipment) is damaged, it will be removed from service. The municipal pool project will be abandoned and the current pool closed. Discussions regarding a new police facility, a new Northside library and gymnasium, and possible City help with a new Senior Center will cease for years to come.

The City's ability to aid enterprise funds through periods of fmancial hardship will be terminated. In the past, the City General Fund aided the Industrial Waste facility to pay for interim costs while

,.-..._, rates were slowly adjusted. The General Fund was fully reimbursed. The City's General Fund is currently aiding in the overall financial plan for the Twin Creeks and Fairways Golf Courses. The support will have to be removed and the green fees increased accordingly.

An even greater consequence of the repeal will be the permanent impact on services to City residents. The services that will be eliminated are needed today. A strong case can be made today that existing service and program levels, numbers of police and firefighters, library and parks facilities, etc. are not up to California and/or national standards. It will be years before the City can consider restoring the reductions that will be required if the Utility Users tax is repealed. It will be even more years after the restoration that the City will be able to add to current service levels. Without revenue, services and programs cannot be provided.

1£ nothing else should be the means of evaluating the productivity of existing City of Salinas programs and operations, the General Fund per capita expenditure should be acceptable. The current $431 per capita will be reduced to $375 with the repeal of the Utility Users Tax. Can anyone honestly say that a loss of $56 for every City resident will not lead to a reduction in services and programs?

Other Funds

Of course, there are those that come forward and boldly state that the City has significantly more than the anticipated $61,317,300 in FY 2002-03 General Fund revenue stated in this report and in the adopted FY 2002-03 operating budget. After all, the City's total revenue included in the FY

'~\ 2002-03 budget is $115,216,400. At $8,000,000+1-, they say the Utility Users Tax is not such a great loss.

000055

r>; UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 10

Exhibit - F on page 6 in this report provides a summary of the City's total revenues. Each of the listed restricted funds is collected for a specific purpose under law. Some of the restrictions are from the State and Federal governments. Some of the restrictions are local.

Let's examine the locally restricted funds and determine what potentia] discretion there is within those funds. The most prominent category is Enterprise Funds. The fees and charges collected from the users of services and programs in those funds pay for what they receive. Users of the airport, golf courses, storm water, sewer, and industrial waste funds cannot be charged for services they do not receive - library, recreation, parks, police, fire, etc. How about the $14,195,000 Special Construction Assistance Fund? It certainly is a lot of money. Of course it is collected specifically for various capital projects, a majority of which is tied to new development paying its way. The salaries and benefits of police officers, librarians, firefighters, street maintenance workers, account clerks, and secretaries are not capital investments.

Each of the restricted funds has its rules. The proponents of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax know those rules. If they do not, they should not be commenting in the depth they like to regarding City finances. Certainly someminimum financial knowledge should be demanded of them. In the most simple statement possible, the Utility Users Tax is a General Fund revenue and its repeal must be absorbed in General Fund services and programs. There is no "pot of gold" to replace the Utility

/-,\ Users Tax.

Alternatives

Having discussed the issues of "phasing" and other funds, what alternatives remain available to the specific items identified earlier in this report as reductions in General Fund services?

Employee Compensation

Some have advocated that City employees should reduce salaries and benefits. This suggestion is premised on at least one fact - over eighty (80%) percent of the City's General Fund revenue is invested in employee services - salaries and benefits.

Let's consider all the facts. The City's General Fund budget is the primary financing vehicle that provides programs and services to residents. As with all service organizations, employees are responsible for providing services. Employees are compensated and salaries and benefits represent approximately eighty (80%) percent of General Fund expenditures. These are the salaries and benefits of librarians, parks maintenance workers, accountants, firefighters, land use planners, police officers, construction inspectors, street maintenance workers, clerks, managers, and all employees of the City who either directly provide services to residents and businesses or support the provision of those services. With few exceptions, the salary and benefits currently provided to City of Salinas employees are average or slightly below average for similar size communities in California. This problem is even more aggravated by the salaries and benefits paid in local government jurisdictions

/-'\ and by private sector employers immediately north of Monterey County where many comparable positions pay at least ten (10%) percent above City salaries and provide benefits generally greater

00005~

/---\ UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 11

than those paid in Salinas (i.e, City paid employee retirement contribution).

The staffing levels of all City departments are less than averages throughout the State and below national averages for public safety. The primary reason is that the overall per capita General Fund tax base for the City of Salinas is well below California and Monterey County and City averages. This fact has already been discussed.

With these facts in mind, the advocates of the repeal must step forward and make their recommendations on appropriate compensation levels for City employees. Are the repeal proponents advocating that all City employees, including police and fire, reduce compensation by at least sixteen (16%) percent? Or perhaps the repeal proponents are suggesting that all non-safety employees reduce their compensation by almost thirty-seven (37%) percent so that police and fire salaries and benefits can be maintained? In either case, have these proponents of repeal read the Salinas Californian, the Monterey County Herald, the San Jose Mercury. or any other classified advertisements listing vacancies and salaries for librarians, accountants, parks maintenance workers, police officers, firefighters. and local government managers? The City, just as any other major employer, must compete in the marketplace for talent. Salinas' residents deserve to be served by qualified, professional staff that can do their work in that same manner. City employees' compensation is a matter of public record. as it should be. Compensation "cannot be established in a vacuum; comparable pay, recruitment and retention, and cost of living are all indicators that must be used to establish compensation policies, just as ability to pay must be considered. There reaches

r>; a point when lack of ability to pay results in the elimination of services and programs that cannot be afforded so that the remaining services and programs can be provided professionally by reasonably well paid employees. The repeal of the Utility Users Tax will force that decision in Salinas. Without the revenue from the Utility Users Tax, programs and services must be permanently eliminated.

City General Fund Revenue Growth

Another alternative advocated by the repeal proponents is that the City merely has to weather the initial problem period of the Utility Users Tax. repeal in anticipation that the City's General Fund revenue base will grow and the lost revenue from the Utility Users Tax will be replaced. ExhibitG on page 7 details actual General Fund revenue from FY 1990-91 through FY 2000-0 I and the revenue adjustments required during those years to properly reflect annual General Fund revenue growth. The adjusted General Fund revenues reflect the transfer of Health and Worker's Compensation insurance premiums to the Internal Service Fund, the transfer of Street Sweeping and Golf Course Fees to the Enterprise Fund and elimination of the State PERS surplus retirement costs rebate. Annual revenue growth before adjustments averaged 3.7% over the ten (10) year period and after adjustments, averaged 5.4%. Eliminating FY 1992-93, when the State began balancing its budget on the backs of local.government, revenue growth averaged 6.3% for the period. The question is then perhaps as simple as - can the City depend on a similar average growth pattern over the next ten (10) years?

Before answering this question, some discussion of the previous ten (10) years growth in revenue is necessary. The growth is real. The use of the growth in revenue is similarly real. During the same ten (10) year period, the City's programs and services have grown as evidenced by the increase in the number of employees funded in the General Fund. In FY 1990-91, the General Fund workforce

000057

,..-.." UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 12

numbered 556.50 PTE (full time equivalent) employees; in FY 2000~0 1 the comparable number was 587.50, a modest increase of thirty-one (31) positions Citywide. The Police Department added thirty-five (35) positions. This Police Department increase is balanced by reductions in staffing in other departments during the same period.

The growth in resources (e.g. police department personnel) represents some ability to increase services consistent with the City's population and land use growth patterns. It must be emphasized that Salinas did not remain constant in population and land area during the July 1, 1990 to June 30, 2000 period. In fact, if the assumed population growth rate is approximately three (3%) percent per year, the General Fund revenue growth of almost six (6%) percent per year has provided for modest increases in services (personnel) and moderate inflationary increases (approximately 3% per year) for the other City services. Revenue growth is critical to assure that services can be maintained from both a population growth and inflation perspective.

Earlier in this report the four(4) major revenue sources - Sales Tax, Property Tax, Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees and Utility Users Tax - which account for over 76% of General Fund revenue were discussed. Exhibit - H on page 8 details the revenue receipts from these sources from FY 1990-91 through FY 2000-01. During this period, Sales Tax averaged annual growth of6.7%, Property Tax 2.7%, Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees 7.0% and Utility Users Tax 7.1 %. Overall these four (4) major General Fund revenue sources averaged a 5.9% annual increase.

~.

The most significant growth in the City's General Fund revenue is in Sales Tax which increased an average of 6.7% per year from FY 1990-91 to FY 2000-01. What accounted for this growth during this ten (10) year period? What is the likelihood that the growth will continue?

It really does not take too much of a historical perspective to identify some of the reasons that sales tax has increased A major part of the increase is directly attributable to the addition of major retail facilities in Salinas. In 1990, Harden Ranch Plaza and Westridge did not exist. If Salinas' sales tax growth is to continue at the average levels of the last ten (10) years, then the City will have to provide similar growth opportunities for retail in the City. Does anyone think that will happen?

Another factor aiding in the increase has been the city and region's population growth during the last ten (10) years. Certainly the addition of both housing and businesses has helped in the increase of sales tax receipts. Given the current controversies associated with both the City of Salinas and Monterey County General Plan updates, can anyone guarantee that there will be the same levels of new growth areas in the future with those areas' corresponding impact on increased sales tax . receipts?

A fmal factor that must be considered in the General Fund revenue growth of the last ten (10) years is the Utility Users Tax. itself. During the FY 1990-91 to FY 2000-01 period, the Utility Users Tax. increased an average of seven (7%) percent per year, certainly a significant portion of the overall General Fund growth. If the Utility Users Tax is repealed, that growth will not occur; the tax will not exist.

Based on the sales tax and utility users tax growth facts of the past, it is very easy to conclude that

000058

/~ UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 13

the chances of the City's General Fund revenue growth maintaining it's average of almost six (6%) percent growth per year in the foreseeable future are two - "slim and none". Even with the Utility Users Tax in place, the City's General Fund will not grow at levels seen in the last ten years. Without the Utility Users Tax in place, overall net growth will not occur. In fact, the repeal of the Utility Users Tax will result in less General Fund revenue for a number of years, most likely requiring additional service reductions in the future.

Exhibit - I on page 9 details quite graphically the future impact of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax. Using the City's current four (4) major General Fund revenues which represent over seventy-five (75%) percent of all General Fund revenue as a base, Exhibit -- I forecasts overall sales tax growth (6%), property tax growth (4%), and VLF growth (6%) at very liberal rates and also projects expenditure growth at a modest 3% growth rate. Given the fact that all City General Fund revenues are spent, the loss of the Utility Users Tax is a dollar for dollar loss -- every revenue dollar lost represents a dollar lost in services.

Exhibit -- I documents that the services and programs currently supported by the City Utility Users Tax could not be totally restored any earlier than FY 2010--2011. This date is quite optimistic as it assumes extraordinary growth in sales tax, property tax, and VLF. If the assumed revenue growth rates are not achieved, full restoration will be delayed beyond FY 2010-2011. Absent sufficient revenue to restore programs and services eliminated because of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax,

.r>. there will be no opportunity to increase services from existing FY 2002-03 levels until well after FY 2010-2011.

The facts are clear and unavoidable. The repeal of the Utility Users Tax will result in the elimination of current City programs and services. There may and certainly should be a debate on what services and programs will be eliminated. However, at the conclusion of the debate, existing City services (already lean by any standard - $431 per resident) will be reduced if not eliminated to a level that will reduce the quaHty ofIife of Salinas' residents ($375 per resident).

Conclusion

This report begins with a reference to the quality of life of Salinas' residents. Whether one believes in taxes or not, public services provided by local government help determine the ultimate quality of life in a community, Basic services provided by local government are critical to quality of life. These services include those that everyone agrees belong in the realm of local government- public safety. These services also include those that most residents would agree belong in the realm of local govennnent -libraries, parks, street maintenance, recreation services, street tree maintenance, etc. These services also include those that many residents may not embrace but are tolerated as they are critical to maintaining a community's quality of life - planning and building regulations, zoning, tax collection, overall management, etc. None of these services are provided without cost. The cost for services is paid by taxes.

.r:-: Without taxes, there are no services. If taxes are eliminated, the services provided by those taxes must be eliminated. If the City's Utility Users Tax is eliminated, City programs and services must

000059

,~ UTILITY USERS TAX REPEAL Page # 14

be eliminated. This is a statement of fact, not of fiction. The adopted FY 2002-03 General Fund budget documents programs and services provided by overall General Fund income of $431 per resident. Repeal of the Utility Users Tax will reduce that amount to $375 per resident. The difference is described in this report as approximately $8,000,000 per year in programs and services.

With $8,000,000 less revenue, programs and services must be reduced in an equal amount. This is a matter of fact. This report goes one step further as it maintains that with $8,000,000 less revenue, the quality of life for Salinas residents will be reduced. This is a value judgement on the writer's part as he does assume that library, recreation, parks maintenance, police, fire, and other services that will be reduced andlor eliminated will result in a reduced quality of life of all Salinas residents.

The residents on Salinas will make the decision on November 5, 2002. The intent of this report is to provide facts so that the decision can be an "informed" decision based on fact. Those that dispute the facts presented in this report must come forward to debate these facts. At the same time, they must come forward with their own assessment of the impacts of the repeal of the Utility Users Tax. Those advocating the repeal of the Utility Users Tax must provide their evidence as to what the repeal means to City services. Hopefully, this report will stimulate the discussion required to fully understand what will happen if the Utility Users Tax is repealed. If it does, it will have served its informational intent. If the proponents of the repeal refuse to debate the impacts, if they insist that there will be no reductions or elimination of services, if they insist on not dealing with $8,000,000,

,~ then the residents of Salinas will "de facto" be limited to consideration of the facts contained in this report to make their decision.

Salinas City staff is ready to review, discuss, and debate the issues detailed in this report. Whatever information required will be provided. However, City staff will insist that the review, discussion, and debate deal with facts and reality.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVE MORA City Manager

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

GENERAL FUND and UTILITY USERS TAX Revenue Collection History

Exhibit .. A

Ordinance Adopted: July 28, 1969
Purpose: To support General Fund programs and services, including
police, fire, recreation, parks, streets, libraries and the capital
improvement program.
Utilities: Cable TV - Electricity- Gas - Telephone - Water
UUT%of Annual Annual
UUT General Fund General Fund Dollar Growth % Growth
Rate I i-Cap Total Revenue Total Revenue Revenue In UUT InUUT
FY69/70 5%1 $500 345,806 4.117,820 8.40%
FY70171 5%1$500 620,911 4,940,548 12.57% 275,105 79.55%
FY71172 5%1$500 693,971 5,227,702 13.27% 73,060 11.77%
FY72n3 5%1$500 723,920 5.636,129 12.84% 29,949 4.32%
FY 73/74 5%/ $500 814,302 6,486.162 12.55°11. 90,382 12.49%
FY74175 5%1 $500 960,456 7,303,981 13.15% 146,154 17.95%
FY75n6 5%1$500 1,091,297 11,338.611 9.62% 130,841 13.62%
.~ FY76177 5%1$500 1,198,469 12,387,505 9.67% 107,172 9.82%
FY17178 5% {$500 1,391,283 14,883,871 9.35% 192.814 16.09%
FY78179 5%/$500 1.453,932 15,633.771 9.30% 62,649 4.50%
FY79/S0 5%1$500 1,568,732 16,867,842 9.30% 114,800 7.90%
FY 80/81 5%1$500 2,025,113 19,105,485 10.60% 456,381 29.09%
FYS1{82 5% 1$500 2,322,474 19,679,820 11.80% 297,361 14.68%
FY82f83 5%1$500 2,651,520 20,352,647 13.03% 329,046 14.17%
FY 83/84 50/0 I $500 2,603,429 22,753,891 11.44% (48,091) -1.81%
FY84/85 5% 1$500 2,939,877 26,228,118 11.21% 336.448 12.92%
FY 85186 5% I $500 3,249,810 28,354,132 11.46% . 309.933 10.54%
FY 86/87 5%1$500 3,246.379 31,632,710 10.26% (3,431) -0.11%
FY 87/88 5% 1$500 3.446,361 32,911,278 10.47% 199.982 6.16%
FY88/89 5%1 $500 3.664,563 36,806,870 9.96% 218,202 6.33%
FY 89/90 5% / $500 3,820,963 39,311,858 9.72% 156,400 4.27%
FY90/91 5%/$1,500 3,860,384 41,187,447 9.37% 39.421 1.03%
FY91192 5%/ $1,500 4,282,595 38.075,317 11.25% 422,211 10.94%
FY92/93 5%1$1,500 4,238,854 35,177,583 12.05% (43,741) -1.02%
FV93194 5%/$1,500 4,739,947 36,558,637 12.97% 501,093 11.82%
FY 94/95 6%1 $2,000 5,173,915 39,627,645 13.06% 433,967 9.16%
FY 95/96 6%1 $2,000 5,662,827 41,876,467 13.52% 488,913 9.45%
FY96197 6%1$2,000 5,674,181 44,687.442 12.70% 11,354 0.20%
FY 97/98 6%/$2,000 6,104,540 44,893,213 13.60% 430,359 7.58%
FY98f99 6% 1 $2,000 6,192,588 48,744,924 12.70% 88,048 1.44%
FY99/00 6%1 $2,000 6,749,836 53.616,421 12.59% 557,248 9.00%
FYOO/01 6%1 $2,000 7,580,675 58,057,507 13.05% 830,839 12.31%
FY 01/02 EST 6%1 $2,000 7,750,000 59,235,850 13.08% 169,325 2.23%
FY02l03 EST 6%/ $2,000 8,060,000 61,327,300 13.14% 310,000 4.00% Page 1

000060

000061
CITY OF SALINAS Exhibit- B
r--,. UTILITY USERS TAX
FY 02-03 BUDGET
Status Quo and Full Impact of Utility Users Tax Repeal

% UUT %
Revenues FY02-03 Of Total Repeal Of Total

Sales Tax $21,425,000 34.9% $21,425,000 40.5%
Property Tax 8,990,300 14.7% 8,990,300 17.0%
Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax 8,200,000 13.4% 8,200,00.0 15.5%
Utility Users Tax 8,060,000 13.1% 0 0.0%
Current Service Charges 3,356,600 5.5% 3,213,600 6.1%
Business License Tax 2,328,800 3.8% 2,328,800 4.4%
Other Taxes 1,875,000 3.1% 1,875,000 3.5%
Revenue From Other Agencies 1,609,400 2.6% 1,381,700 2.6%
Transient Occupancy Tax 1,470,000 2.4% 1,470,000 2.8%
Franchise Fee - Refuse 1,449,000 2.4% 1,449,000 2.7%
Building Pennits 1,250,000 2.0% 1,250,000 2.4%
Investment Earnings 770,000 1.3% 770,000 1.5%
Other Permits & Licenses 343,700 0.6% 343,700 0.6%
Other Revenues 135,500 0.2% 135,500 0.3%
Fines & Penalties 64,000 0.1% 64,000 0.1%
Total Revenues $61,327,300 100.0% $52,896,600 100.0%
~.
Programs I Services
Police $23,134,400 36.2% $21 ;397,100 38.4%
Fire 9,927,700 15.5% 8,891,700 16.0%
33,062,100 51.8% 30,288,800 54.4%
Public Works 11,086,800 17.4% 9,178,100 16.5%
Non-Departmental 4,088,800 6.4% 3,388,000 6.1%
Library 3,482,800 5.5% 2,423,900 4.4%
Finance 3.204,700 5.0% 3,040,200 5.5%
Recreation - Parks 3,180,900 5.0% 2,125,400 3.8%
Development I Permit Services 2,436,500 3.8% 2,228,200 4.0%
Administration 1,470,500 2.3% 1,309,800 2.4%
Community Development 956,500 1.5% 956,500 1.7%
City Attorney's Office 598,900 0.9% 507,000 0.9%
City Council 174,400 0.3% 174.400 0.3%
Block Grant & Housing 143,300 0.2% 45,100 0.1%
Total Programs I Services $63,886,200 100.00.4 $55,665,400 100.0% Page 2

000062
CITY OF SALINAS Exhibit ... C
,---, UTILITY USERS TAX
FY 02-03 through FY 05-06
Utility Users Tax Revenue

4% 4% 4%
Growth Growth Growth
FY02-03 FY 03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06
UUT Revenue Estimate @ 6% Rate 8,060,000 8,382,400 8,717,700 9,066,400
UUT Repeal Initiative Rates 6% - 07/01/02 3% - 07/01/03 1% ~ 07/01{04 0% - 07/01/05
3% - 12101102 1% - 01/01/04 0% - 01/01{05 0% - 01/01106
Revenue Based on Repeal of UUT
July 671,650 349,250 121,100
August 671,650 349,250 121,100
September 671,650 349,250 121,100
October 671,650 349,250 121,100
November 671,650 349,250 121,100
December 335,850 349,250 121,100
January 335,850 116,450
February 335,850 116,450
,--..,_ March 335,850 116,450
-, April 335,850 116,450
May 335,850 116,450
June 335.850 116.450
5,709,200 2,794,200 726,600
Annual Revenue Loss 2,350,800 2,915,000 2,067,600 726,600
Cumulative Revenue ·Loss 2,350,800 5,265,800 7,333,400 8,060.000
Percentage Revenue Loss 29% 65% 91% 100%
Total Revenue Loss 2,350,800 5,588,200 7,991,100 9,066,400 Page 3

00006~

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

FY 02·03 UTILITY USERS TAX Repeal Impact through March 2003

Exhibit .. 0

2002 - 2003
..I2t!I Jul ~ Dec Jan ~ Mar Mar-YTD SJ,r-Jun
Revenue
Utility Users Tax Repeal 5,709,200 (1) 3,694,100 1,007,550 4,701,650 1,007,550
Rel2eal Recommendations
Administration 160,700 80,350 40,175 120,525
Finance 164,500 82,250 41,125 123,375
City Attorney's Office 91,900 45,950 22,975 68,925
Non-Departmental 700,800 412,650 412,650
Police 1,737,300 868,650 434,325 1,302.975
Fire 1,036,000 518,000 259,000 n7,000
Development/Permit Services 208,300 104,150 52,075 156,225
Public Works 1,908,700 954,350 477,175 1,431,525
Recreation Parks 1,010,700 505,350 252,675 758,025
Library 110581900 5291450 2641725 7941175
Total Costs 8,077,800 4,101,150 1,844,250 5,945,400
?.--....."
Revenue Over (Under) Costs (2,368,600) (407,050) (836,700) (1,243,750) 1,007,550
Cumulative Deficit (407,050) (1,243,750) (1,243,750) (2) (236,200) (3)
(1) ~ Estimated Utility Users Tax revenue available based on the November repeal of the tax.
(2) - Deficit at March 31, 2003 that must be funded from the Operating Reserve ($1,660,000) with the
funding of the specific Non-Departmental programs and services eliminated at December 31,2002.
The March 31, 2003 deficit will increase if funding of the Non-Departmental programs and services
continues after December 31, 2002. (3) - Deficit at June 30, 2003 that must be funded from the Operating Reserve ($1,660,000) if funding of the specific Non-Departmental programs arid services is eliminated at December 31, 2002 and all program and service reductions included in the $8,077,800 UUT repeal recommendations are Implemented no later than March 31, 2003.

Page 4

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

FY 02-03 UTILITY USERS TAX Repeal Impact through June 2003

Exhibit - E

2002 - 2003
Total Jul- Dec Jan - Mar Mar- YTD ADr-Jun
Revenue
Utility Users Tax Repeal 5,709,200 (1) 3,694,100 1,007,550 4,701,650 1,007,550
Rem!al Recommendations
Administration 160,700 80,350 40,175 120,525 40,175
Finance 164,500 82,250 41,125 123,375 41,125
City Attorney's Office 91,900 45,950 22,975 68,925 22,975
Non-Departmental 700,800 412,650 412,650 288,150
Police 1,737,300 868,650 434,325 1,302,975 434,325
Fire 1,036,000 518,000 259,000 777,000 259,000
Development/Permit Services 208,300 104,150 52,075 156,225 52,075
Public Works 1,908,700 954,350 477,175 1,431,525 477,175
Recreation Parks 1,010,700 505,350 252,675 758,025 252,675
Library 1~0581900 529~450 264.725 794.175 264.725
Total Costs 8,077,800 4,101,150 1,844,250 5,945,400 2,132,400
.~ Revenue Over (Under) Costs (2,368,600) (407.050) {836,700} {1,243,750} (1,124,850)
Cumulative Deficit (407,050) (1,243,750) (1,243,750) (2) (2,368,600) (3)
(1) - Estimated Utility Users Tax revenue available based on the November repeal of the tax.
(2) - Deficit at March 31.2003 that must be funded from the Operating Reserve ($1,660,000) with the
funding of the specific Non-Departmental programs and services eliminated at December 31,2002.
The March 31,2003 deficit will increase if funding ofthe Non-Departmental programs and services
continues after December 31, 2002. (3) - Deficit at June 30, 2003 that must be funded from the Operating Reserve ($1,660,000) if all program and service reductions included in the $8,077.800 UUT repeal recommendations are not implemented prior to June 30, 2003. The forcasted June 30, 2003 Operating Reserve of $1,660,000 is insufficient to fund all programs and services through June 30, 2003.

PageS

00006~

000065

~.

CITY OF SALINAS Exhibit· F
UTILITY USERS TAX
FY 02-03 REVENUES
General Fund and Restricted Funds
FY 02-03
Total Revenues $115,216,400
Restricted Funds
Sgecial Revenue Funds
Asset Seizure $ 29,000
Public Safety 1,036.500
Traffic Safety 755,000
Maintenance Districts 906,300
Business Surcharge Districts 95,000
Block Grant Fund 5,700,500
Emergency Medical Services 33,000
Development Fees 1,771,000
Gas Tax Improvement 2,958,500
Vehicle Abatement 95,000
Recreation Parks 15,000 $ 13,394,800
Debt Service Fund
Debt Service 411,500 411,500
. Capital Projects Funds
Special Aviation 733,800
Special Construction Assistance 14,195,000 14,928,800
Sgecial Assessment Fund
Assessment Districts 6,952,400 6,952,400
Enterprise Funds
Airport 1,088,100
Industrial Waste 1,300.000
Golf Courses 1,978,400
Sewer 2,500,000
Storm Water (NPDES) 1,600,000
Crazy Horse 385,600 8,852,100
Internal Service Funds
Intemar Services 4,392,700 4,392,700
Trust and Agenc)l Funds
Grants and Trusts 897,900
SRA Central City Project 2,423,000
SRA Sunset Avenue Project 1,635,900 4,956,800

Total Restricted Funds $53,889,100 (53,889,100)

General Fund $ 61,327,300 PageS

CITY OF SALINAS ~, UTILITY USERS TAX

FY 90-91 through FY 00-01 General Fund Revenue

Exhibit - G

Total Percent Adjusted Total Percent
Revenue Change Revenue'" Change
Fiscal Year 02-03 Estimate 61,327,300 3.53% 61,327,300 3.53%
Fiscal Year 01-02 Estimate 59,235,850 2.03% 59,235,850 2.03%
Fiscal Year 00-01 58,057,507 8.28% 58,057,507 9.14%
Fiscal Year 99-00 53,616,421 9.99% 53,194,459 10.06%
Fiscal Year 98-99 48,744,924 8.58% 48,334,397 8.79%
Fiscal Year 97-98 44,893,213 0.46% 44,429,268 5.96%
Fiscal Year 96-97 44,687,442 6.71% 41.931,363 3.41%
Fiscal Year 95-96 41,876.467 5.67% 40.550.491 5.61%
Fiscal Year 94-95 39,627.645 8.39% 38.395.111 5.93%
Fiscal Year 93-94 36,558,637 3.93% 36,246,110 5.05%
Fiscal Year 92-93 35,177,583 -7.61% 34,504,628 -2.73%
Fiscal Year 91-92 38,075,317 7.56% 35,474,276 2.40%
Fiscal Year 90-91 41.187.447 34,643,288
Average 90191 through 00/01 3.69% 5.37%
.. Total General Fund revenue has been adjusted to properly reflect the transfer of Health and Workers'
Comp Insurance premium to the Internal Service Fund, the transfer of Street Sweeping and Golf
Course fees to the Enterprise Fund and the State PERS surplus rebate of retirement costs. Pa!:le7

000066

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

Exhibit - H

FY 90-91 through FY 00-01

General Fund Revenue - Major Sources

Sales Percent Property Percent Motor Percent Utility Percent Percent
Tax Change Tax Change Vehicle Change Users Change Total Change
FY02·03 Est 21,425,000 4.00% 8,990,300 4.00% 8,200,000 ·3.53% 8,060,000 4.00% 46,675,300 2.60%
Ff 1I't·lJ2 "Est "2O,lIUO,llUO 1),"8'1"% lI,1i4~,WO 11.05% lI.-SUO,llUO f1."32'fo 1;750,000 2.23% 45,494,500 4.91"10
FYOO·01 20,435,025 12.36% 8,105,686 10.29% 7,245,094 13.27% 7,580,675 12.31% 43,366,480 12.11%
FY99-00 18,186,701 15.24% 7,349,600 5.75% 6,396,544 13.46% 6,749,836 9.00% 38,682,681 .11.92%
FY9B-99 15,781,354 10.00% 6,949,n1 3.87% 5,637,615 10.50% 6,192,588 1.44% 34,561,218 7.19%
FY97·98 14,346,581 10.00% 6,690,971 2.14% 5,102,098 7.56% 6,104,540 7.58% 32,244,190 7.44%
FY96-97 13,042,696 1.66% 6,550,817 5.34% 4,743,551 4.91% 5,674,181 0.20% 30,011,245 2.66%
FY95-96 12,829,571 6.95% 6,218,545 4.86% 4,521,411 7.87% 5,662,827 9.45% 29,232,360 7.110/.
-r>; FY94-95 11,996,318 1.18% 5,930,201 2.87% 4,191,561 3.21% 5,173,915 9.16% 27,291,995 3.29%
FY93-94 11,856,472 5.70% 5,764,804 -3.69% 4,061,154 2.33% 4,739,947 11.82% 26,422;3n 3.98%
FY92-93 11,216,768 3.67% 5,985,922 -11.00% 3,968,599 4.28% 4,238,854 -1.02% 25,410,143 ·0.87%
FY91·92 10,819,521 0.54% 6,725,961 6.05% 3,805,678 2.55% 4,282,595 10.94% 25,633,755 3.89%
FY9D-91 10,761,146 6,342,378 3,710,985 3,860,384 24,674,893
Average FY 90-91
through 00101 6.73% 2.65% 6.99% 7.09% 5.87% PageS

0000617

000068

CITY OF SALINAS Exhibit .. I
UTILITY USERS TAX
FY 02·03 through FY 10-11
Impact Restoration
6% 4% 6% 3%
Fiscal Growth Growth Growth Total Growth
Year Sales Tax Prop Tax VLF UUT Revenue Expenditures Shortfall (1)
Base "02-03 21,425,000 8,990,300 8,200,000 8,060,000 46,675,300 46,675,300 -
With UUT 02-03 21.425,000 8,990,300 8,200,000 5.709,200 44,324,500 46,675,300 (2,350,800)
Repeal
03-04 22,710,500 9,349,912 8,692,000 2,794,200 43,546,612 48,075,559 (4,528,947)
04-05 24,073,130 9,723,908 9,213,520 726.600 43,737,158 49.517,826 (5,780,667)
05-06 25,517,518 10,112,865 9,766,331 o 45,396,714 51,003,361 (5,606,647)
06·07 27,048,569 10,517,379 10,352,311 o 47,918,259 52,533,461 (4,615,202)
07·08 28,671,483 10;938,075 10,973,450 0 50,583,007 54,109,465 (3,526,458)
08-09 30,391,772 11,375,598 11,631,857 0 53,399,226 55,732,749 (2,333,523)
09·10 32,215,278 11,830,621 12,329,768 0 56,375,668 57,404.732 (1,029,064)
10·11 34,148,195 12,303,846 13,069,554 0 59,521,596 59,126,874 394,722
(1) Required to restore eXisting (FY 02.03) services. Page 9

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

This page is intentionally left blank.

Page 10

000069

.~.

000070

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

Summary of Recommended Program and Service Reductions

Program
Number
Administration
Volunteer Services 1525 72,500
Neighborhood Services 1550 88,200
160,700
Finance
Infonnation Systems 2033 164,500
City Attomey's Office
City Attorney's Office 2500 91,900
Non-Departmental
Community Programs 3520 434,500
Joint Power Authorities 3570 50,700
Other Agencies & Programs 3590 215,600
700,800
Police
.~ School Crossing Guards 4023 163,000
Support Services 4030 109,600
Narcotics I Vice 4041 768,400
School Resource Officers 4042 585,100
Animal Control Services 4070 111,200
1,737,300
Fire
Suppression ~ Paramedic Rescue Squad 4510 439,500
Emergency Medical Services 4520 414,500
Prevention 4530 112,900
Hazardous Materials Control 4570 69,100
1,036,000
DevelopmentlPermit Center
Code Enforcement 4830 208,300
Public Works
Water Conservation Planning 5012 103,700
Graffiti Abatement 5013 83,700
Facilities Maintenance 5030 437,900
Park Maintenance 5080 843,900
Street Tree Maintenance 5085 308,100
Maintenance Services Support 5090 131,400
1,908,700
.~ Page 11

Recreation - Parks
Administration 5510 86,100
Breadbox Recreation Center 3151 98,200
Closter Park Recreation Center 5527 66,100
EI Dorado Park Recreation Center 5528 92,900
Central Park Recreation Center 5529 96,700
Aquatics - Municipal Pool 5535 293,300
Firehouse Recreation Center 5537 347,200
Hebbron Heights Recreation Center 5538 73,200
1,153,700
Library
Administration 6005 78,800
Cesar Chavez Library 6012 408,900
EI Gabilan Library 6013 412,500
Literacy Services 6063 158,700
1,058,900
SUBTOTAL 8,220,800
~, Less: Municipal Pool Revenue (143.000)
TOTAL REDUCTIONS 8,077,800 000071

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

Summary of Recommended Program and Service Reductions

Page 12

CITY OF SALINAS /-""\ UTILITY USERS TAX

ADMINISTRATION Volunteer Services

1525

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Volunteer Services provides Salinas residents with the opportunity to engage in productive community service. Volunteer activities include projects within the Police, Library and Recreation-Park Departments. as well as the Animal Shelter and Public Works projects. Volunteers serve in the following programs: City-wide park maintenance, literacy, Make a Difference Day, Salinas Reads, safe kids coalition, internships, Monterey County Office of Education programs, special events, adopt-a-park, recreation and animal shelter programs. Return of the Natives planting programs and community clean-up days.

IMPACT

The Volunteer Services program will be eliminated. The community will loose over 17,200 hours of volunteer time. with an approximate value of $200,000. The program began in 1996 with a grant provided by the Packard Foundation. The program was shifted to General Fund support upon completion of the grant period.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT UUTBUDGET

$72,500 (72,500) -0-

Full-Time 1

ill

o

Part·Time

1,581 Volunteers

(1,581)

-0-

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 13

000072

CITY OF SALINAS ~ UTILITY USERS TAX

ADMINISTRATION Neighborhood Services

1550

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Neighborhood Services supports neighborhood empowerment activities, coordinates the implementation of solutions to neighborhood issues and assists with the work of violence prevention collaboratives to help form safe neighborhoods. Neighborhood Services organizes community meetings, addresses neighborhood complaints, provides resource fairs and organizes community clean-up days. In FY 01-02, Neighborhood Services staff coordinated 20 neighborhood meetings, 6 neighborhood cleanups and worked with an estimated 5,000 Salinas residents.

IMPACT

The Neighborhood Services program will be eliminated. The program began in 1995 with r>; initial funding provided by the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The program was shifted to General Fund support when grant funding was no longer available.

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

~. REMAINING PERSONNEL

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUT IMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 88,200 (88.200) -0-

Full-Time 1

ill

-0-

Part-Time

Page 14

000073

'\.

. ~.

000074

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

FINANCE

Information Systems

2033

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Information Systems provides the planning, design, implementation and utilization of the City's information infrastructure including computer networks and software to all City departments. Computer support and services are provided to 450 computer users located at 20 separate locations throughout the City. Information is maintained on 44 PC servers and 4 UNIX servers and is provided to the users through local and remote networks. Information Systems also maintains 10 Computer Aided Dispatch PC's for the Police and Fire department's interface with County Communications. Application software supports approximately 100 different functions including accounting, AutoCAD, bonds and assessments, building permits, fire, human resources and payroll, GIS mapping, NPDES, police, purchasing and street maintenance. Mapping serVIces (GIS) extends to all departments as well as the public. The GIS database contains over 85 data layers, 29,000 parcels and 240 miles of streets that will continue to need to be maintained on a daily basis. One of the major mapping applications is the ability to automatically send public notices to property owners notifying them of public hearings and other events. Mapping activities also support economic development, emergency services, court exhibits and a variety of City maintenance projects. The City's web site is maintained by Information Systems. Currently, over 2,500 users visit the web site weekly seeking information on Council and Commission agendas and minutes, employment opportunities, bid requests, recreation programs and other City services .

IMPACT

The Programmer/Analyst, UNIX Systems/Network Administrator and GIS Technician positions will be eliminated. Loss of these positions will delay the maintenance of all existing application software and require the deferral of all new application software. The maintenance and support of the extensive citywide computer network will be negatively impacted. Systems will be down days as opposed to hours with the reduced staffing level. The City's GIS mapping effort will be focused primarily on the support of Police, PubliC Works and the NPDES applications and the support of specialized mapping requests reduced to a "as time permits" basis. The City's web site will be maintained, as much of the site information, such as Council Agenda's and Minutes, is automatically updated. However, the web site will necessarily be transitioned to a more static presence, eliminating items such as Pet of the Week and weekly information items.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUT Repeal

UUT Budget

$ 1,582,100 ( 164.500) 1,417,600

Full-Time 11

.Ql

8

Part-Time

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 15

.---\

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Code Enforcement I Commission Training

2500

PROGRAM I SERVICE

The City Attorney's Office provides legal representation and guidance to the City Council, its committees, boards and commissions, the City Manaqer and all City departments. Specific examples of legal staff activities include attendance for purposes of providing legal advice at all City Council and Planning Commission meetings, advice and litigation support for all City departments, training for staff and commissioners and legal representation for the City on all legal matters.

IMPACT

A Deputy City Attorney position will be eliminated resulting in a reduction or elimination of the following services: code enforcement litigation and support services; primary police and airport legal advisory services; proactive training of the commissions and departments concerning public records, open meeting law and contracts.

In FY 01-02, the City Attorney's Office was involved in approximately 1,000 code enforcement activities, provided an estimated 100 hours of training activities and provided legal advice and assistance in approximately 180 police and airport matters.

FY 02·03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 598,900 (91,900) $ 507,000

Full-Time 6

ill

5

Part-Time

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 16

000075

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

NON-DEPARTMENTAL Community Programs

.3520

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Provide financial support to various community programs.

Rodeo Carnival

Kiddie Kapers Parade

California International Airshow Suicide Prevention I Crisis Center Arts Council

Oldtown Maintenance

Second Chance Youth Program Cultivating Peace Initiative

$ 42,500 42,500 7,000 32,500 18,000 5,000 60,000 127,000 100,000 $ 434,500

IMPACT

Funding for all community program will be eliminated. Elimination of funding for the Rodeo, Carnival, Kiddie Kapers and the California International Airshow will impact local non-profit organizations that

.-'\. use these events to promote on-going programs that benefit all Salinas residents, Funding in this category pays for public safety services. Non-profit organizations will now pay for these services.

The elimination of Oldtown maintenance funding will result in the elimination of planting projects, tree and shrubbery pruning and maintenance and litter control. This reduction will impact efforts of the Redevelopment Agency to draw additional businesses, residents and tourists to the area,

Elimination ·of funding for Second Chance, Suicide Prevention and the Cultivating Peace Initiative will impact prevention, intervention and leadership development services for all age and income levels throughout the City. Elimination of City funding will result in lost opportunities for each of the organizations to leverage additional funding. Staff for these three (3) agencies serves 12,669 Salinas clients an nually.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUT IMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 434,500 ( 434,500) -0-

Full-Time

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 17

000076

CITY OF SALINAS

.~ UTILITY USERS TAX

NON-DEPARTMENTAL Joint Power Authorities

3570

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Provide funding for the joint power authorities of which the City is a member agency.

Sunrise House

Community Human Services Project

$ 18,700 32,000 $ 50,700

/--', IMPACT

Funding of the City's memberships will be eliminated. The City may loose its seat on the Boards of Directors and weaken the City's ability to have the JPA's address local priorities including at-risk youth and substance abuse. Approximately 3,158 City residents are served by these agencies annually.

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

/~ REMAINING PERSONNEL

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUT IMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 50,700 ( 50.700) -0-

Full-Time

Page 18

000077

CITY OF SALINAS r>. UTILITY USERS TAX

NON-DEPARTMENTAL Other Services

3590

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Provide funding for expenses which cannot be properly charged to specific departments or programs.

Chamber of Commerce Legislative Advocacy National League of Cities Sister City Association

Monterey County Mayor's Committee Youth Commission

$ 68,000 100,000 25,000 600 2,000 20.000 $215,600

IMPACT

Funding for these specific organizations and activities will be eliminated. The City will loose its ability to develop strategies, goals and programs designed to promote the interest of Salinas residents at the County, State and Federal levels of government. Funding of Youth Commission initiatives will be eliminated.

City support for the Chamber of Commerce has aided Chamber efforts in tourism and business promotion. Legislative Advocacy investments have produced numerous federal and state discretionary grants including support for police, affordable housing. violence prevention and facilities repair and construction. National League of Cities and Mayor's Association dues have allowed Salinas' active particlpatlon in State organizations.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 3,441,600 ( 215.600) 3,226,000

Full-Time

Part-Time

PERSONNEL UUT IMPACT

,\ REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 19

000078

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

POLICE

School Crossing Guards

4023

PROGRAM I SERVICE

School Crossing Guards provide safe crossing areas for school children at identified intersections in and around school zones. Currently 27 crossing guards serve 27 elementary schools and carry cell phones to notify Police of emergencies or suspicious activity. In total, crossing guard services averages 89 hours per day or 445 hours per week. An estimated 2,700 school age children are escorted daily. as they cross City Streets.

IMPACT

The program will be eliminated. Elementary schools in Salinas will not have the services of a crossing guard.

FY 02·03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT UUTBUDGET

$163,000 (163,000) -0-

Full·Time

Part·Time 27

(27)

-0-

PERSONNEL UUT IMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 20

000079

000080

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

POLICE

Support Services

4030

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Community Services Officers perform the following services: Bailiff. Parking Control,Patrol report takers, Front Desk report takers. abandoned vehicle abatement, and follow up on missing person reports and other reports. Their presence allows officers to spend more time proactively addressing problems in the Community.

In recent years, the number of Community Service Officers authorized in the Police Department has been increased with grant funds. As grants expired, the positions were transferred to General Fund support. The grants were provided to the City in order to allow civilian Community Service Officers to take the place of sworn police officers, allowing the officers to perform "sworn" duties.

IMPACT

Two (2) Community Service Officer positions will be eliminated. This will require Patrol Officers to perform many of their duties.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUT IMPACT UUTBUDGET

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

$ 2,391,100 ( 109,600) 2,281,500

Full-Time 9

@

7

Part-Time

Page 21

.. '\

000081

4041

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

POLICE

Narcotics and Vice

PROGRAM I SERVICE

The Narcotics and Vice Unit conducted 180 Crime Tip Surveillance Operations and made 39 undercover drug purchases either with informants or undercover officers. The Unit cooperated on 46 interagency operations and served 21 search warrants. A total of 6.3 pounds of controlled substances, 16 firearms, stolen property and approximately $100,000 in cash was seized. Auction of the seized property generated approximately $25,000 in revenue. The Unit also conducted 2 Alcohol Buy programs resulting in the arrest of 12 individuals for selling alcohol to minors, Arrests of 29 people for SOliciting or engaging in prostitution were made, The Unit Is responsible for regulating card rooms and bingo games,

IMPACT

The Narcotics and Vice Unit will be eliminated. Enforcement of Narcotics, Alcoholic Beverage Control, Prostitution and Gaming will revert to the Patrol Division. Undercover operations will be limited. The assignment of these duties to the Patrol Division without assigning additional personnel, will reduce Patrol Division staffs ability to focus on their regular patrol duties.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 768,400 ( 768.400) -0-

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

.' ~. REMAINING PERSONNEL

Full-Time 7

ill -O~

Part-Time

Page 22

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

POLICE

School Resource Officers

4042

PROGRAM I SERVICE

School Resource Officers work with students, parents, teachers and administrators to ensure a peaceful and safe learning environment in our schools. The Officers work with "problem behavior" students through counseling, referral and personal contact and classroom presentations. The Officers address school related crimes and prosecute juveniles who have not shown a propensity for guidance through counseling. This program relieves patrol personnel of time-consuming investigations occurring at our local schools. Currently there is a SRO assigned to each high school and middle school,

IMPACT

The School Resource Officer program will be reduced by 50%, six (6) positions paid for by the City's General Fund. Based on last years statistics, the reduction will have the following effect: 752 fewer persons arrested for committing crimes on or near school grounds, 359 fewer traffic citations, 24 fewer weapons confiscated, 834 police reports either not being completed or being completed by Patrol officers diverted from other duties, 1250 fewer GREAT student graduates, 249 fewer presentations of other types and 2200 fewer counseling or conference sessions. Duties of the School Resource Officers will have to be picked up by Patrol Officers, which will greatly increase response times and impact the quality and depth of service provided to students and school staff.

One SRO posltlon is grant funded (Program 4065) and assigned to La Paz Middle School. Two (2) SRO's will be assigned to the Salinas Union High School District, two (2) SRO"s will be assigned to the Salinas Elementary School District and one (1) SRO will be assigned to the Alisal Union Elementary School District, if the Districts fully fund the positions. The GREAT Program currently taught in the schools will be eliminated. Students will not have the benefit of police officers being readily available as counselors and role models or to resolve crisis.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUT IMPACT UUTBUDGET

$1,127,400 (585.100) 542,300

Full-Time 11

lID

5

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 23

000082

CITY OF SALINAS

~ UTILITY USERS TAX

POLICE

Animal Control Services

4070

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Animal Control provides animal control, licensing, lost/found services and adoption programs for all stray and unwanted animals within the City. Animal control calls totaled 12,000 last year. Currently the shelter is open to the public Tuesday through Saturday from noon to 5 PM. Staff is on site from 7 AM to 5PM Tuesday through Saturday and 7 to 4 on Sunday and Monday. Animal Control Officers are on the street from 7 AM to 4 PM.

The City's Animal Shelter and Animal Control programs have deliberately been expanded in recent years with a new facility and additional staft. This expansion was long overdue given the community's growth.

IMPACT

An Animal Services Supervisor and Office Assistant position will be eliminated. Staff reductions will impact the ability to respond to calls for service with the following results: 2000 fewer animals impounded, 250 fewer animals reunited with their owners, 100 fewer citations and 350 fewer warnings will be issued. Approximately 400 fewer animals will be rescued and approximately 900 more animals will have to be euthanized. An increase in the number of troublesome and/or vicious animals on the street can be expected.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT UUT BUDGET

$ 680,100 (111,200) 568,900

Full-Time 8

@

6

Part-Time

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 24

000083

CITY OF SALINAS

,~ UTILITY USERS TAX

FIRE

Suppression - Paramedic Rescue Squad

4510

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Fire Department staffing includes staffing a two (2) member paramedic rescue squad. The paramedic rescue squad provides 24-hour medical crisis intervention at the paramedic first responder level. (See Emergency Medical Services Program 4520),

The county of Monterey provides paramedics on ambulances that respond throughout the County and City to transport people to local hospitals. These paramedic ambulances respond to calls in the city within eight minutes or less 90% of the time. An ambulance paramedic responds on every medical emergency occurring in Salinas in addition to the fire department paramedics.

Last year (2001) the city and county department paramedics responded to 7,885 medical calls in the city. 4,021 (or 51 %) of those calls required the services of a paramedic trained person. The remaining emergencies could have been treated by firefighter EMT's alone.

Fire department paramedics arrived before the ambulance paramedics on 4,731 of the calls or about 60% of the time. The response time for fire department paramedics is 6 minutes or less in 83% of instances. The response time for ambulance paramedics is 8 minutes or less in 90% of instances.

IMPACT

The paramedic rescue squad will be eliminated, reducing Fire Department personnel by six (6) positions. Fire Department personnel will continue to respond to medical emergency calls; aI/ Salinas firefighters are Emergency Medical Technicians. Paramedic service will be provided by the County ambulance provider.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 8,346,000 (439,500) 7,906,500

Full-Time 83

lID.

77

Part-Time

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

Page 25

000084

CITY OF SALINAS

/~ UTILITY USERS TAX

FIRE

Emergency Medical Services

4520

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Emergency Medical Services provides 24-hour medical crisis intervention at the paramedic first responder level. A paramedic rescue squad and four to six fire pumpers every 24-hours are staffed with a firefighter paramedic. There are 16 firefighters and 7 fire captains trained as paramedic.

The county of Monterey provides paramedics on ambulances that respond into the city to transport people to local hospitals. These paramedic ambulances respond to calls in the city within eight minutes or less 90% of the time. An ambulance paramedic responds on every medical emergency occurring in Salinas in addition to the fire department paramedics.

Last year (2001) the city and county department paramedics responded to 7,885 medical calls in the city. 4,021 (or 51%) of those calls required the services of a paramedic trained person. The remaining emergencies could have been treated by firefighter EMT's as Salinas firefighters are EMT's .

Fire department paramedics arrived before the ambulance paramedics in 4,731 of the calls or about 60% of the time. The response time for fire department paramedics is 6 minutes or less in 83% of instances. The response time for ambulance paramedics is 8 minutes or less in 90% of instances.

~. IMPACT

The program coordinator and paramedic rescue squad with its staffing will be eliminated, along with the paramedic certification of 15 firefighters. Approximately 4,000 residents will not receive paramedic level care from the fire department within six minutes of their request for paramedic aid. but will receive such care from the ambulance paramedic within eight minutes in 90% of emergenCies.

There will be no reduction of responses by the fire department citywide. Fire pumpers will continue to respond to all medical emergencies and continue to arrive in 6 minutes or less in 83% of all instances.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 414,500 ( 414,500) -0-

Full-Time

PERSONNEL 1*

UUTIMPACT tu

REMAINING PERSONNEL -0-

Part-Time

* Twenty-one (21) full-time Fire Suppression personnel will no longer provide paramedic

~. responses.

Page 26

0000.85

000086

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

FIRE

Prevention

4530

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Fire Prevention staff check and approve plans for new construction, conduct inspections of new construction and inspect 40 schools (K-JC), 18 preschools, 75 Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly and businesses within the city in order to reduce the possibility of fires starting within those businesses. All fires that occur are investigated to identify causes and origin and arrest arsonists responsible for fires. Fire Prevention staff provide the local schools with annual presentations to teach youngsters how to escape from home fires and act smart in other types of emergencies.

Last year 38 fires were investigated for arson, 40 schools (K-JC), 18 preschools and 75 board and care and residential care facilities for the elderly were inspected and 711 education shows were presented to 15,000 kindergarten through third grade students.

IMPACT

The deputy fire marshal position will be eliminated. All school education presentations will be eliminated. Only one-half of the day care, home care, schools and business will be inspected

,~ each year.

The Fire Marshal will become solely responsible for conducting arson investigations of all fires and approving all new private and commercial construction plans. This will result in a slower construction plan approval process and prolonged investigations.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT

UUT BUDGET

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

$ 504,400 (112,900) 391,500

Full-Time 4

ill

3

Part-Time

Page 27

.r--...

CITY OF SALINAS UTILITY USERS TAX

FIRE

Hazardous Materials Control

4570

PROGRAM I SERVICE

The Hazardous Materials Team is made up of 15 specially trained firefighters who use chemical suits and other special testing equipment to control chemical spills occurring within the city, county streets and businesses. The team also provides technical advice and training to Salinas businesses that use hazardous or poisonous chemicals in manufacturing or prooesslaq. The team provides emergency responses in a specialized vehicle to the residents of Salinas, and the counties of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito. There were 70 chemical spills in the past year that required the response of the full team.

IMPACT

The Hazardous Materials program will be eliminated. There will be no emergency response to chemical spills in the community. Salinas businesses that use hazardous or poisonous chemicals will no longer receive training, support and advice from the Fire Department and will have to find another source for training. The counties of Monterey, Santa Cruz and San Benito will no longer receive emergency hazmat assistance from the Salinas Fire Department.

A local first line defense against bio/chemical terrorism will be eliminated. The city will request assistance from other agencies for hazardous and poisonous chemical spills and clean up when that assistance is required.

Elimination of this program will not reduce the number of personnel assign to the Fire Department. The specialty pay for the team will be eliminated.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUT IMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 69,100 (69.100) -0-

Full-Time

".

Part-Time

Staff

UUT Repeal Remaining Staff

* Fifteen (15) full-time Fire Suppression personnel will no longer provide Hazardous Material responses.

Page 28

000087

CITY OF SALINAS

~. UTILITY USERS TAX

DEVELOPMENT I PERMIT SERVICES Code Enforcement

4830

.~.

PERSONNEL UUT IMPACT

REMAINING PERSONNEL

PROGRAM I SERVICE

Code Enforcement staff perform inspections to verify that housing within the City complies with applicable state laws and codes, working to eliminate substandard housing, dangerous buildings, zoning violations, dangerous building uses and work done without permits. Code enforcement receives approximately 1000 complaints per year of the following type.

Unlawful habitation of structures 250

Sub-standard buildings 100

Work without permits 200

Inoperable vehicles 90

Recreational vehicles 90

Unlawful use of recreational vehicles 40 Illegal auto repair 40

Complaints are evaluated to determine if there is an impact on life safety. Complaints regarding unlawful habitation of structures or sub-standard buildings that involve children or natural gas appliances impact life safety and are given top priority. Of the total number of complaints regarding unlawful habitation of structures or sub-standard buildings (350) approximately 75 percent (260) impact life safety and these complaints are investigated within one business day and consume approximately 75 to 85 percent of staff's time. All other complaints are handled as time permits. A one-year complaint backlog currently exists.

Illegal home occupations Prohibited vehicles Accessory structures Unauthorized land use Fences, animals and signs Miscellaneous

40 20 15 15 20 80

The City's Code Enforcement program has been expanded in recent years in response to resident requests for increased enforcement.

IMPACT

Two Code Enforcement Officers and an Administrative Clerk position will be eliminated. One Code Enforcement Officer will remain to address only serious life safety violations. It is estimated that it will take five business days to investigate life safety violations. Complaints regarding work without permits will be referred to Building Inspection and handled as time permits. Complaints regarding inoperable vehicles, recreational vehicles, unlawful use of recreational vehicles. illegal auto repair, illegal home occupations, prohibited vehicles, accessory structures. unauthorized land use, fences, animals and signs will not be investigated. There are approximately 650 of these types of complaints received annually.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUT IMPACT UUTBUDGET

$ 301,300 (208.300) 93,000

Full-Time 4

ill

1

Part-Time

Page 29

000088

CITY OF SALINAS

,~ UTILITY USERS TAX

PUBLIC WORKS

Water Conservation Planning

5012

PROGRAM I SERVICE

The program was authorized in 1994 to conserve the use of potable water in the City of Salinas and the Salinas River Basin by reducing the direct use of potable water, increasing the efficient use of all water and developing non-potable water sources. The program enforces the water conservation ordinance and represents the City before regional agencies making decisions concerning ground water quality (nitrate contamination and seawater intrusion).

IMPACT

The Water Conservation Program will be eliminated. The City will have significantly reduced (if any) representation in regional discussions I decisions regarding water issues. The water conservation ordinance will not be effectively enforced.

FY 02-03 BUDGET UUTIMPACT

UUT BUDGET

$ 103,700 (103.700) -0-

Full-Time 1

ill

-0-

PartwTime

PERSONNEL UUTIMPACT REMAINING PERSONEL

Page 30

00008S

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->