Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/11/05 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1 st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. November 5, 1997 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Counciimembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 477-2700 City Council Agenda November 5, 1997 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday of the week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. Roll Call: A. CALL TO ORDER Alexander Biane , Curatalo Gutierrez , and Williams ~ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a donation to the YMCA by the Rancho Cucamonga Police and Fire Golf Tournament Committee. Presentation of a Proclamation to AI Hudgens of CALTRANS for his assistance with the Route 30 project. Presentation by Heritage Hospital. Presentation of Proclamation regarding Etiwanda Society, George Chaffey, and the establishment of the California Gold Discovery to Statehood Sesquicentennial Commission. Presentation of a Proclamation celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the Cucamonga District Host Lions Club. Presentation by Marcus Solomon. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 10/8/97 and 10/15/97, and Payroll ending 9/18/97 for the total amount of $1,153,255.44. 2. Approval of Annual Banner Applications. 11 City Council Agenda November 5, 1997 Approval of an application to designate the George Cherbak House (built approximately 1929) a Historic Landmark, located at 9953 Hillside Road - APN: 1074-211-31. Related file: Mills Act Agreement 97-02. RESOLUTION NO. 97-165 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-02, DESIGNATING THE GEORGE CHERBAK HOUSE (BUILT APPROXIMATELY 1929) A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED AT 9953 HILLSIDE ROAD AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-211-31. Approval of request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax (CO 97-052) on the George Cherbak House (built approximately 1929), a Historic Landmark, located at 9953 Hillside Road- APN: 1074-211-31. Related file: Landmark Designation 97- 02. Approval of a Resolution adopting the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1997/98 through 2001/02 and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan beginning in Fiscal Year 1997/98 as required for expenditures of Measure "1" funds. RESOLUTION NO. 97-166 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997/98 THROUGH 2001/02 AND TWENTY- YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MEASURE "1" FUNDS o Approval of an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DR 97-02, located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Hyssop Drive, submitted by Rudolf Wallner. RESOLUTION NO. 97-167 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 97-02 17 31 17 33 34 41 42 City Council Agenda November 5, 1997 RESOLUTION NO. 97-168 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 97-02 Approval of Resolution to adopt a Memorandum of Understanding (CO 97-053, 97-054 and 97-055) for all City Employee Groups. RESOLUTION NO. 97-169 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL EMPLOYEES MEET AND CONFER GROUP, MAINTENANCE MEET AND CONFER GROUP, AND THE SUPERVISORY PROFESSIONAL MEET AND CONFER GROUP FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997/1998, 1998/1999 AND 1999/2000. Approval of Salary and Benefits Resolution for Fiscal Year 1997/98 and Rescinding Resolution No. 96-096. RESOLUTION NO. 97-171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-096 AND IMPLEMENTING SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 Approval of release of Cash Maintenance Guarantee Bond in the amount of $9,800.00, for CUP 95-15, located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Rochester. Release: Cash Maintenance Guarantee Bond $9,800.00 43 46 47 56 56-1 57 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No items submitted. City Council Agenda November 5, 1997 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC NEED AND NECESSITY IN GRANTING A TAXI CAB SERVICE PERMIT TO BELL CAB CO. (San Gabriel Transit) CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ADJUST THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE BY MODIFYING CERTAIN FEES RESOLUTION 97-170 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY' ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT BY MODIFYING CERTAIN FEES ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION 96-12 59 61 62 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9.30 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO LOITERING BY MINORS ORDINANCE" NO. 584 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 9.30 OF TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING 'I'O LOITERING BY MINORS CONSIDERATION OF A NARCOTICS OFFENDER EVICTION REFERRAL ORDINANCE-' NO. 585 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO LANDLORDS RENTING PROPERTY UPON WHICH SPECIFIED DRUG AND/OR GANG RELATED ACTIVITIES ARE OCCURRING 95 96 99 100 City Council Agenda November 5, 1997 H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. No items submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. DISCUSSION OF "GUESS WHO" CONCERT 2. DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATIONS 104 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE LARRY TEMPLE, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on October 30, 1997, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. 2. A ~Z~ ~4 ~L. I ~ 0 0000 ~ 0 0000 0000~0~00~00~ ~000~0~00~0~ A A A, A, A I OCII' ~'0~00000000000000000000000000000000000 O00000000000000 I'~ I O e4N NN NN NNNNN NNN NN NNNNNNNNNN NN NNN NNN NNIMN NNN NNN N N NNN NN r · v v v ~v~ I~'~~ ~ ( ZOW Z~Z~ I'~ Z Z Z ZZ ~w ~Z~ I ~ f o o o DO ~ ~>~zzzo~o I~r ~ ~ ~ ~e~ H~HZZ · I- · · I I. I~l I o o~. ). )- o A )00000000000000=00000000000000000000000000OOOOOOOOO0 ~ ZU ~ Z w V~ V~ VZ w w ww~ 0 ~ ~ H Z ~o~ 0 ZZH~ Z~ z~ w~ w Z z ~oozoo o~zoo~ o~ooHo~oo ~ oHo~oo J H UO Z~ Z Z H ~ Z~O~ ~ oo ~ ~ ~ U ~ Z ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ z ~ Z ~ Z Z ~ H ~ ~o ~ O~H 0 ~ zo ~ ~ ~ ~ IZO mr ~ !~i' ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN · 7 z.,~ o~ H .J ). I I o ! .1[ Ir ~NO~OOO~OOONN~OOONOOO0~ tl' · i · o~oo~o~o~oo ~0 ~oo~oo~ooo~oo~oo~ ee leoleleleleeeeelee CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: October 21, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF ANNUAL BANNER APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the City Council approve the annual applications for street banner display as attached. The Commission also recommends a revision in the banner policy by eliminating the annual limit of ten banner displays per location. BACKGROUND: This is the annual request of street banner applications for banner display. The two display locations are Archibald Avenue and Base Line Road. All the applications have been reviewed and meet the criteria of the banner policy. Due to the increasing demand and community acceptance of the street banners, the Commission recommended there not be a limit of banners displayed each year. Each year the requests for banners displayed have exceeded the Banner Policy limit. To help meet this increasing demand, the Commission is currently reviewing additional banner locations. Respectfully submitted, Co :2"~n'/2rv~ // CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICY PAGE OF: 1 of 4 EFFECTIVE: September 18, 1991 SUBJECT: BANNER POLICY ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE PURPOSE: To provide information on the administration and monitoring of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Ba~mer Policy. Definitions: 1. Community-Wide Event. Open to General Public: Events which the entire City is encouraged to be involved in or invited to. 2. Significance to the City's Heritage: Events that promote,, enhance or portray the City's history. 3. Sponsored by the City: Events or activities provided and sponsored by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Duration: Limited to approved number of special event banners per location each calendar year for a period up to two weeks. The City reserves the right to take any and all display periods. Procedure: 1. Obtain City banner application from Community Services Department, see Attachment Ilgn' 2. Return application and corresponding fees to Community Service Department before August 1 of each year. Fees should be made payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Only applications which are fully complete will advance to the approval process. Approval Process: 1. Application must fhlfill both of the following conditions to be considered by the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council. A) Be for a community-wide event open to the general significance to the city's heritage. B) Be sponsored by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. public, and be of 2. If the above conditions are met, the application will be submitted, along with all other applications, to the Park and Recreation Commission. The Commission will review all applications at their August Commission meeting and forward their recommendations to the City Council for final approval. During the review process, when two applications have conflicting or overlapping dates. The applicants will need to chose which banner location is preferred and only one banner from each application will be illown. The City will always take priority in determining the preferred site if they are one of the conflicting applications. If the conflict or overlap can be resolved by flying the banners for a shortened amount of time, then the Commission will make that recommendation to Council, i.e., applicant submits for two weeks which creates conflict, so Commission limits use to one week. 4. Final approval will occur at the next Council meeting following the monthly Park and Recreation Commission meeting. Applications for events which occur after the filing deadline will be considered on a case-by- case basis by City Administrative Staff. These requestors will be included in the notification process and required to meet the policy deadline for the next annual application cycle. 6. Once final approval has been obtained, CSD staff will notify applicant on the status of their application. Terms & Conditions: No banner can be made or displayed in advance of final approval by the City Council or Administrative Staff. The City assumes no liability or costs for banners which applicant has made prior to final approval by the City Council or Administrative Staff. /.5 2. Banners must meet the following requirements: Size: Signage: Material: Three fi,-et high by thirty feet long. Is limited to event name, date, time and location of the event, logo, admission fee, slogan or message. Wording should be kept to a minimum so passersby can view quickly. Be able to withstand elements for a two week period of time. Display of a banner will not exceed two weeks. No banner will be allowed to fly after the event as passed unless the event is on a weekend and City crews are not scheduled until Monday. The City will be responsible for the installation and removal of the banner. The City is not responsible for sign damage occurring during the installation, display and removal of the banner. 5. The City reserves the right to take down any banner which has become a hazard to the public. If desired by the applicant, the City will have the banner made by a vendor. Applicant is responsible for paying in advance for the banner production. If banner is donated, the signage cannot be created until after the approval process is finished. 7. Banners should be delivered to the City's Corporate Yard, 9153 Ninth Street, Monday thru Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Banners cannot be installed by City crews until a representative of the Community Services Department has checked the banner for compliance with the Banner Policy and corresponding approved application. 9. No changes in the approved banner message can be made once approved by the City Council or Administrative Staff: 10. The City reserves the right to refuse installation of banners that do not meet the approved ampliation. The applicant forfeits all money and expenses incurred in such signage. 11. Banners once removed from their location will be available for pick up at the City's Corporate Yard, 91,';3 Ninth Street, Monday thru Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Any unclaimed banners will be discarded after two weeks. 12. Banners can be reused annually if the signage is in good repair as determined by Community Services and Engineering Departments Staff. The organization will still need to apply annually via the Banner Policy Procedure for banner display. /6/ Banner Locations: The only designated banner locations are on Archibald north of Foothill and Base Line west of Haven. Fees&Charges: $75.00 - $50.00 - Installation and removal fee per banner. Administrative fee if City becomes involved in creation and preparation of the bann~er. (Application is responsible for actual cost of banner - payable in advance.) /.5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BANNER POLICY (Amended 8/15/90) POLICY Requests to hang a banner must be made in writing to the Department of Community Services prior to August 1 of every year. The banner must: Be for a community-wide event, open to the general public, and be of significance to the City's heritage, OR Be sponsored by the City of Rancho Cucamonga, AND Be approved by the City Council. DURATION Only six special event banners per location are permitted during each calendar year and may only be displayed for a period of up to two weeks. The City reserves the right to take any and all six display periods. However, a hearing of the Park and Recreation Commission will be held in August of each year to consider all applications that have been deemed complete and submitted with fee prior to August 1. Final approval shall be made by the City Council. BANNER LOCATION The only designated banner locations are on Archibald Avenue north of Foothill Boulevard and Base Line Road west of Haven Avenue. SPECIFICATIONS All banners are three feet in height and thirty feet in length, and upon receipt of a proposed message and required fee, the City will cause the preparation of the banner to begin and will display the banner during the approved display period. The sign copy shall be limited to the event name, date, time, location, logo, admission fee, slogan or message. Final approval of the message on the banner will be made by the City Council with the approval of the application. The installation and removal of the banner will be the responsibility of the City. Following the display period, the banner will be returned to the applicant. The established fee includes installation and removal of the banner. Additional fees will be charged for banner preparation at market price. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 5, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, Principal Planner LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-02 - DEBORAH & ANDREW BURGER - An application to designate the George Cherbak House (built approximately 1929) a Historic Landmark, located at 9953 Hillside Road - APN: 1074-211-31. Related file: Mills Act Agreement 97-02. MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 97-02 -DEBORAH & ANDREW BURGER - A request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax on the George Cherbak House (built approximately 1929) a Historic Landmark, located at 9953 Hillside Road - APN: 1074-211-31. Related file: Landmark Designation 97-02. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Landmark Designation 97-02 by adoption of the attached Resolution and by minute action authorizing the Mayor to sign the Tax Reduction Agreement for Mills Act Agreement 97-02, as unanimously recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission and staff. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The subject residence and garage were finished in 1929 by George Cherbak and his wife, Pauline Hess. The residence and garage are of a Victorian style of primarily rock construction. The structures have thick 16 to 18 inch walls constructed of local rock hauled from nearby washes by the original owners in a model T truck. George and Pauline resided at the house for approximately 60 years. The House is in excellent condition. The Cherbak family members were Russian immigrants who migrated to Alta Loma in 1898. The family contributed much to the early development of Alta Loma as farmers and builders and were active in local social activities. The subject site and structures qualify for landmark designation based upon much of the criteria from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, including significant areas such as; historical, cultural, architectural, and neighborhood and geographic setting. Details concerning these areas of significance are contained in the Facts of Findings section of the attached Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report and Resolution dated October 22, 1997 (see Exhibit "A"). BB: LH/taa Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report dated October 22, 1997 Resolution of Approval for Landmark Designation 97-02 /7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: October 22, 1997 Chairman and Members of Historic Preservation Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, Principal Planner LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-02 ~ DEBORAH & ANDREW BURGER - An application to designate the George Cherbak House (built approximately 1929) a Historic Landmark, located at 9953 Hillside Road - APN: 1074-211-31. Related file: Mills Act Agreement 97-02. MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 97-02 -DEBORAH & ANDREW BURGER - A request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax on the George Cherbak House (built approximately 1929) a Historic Landmark, located at 9953 Hillside Road - APN: 107,4-211-31. Related file: Landmark Designation 97-02. BACKGROUND: Historical Significance: The subject residence and garage were finished in 1929 by George Cherbak and his wife, Pauline Hess. The Residence and garage are of a Victorian style of primarily rock construction. The structures have thick 16-18 inch walls constructed of local rock hauled from the local washes by the original owners in a model T truck. George and Pauline resided at the HousE; for approximately 60 years. The House is in excellent condOion. The Cherbak family were Russian immigrants who contributed much to the early development of Alta Loma as farmers and builders and were active in local social activities. The current applicant has submitted a detailed analysis of the historic elements of the site which is attached as Exhibit "D." Site Characteristics: The site slopes at approximately 4 percent to the south and has several mature trees and a wisteria vine over the driveway. There is a low rock retaining wall across the front of the lot. ANALYSIS: General: This is one of three Cherbak houses built in this block on Hillside Road. The house at 9926 Hillside Road was built in 1913 by the Cherbak sons for their mother and the 9983 Hillside Road location was for Pete Cherbak. All of the Cherbak family homes were constructed of rock and constitute a determining architectural style for the neighborhood as is seen by the new residences which emulate the historic buildings. Landmark Designation: The subject site and structures certainly qualify for landmark designation based upon much of the criteria from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, including such significant areas as; historical, cultural, architectural, and neighborhood and geographic setting. Details concerning these areas of significance are contained in the Facts for Findings section. The requested designation area includes the subject lot, residence, and garage (see Exhibits "B-3" through "B-5"). HPC STAFF REPORT LD 97-02 & MA 97-02- BURGER October 22, 1997 Page 2 Mills Act Agreement: In accordance with City policy, the owner has requested a Mills Act Agreement. The Agreement Schedule List of Improvements has been drafted and reviewed and is attached for reference (Exhibit "C"). The concept of the Mills Act is to provide an incentive for the property owner to protect and preserve the property by retaining its characteristics of historical significance. This intent is encouraged through the reduction of property taxes, thus enabling the property owner to reinvest the money saved from the reduced property tax on improvements. The properties that enter into the agreement are to be inspected by City staff on an annual basis to determine whether notable progress has been made in rehabilitating the property. Staff estimates the annual properly tax savings to the owner could be as much as $906.23 and the reduction in tax proceeds to the City would be $30.81 annually. The exact amounts are dependent upon the County Assessor's property valuation which is based on income potential and the capitalization rate at the time of assessment. Environmental Assessment: The project is Categorically Exempt under Class 3.e of Article 19, Section 15308 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. FACTS FOR FINDING: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Fact/s: The properly identifies an historic period of the early 1900s when grove and vineyard production was at its peak in the community and the region. The residence is an example of a grove house which was common at the turn of the century. Finding 2: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: The landmark-eligible property is 68 years old and an example of Victorian architecture. Finding 3: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. FacVs: The house was; built and lived in by the George Cherbak family for many years. The Cherbak family has a long established involvement in the local community Findinq 4: The proposed landmark is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. Fact/s: The residence and garage are indicative of the style and design used by the once prevalent, but now rare, rural grove and farm houses. /¢ HPC STAFF REPORT LD 97-02 & MA 97-02- BURGER October 22, 1997 Page 3 B. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: Findinq 1: The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. Fact/s: The Victorian style is preserved and artfully incorporated into the residence with such features as a steep pitched roof and thick rock walls. Neighborhood and Geoqraphic Setting: Finding 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. FacUs: The proposed landmark contributes to the variety and historical continuity of the neighborhood. Finding 2: The proposed landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. FacVs: The residence and its mature landscaping represent a significant identifiable feature along Hillside Road and thereby contributes to the entire neighborhood. CORRESPONDENCE: The Historic Landmark designation was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission approve the attached Resolution for Historic Landmark Designation 97-02 and recommend approval, by minute action, to the City Council for the Mills Act Agreement. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:LH/mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Location Map Exhibit"B"- Photos Exhibit "C" - Agreement Schedule List of Improvements Exhibit "D" - Applicant's Description of Historical and Cultural Significance Resolution of Approval MA ,_ 2) -97-02 HILLSIDE m (D EXHIBIT A Z/ Y 2.3 City of Rancho Cucamonga Historic Preservation Commission MILLS ACT AGREEM-ENT SUPPLEM'ENTAL: (To be completed by the Applicant) Potential Structure / Property Improvement Time - Line Please list the improvements which are intended to take place over the next 10 years. in order of owner's priority. List them IYEAR I IMPROVEMENT 1997 re pipe with copper - entire house 1997 re wire electrical in 1998 remodel kitchen 1998 install concrete floor in 1998 install wiring on outside 1998 install irrigation , & 1999 restore hardwood floors 1999 restore outdoor fixtures 2000 repair driveway, 2001 re roof house and tractor barn 9~ ~.:~ ~iS~:~'i~' J c'..~'l~O~' house, bring up to standard tractor barn of house, barn landscaping (trellis, stairwell, ect) upgrade front fencing . I certify that I am presently the legal owner of the subject property. Further, I acknowledge the supplemental information on this form will be sd~d a~'an exh[?it a~ed to the Mills Act Agreement. Date: '~-]q'q~ Signature: (.~., '~.//~'~-~]//~'2~5'"'7~ . Description of Histcrical and Cultural Significance of Prope~y located at 9953 Hillside Road, Alta Lcrna Assessor's Parcel Number 1074 211 31 0 0002 In 1870, a large subsection of today's Cucamonga, then the Cucamonga Rancho, was acquired by Isisas Hellman. This land was formerly held by Tiburcio Tapia, who was granted land from the Mexican Government, and subsequently the Raines family who had lost it after the untimely death of John Raines. Hellman began to subdivide the land.into tracts for development of homes. This particular subdivision was called the Hermosa Tract. Coupled with another tract farther south, the Iowa tract, this particular area of early Alta Loma was called Iomosa. Several Russian families immigrated to the Iomosa colony. In 1890, Captain Peter Demens, who had left the service of the Russian Czar, owned the historic house located at 9686 Hillside Road. He authored articles in Russian newspapers about the advantages of his new home, and wrote to his friend Anthony Stcherbakoff urging him to make the move also. The Stcherbakoffs were wealthy U 'l~aine family, owning vigorous wheat and beet fields, along with some resorts located on the coast of the Black Sea. However, there was a growing sense that a revolution was developing. Mr. Stcherbakoff did not want his 5 sons to become obligated to serve in the Czar's army, so he immigrated from $umi to Iomosa in 1898. He purchased a 50 acre parcel of land located between present day Hermosa Ave and Archibald Ave, where the family established a successful fruit business and abbreviated the family'name to "Cherbak". The Cherbak homes were known for their rock and wood type construction, which was a popular construction type in this era for many reasons: the materials were obtained locally and readily, the construction of this type of structure was extremely durable, and the rocks maintained a cool temperature inside in the hot summers but absorbed precious heat from a well tended fireplace in the wintertime. Altogether', the Cherbaks built 5 stone-type homes on Hillside Road. The house at 9953 Hillside Road was built by son George, after his marriage to Pauline Hess in March 1927. George hired architect Theo. Krysto (whose family also resided and were a significant Russian family in Iamosa) to plan and oversee the construction of the stone house, but George and his wife pa~-ticipated in much of the construction. Together they hauled the rocks for the exterior walls over from the Etiwanda wash in a Model T truck Before the rocks could be placed, each one was scrubbed clean of dirt and debris to ensure bonding with the cement. Rocks were also hauled from the mountains in the Big Bear region for the fireplace facade. The exterior of the house shields a wood framed structure, and therefore the actual walls of the house are a formidable 16"-18" thick There is much wood exposed in the interior of the house, to include doors/door frames, baseboards, windows and a built-in buffet. Much of this wood is of the Gumwood variety, which has a cherry-like finish. The walls are lathe and plaster. The floors are hard wood (variety unknown). Though much of the house has been re-wired, some of the original knob- and-tube remains in the attic. The house is in excellent condition in the interior as well as the exterior. It was completed in 1929. There is also a detached tractor barn constructed roughly of fieldstone. George and Pauline resided here approximately 60 years, during which these young pioneers lived a life of hard work and determination. In the early years the family lived off the land; along with revenue generated from crops, vegetables were grown for family use, and chicken and local venison were readily available (cows were preserved for milk production). The Cherbak Ranch produced almonds, peaches, apricots, lemons, grapefruit, oranges, and grapes. Peaches and apricots were dried on the ranch by the family on racks and shipped to local markets in Los Angeles. Citrus products were hauled down to the historic Upland Pac -king House and were sold on consignment. Grapes were processed at the historic Guasti Winery. George had 4 brothers, but he was the main caretaker of the Cherbak lands. Though the other brothers contributed to the effort, they were also ma 'king a significant contribution to the growing community of Alta Loma; Vladmir ("Val") was a foreman on the Demens land for 39 years, Victor managed a pruning gang that was in much demand, Pete was a field foreman of the Upland Lemon Growers, and Leo was a foreman of the Old l~aldy Pac 'king House. These five brothers made a striking impact upon the areas surrounding their ranch. They were instrumental in bringing water down from the local mountains, and the infrastructure that was laid down is still partially in use by the Cucamonga County Water District. Many of the rows and groves of eucalyptus trees, which served as natural windbreaks and delineated property lines, were planted by the family. The trees were planted parallel to the water flumes for the groves. The flumes were leaky (by no coincidence), which watered the trees. In fact, a large stand of eucalyptus north of Hillside Road on either side of Hermosa, an area now known as "the Woods", was purposely planted by the Cherbaks. It was proposed for making rattan furniture. The Cherbak boys were not the only contributors to the community effort. It is known that Mrs. Victor Cherbak, "Santina", was largely responsible for early privately funded landscaping up and down Haven Avenue and also the entrance drive leading to Chaffey College. There is a street in Alta Loma, Santina, named after her. Further investigation has revealed the numerous interrelationships and friendships between the Cherbak family and other significant families in the area such as the Biane and Demens families, and the Cherbak name is peppered within the pages of The History of Alta Loma, Hard work was a normal way of life for this family: "we didn't do much playing, there wasn't much time to do anything but work...and during the fruit season, oh boy, there really was never a dull moment" (George, 1980). There was no time for play or vacations, and we never 'knew otherwise...all we knew was hard work...when the temperatures fell below 30 degrees, even the kids worked through the night...(Victor Jr., 1997). George continued to work even when his lands were sold off to developers. Many of the current residents fondly recall George waving as his noisy old tractor headed down Hillside Road daily, on his way to a nearby vineyard that needed attention. George became a sort of agriculturist-for-hire, and he always remained active in that respect until the day he sold the property and moved to the Sacramento area. When George and Pauline moved, they closed the book on an era of a way of life in Alta Loma (Iomosa). A more detailed family history is given in The Histo_ry. of Alta Loma, Stoebe, 1981, which is available through the Rancho Cucamonga Librap2,. Stated Reasons for Preservation: 1. Proposed landmark is particularly representative of a historical period, type, style, and way of life. 2. Proposed landmark is an example of a type of building that is now rare. 3. Proposed landmark was connected with a local personality. 4. The construction materials used in the proposed landmark are uniquely effective. 5. The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. 6. The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and familiar'visual feature of the neighborhood. The present owner desires to have the Proposed Landmark identified by a city marker. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LANDMARK DESIGNATION 97-02, DESIGNATING THE GEORGE CHERBAK HOUSE (BUILT APPROXIMATELY 1929) A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED AT 9953 HILLSIDE ROAD AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-211-31. A. Recitals. 1. Deborah and Andrew Burger have filed an application for Landmark Designation 97-02 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application." 2. On October 22, 1997 the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended approval. 3. On November 5, 1997 the City Council held their meeting and approved Landmark Designation 97-02. 4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The application applies to approximately .53 acres of land, basically a rectangle configuration, located at 9953 Hillside Road. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council, including minutes of the public hearing by the Historic Preservation Commission on October 22, 1997, written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Council hereby makes the following findings and facts: a. Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding 1: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of an historic period, type, style, region, or way of life. Fact/s: The property identifies an historic period of the early 1900s when grove and vineyard production was at its peak in the community and the region. The residence is an example of a grove house which was common at the turn of the century. Finding 2: The proposed landmark is of greater age than most of its kind. Fact/s: The landmark-eligible property is 68 years old and an example of Victorian architecture. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. LD 97-02 - BURGER November 5, 1997 Page 2 Finding 3: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Fact/s: The house was built and lived in by the George Cherbak family for many years. The Cherbak family has a long established involvement in the local community Finding 4: The proposed landmark is connected with a business or use which was once common but is now rare. FacVs: The residence and garage are indicative of the style and design used by the, once prevalent, but now rare, rural grove and farm houses. b. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance. Finding 1: The overall effect of the design of the proposed landmark is beautiful or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. Fact/s: The Victorian style is preserved and artfully incorporated into the residence with such features as a steep pitched roof and thick rock walls. c. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting. Finding 1: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the neighborhood. FacFs: The proposed landmark contributes to the variety and historical continuity of the neighborhood. Finding 2: The proposed landmark, in its location, represents an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or city. Fact/s: The residence and its mature landscaping represent a significant identifiable feature along Hillside Road and thereby contributes to the entire neighborhood. 4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, as Landmark Designations are exempt under CEQA, per Class 3.e. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Landmark Designation 97-02. 6. The Mayor shall certiify to the adoption of this Resolution. .f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 5, 1997' Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil,. City Engineer Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997/98 THROUGH 2001/02 AND TWENTY-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 AS REQUIRED FOR EXPENDITURES OF MEASURE I FUNDS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the Local Measure 'T' Five- Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan as requested by SANBAG to provide a public record of the intended use of Local Measure 'T' Funds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Measure 'T', the county-wide transportation sales tax program, requires that each local jurisdiction receiving program revenues annually adopt a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and a Twenty-Year Transportation Plan which outlines; the specific projects upon which those funds shall be expended. Staff has prepared the attached Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan schedule to be adopted by City Council and kept on file with the San Bernardino Associated Governments for informational purposes. The Five-year list has been overprogrammed to allow for spillage and to insure that the adopted plan contains ample projects for Measure ':I" expenditures. If changes are necessary (additions or deletions), the plan may be altered at each annual adoption or intermittently with City Council approval. SANBAG has advised us the Twenty-Year Transportation Plan for Local Measure "I" Funds can be a list of projects for a 20-year period or narrative policy statement estimating the types of projects Local Measure 'T' Funds are to be used for, and the percentage of funds allocated for each type of project. Since it is difficult to list actual projects 20 years in advance, staff recommends Council approve the policy statement. Respectfully sub~mitted, William J. O'~~7~ ~--~'-~ City Engineer WJO:BRH:sd Attachments RESOLUTION NO. ~} 7-/~ ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997/98 THROUGH 2001/02 AND TWENTY- YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MEASURE "I" FUNDS WHEREAS, San Bernardino County voters approved passage of Measure I in November 1989 authorizing San Bernardino Associated Governments, acting as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, to impose a one-half of one percent retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino; and WHEREAS, revenue from the tax can only be used for transportation improvement and traffic management programs authorized in the Expenditure Plans set forth in Ordinance No. 89-1 of the Authority; and WHEREAS, Expenditure Plans of the Ordinance require each local jurisdiction receiving revenue from the tax to expend those funds pursuant to a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and a Twenty-Year Transportation Plan adopted by resolution of the local jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, Expenditure Plans of the Ordinance also require that each local jurisdiction annually adopt and update the Five and Twenty-Year plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, hereby adopts the Measure I Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan, a copy of which is attached to this r~solution. O~ o~ .~o 0 ~ o o o 0 o o o o.I ~7 o o o o 0 0 0 o o 0 20 YEAR LOCAL MEASURE 'T' TRANSPORTATION PLAN The 20 Year Local Measure "I" Transportation Plan for the expenditure of Measure 'T' funds will use the City's General Plan Circulation Element as a base. It is anticipated that the funds will be allocated in the following manner: TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT PERCENT Maintenance, Rehabilitation and Repair of Existing Roadways Traffic Signal Improvements Street Widening Intersection Improvements Railroad Crossing Improvements Slurry and Chip Seal of Existing Streets 30 10 20 10 10 20 (See attached City's General Plan Circulation Element) Z/D .f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 5, 1997 Mayor and Member's of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, Ciity Manager, William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 97-02, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND HYSSOP DRIVE, SUBMITTED BY RUDOLF WALLNER RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving DR 97-02, accepting the subject agreement and securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS DR 97-02, located at the northwest corner of 6th Street and Hyssop Drive, within the General Industrial District (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was approved by the City Planner on June 4, 1997. This project is for the construction of a 24,000 square foot addition to an existing building on 2.33 acres of land. The Developer, Rudolf Wallner, is submitting an improvement agreement and improvement securities to guarantee the construction of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Pertbrmance Bond Labor and Material Bond: $68,300.00 $34,150.00 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectively submitted, William J. O 1~' City Engineer WJO:WV:sd Attachments RESOLUTION NO. ¢ 7- / ~' 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 97-02 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on November 5, 1997, by Rudolf Wallner as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the northwest comer of 6th Street and Hyssop Drive; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as Development Review No. 97-02; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities,. which are identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute: same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and That said Improvement Securities are accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attomey. RESOLUTION NO. q 7-/~' ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 97-02 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Pan 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, TFIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTEN~ANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1'AND 6 5T/~EET ~ I G/-/I' A4, 71S. ..?.... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA :~~~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO' p,~ o2 ~~:~:~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~)/P ¢¥ EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: DR 97-02 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 S6 1 NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16,000L 22,000L *2 2T500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Turf Dist. D.G.S.F. S.F. L3B Non-Turf S.F. * Existing street light installed with original project. This DR will add 16 street trees, street light on 6th Street and Hyssop Drive. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres ' S 1 S2 L1 2.33 4.66 2.33 2.33 Trees Ea. 16 Annexation Date: November 5, 1997 ......................................................................................... C T¥sTAFFOF R NCH°REPoRTCUC'AM°S( ^ DATE: November 5, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, City Manager Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Approval of Resolution No. To Adopt a Memorandum of Understandinff for all City Employee Groups Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. which will enact a Memorandum of Understanding for all City employee bargaining groups for the term of a three year contract efibctive July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2000. Backffround: Staff and the City's three employee bargaining groups - General, Maintenance and Supervisory/Professional - have met and conferred and negotiated a three year labor contract. The negotiated sum of the MOU is adjusted incrementally and spread out over the three years. The attached Memoranda of Understanding have been executed by the representatives of the employee bargaining groups and are provided here for enactment under the Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director LIT:pjm Attachment l:\ltemple~971abor\97mou RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL EMPLOYEES MEET AND CONFER GROUP, MAINTENANCE MEET AND CONFER GROUP, AND THE SUPERVISORY PROFESSIONAL MEET AND CONFER GROUP FOR FISCAL YEARS 1997/1998, 1998/1999 AND 1999/2000. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (, the "City") has met and conferred with its groups, namely, the General Employees Meet and Confer Group, Maintenance Employees Meet and Confer Group, and the Supervisory/Professional Employees Meet and Confer Group, over wages, hours and working conditions; and WHEREAS, the City has reached agreement with the three above-captioned meet and confer groups; and WHEREAS, Memoranda of Understanding for Fiscal Years 1997/1998, 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 outlining the agreement between the City and each of the three meet and confer groups are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference to this Resolution; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby approve entry into Memoranda of Understanding for Fiscal Years 1997/1998, 1998/1999 and 1999/2000 with the City's three meet and confer groups, General Employees, Maintenance Employees, and Supervisory/Professional Employees. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1997. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and representatives of the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and; WHEREAS, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and representatives of the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and Confer, and; WHEREAS, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and representatives of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the agreements of the Meet and Confer process; NOW, THEREFORE, the Maintenance Employees Group and the City of Rancho Cucamonga agree as follows: IMPLEMENTATION All terms and conditions of employment currently in effect and not changed by the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect (i.e. Evergreen through the term of the contract). The effective date for implementation of the items in this Memorandum of Understanding is July 1, 1997. The term of this agreement is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2000. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT Base salary adjustment as follows: First Year 1.5% 1.0% Second Year 1.5% 1.0% Third Year 1.5% 1.0% MEDICAL, DENTAL AND OPTICAL COVERAGE Effective November 26, 1997 Effective January 22, 1998 Effective July 23, 1998 EffEctive January 21, 1999 Effective July 22, 1999 Effective January 20, 2000 The City will maintain all current benefits during the term of the three year contract. '/7 2% AT 55 YEARS RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION The City agrees to provide the employees contribution for the 2% at 55 years PERS retirement benefit effective July 1, 1997. 40 HOURS OF VACATION BUY-BACK The City agrees to provide: the cash value of 40 hours of vacation leave annually in November. Employees must maintain a minimum of 80 hours of accrued vacation subsequent to any payment of vacation buy back time. Employees who wish to buy back vacation, must request payment of not more than or less than 40 hours. The vacation buy back payment will be made in the first non-payroll week annually in November. Payment request must be submitted in writing one week prior to the payment ,date. BII,INGUAI, COMPENSATION The City's Personnel Department will establish in the first six months of the first year of the three year contract a bilingual language program. City management will be responsible for identifying the need to provide bilingual language interpretation to conduct daily City business and operation. Management shall specify the number of positions to conduct the bilingual program. Compensation in the bilingual program will be provided at $50 per month based on the need to provide second language interpretation for normal and customary operation. The Personnel Department will set up proficiency standards and select candidates who will undergo a testing process to select qualified bilingual interpreters. Proficiency in a second language does not guarantee eligibility for the bilingual compensation contribution. For the Maintenance Employees: For the City: L Svc Director Bret Lance M/~io~ucero /' / cott Dave Ward I :\ltemple\971abor\97mammou MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and representatives of the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and; WHEREAS, the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and representatives of the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and Confer, and; WHEREAS, the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and representatives of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the agreements of the Meet and Confer process; NOW, THEREFORE,, the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and the City of Rancho Cucamonga agree as follows: IMPLEMENTATION All terms and conditions of employment currently in effect and not changed by the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect (i.e. Evergreen through the term of the contract). The effective date for implementation of the items in this Memorandum of Understanding is July 1, 1997. The term of this agreement is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2000. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT Base salary adjustment as follows: First Year 1.5% 1.0% EffEctive November 26, 1997 EffEctive January 22, 1998 Second Year 1.5% 1.0% Effective July 23, 1998 Effective January 21, 1999 Third Year 1.5% 1.0% Effective July 22, 1999 Effective January 20, 2000 MEDICAL. DENTAL AND OPTICAL COVERAGE The City will maintain all current benefits during the term of the three year contract. .5'/ 2% AT 55 YEARS RF~TIRF~MI:;NT F, MPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION The City agrees to provide the employees contribution for the 2% at 55 years PERS retirement benefit effective July 1, 1997. 40 HOURS OF VACATION BUY-BACK The City agrees to provide the cash value of 40 hours of vacation leave annually in November. Employees must maintain a minimum of 80 hours of accrued vacation subsequent to any payment of vacation buy back time. Employees who wish to buy back vacation, must request payment of not more than or less than 40 hours. The vacation buy back payment will be made in the first non- payroll week annually in November. Payment request must be submitted in writing one week prior to the payment date. BILINGUAL COMPENSATION The City's Personnel Department will establish in the first six months of the first year of the three year contract a bilingual language program. City management will be responsible for identifying the need to provide bilingual language interpretation to conduct daily City business and operation. Management shall specify the number of positions to conduct the bilingual program. Compensation in the bilingual program will be provided at $50 per month based on the need to provide second language interpretation for normal and customary operation. The Personnel Department will set up proficiency standards and select candidates who will undergo a testing process to select qualified bilingual interpreters. Proficiency in a second language does not guarantee eligibility for the bilingual compensation contribution. ACTUARIAI~ The City agrees to submit and request an acmarial from PERS to determine the cost of the 7% add on benefit for the final year of retirement. This will be requested at~er the second year of the contract and before the expiration of the term of the agreement effective June 30, 2000. For/t~}e~ ?ervisory/Pro fessional Employees: For the City: Lawrenc~'~Svc Director Carlos Silva .5-2 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WHEREAS, the representatives of the General Employees Group and representatives of the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and; WHEREAS, the representatives of the General Employees Group and representatives of the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and Confer, and; WHEREAS, the representatives of the General Group and representatives of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the agreements of the Meet and Confer process; NOW, THEREFORE, the General Employees Group and the City of Rancho Cucamonga agree as follows: IMPLEMENTATION All terms and conditions of employment currently in effect and not changed by the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect (i.e. Evergreen through the term of the contract). The effective date for implementation of the items in this Memorandum of Understanding is July 1, 1997. The term of this agreement is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 2000. COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT Base salary adjustment as follows: First Year 1.5% 1.0% Second Year 1.5% 1.0% Third Year 1.5% 1.0% MEDICAL, DENTAL AND OPTICAL COVERAGE Effective November 26, 1997 Effective January 22, 1998 Effective July 23, 1998 Effective January 21, 1999 Effective July 22, 1999 Effective January 20, 2000 The City will maintain all current benefits during the term of the three year contract. 2% AT 55 YEARS RETIREMENT EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION The City agrees to provide the employees contribution for the 2% at 55 years PERS retirement benefit effective July 1, 1997. 40 HOURS OF VACATION BUY-BACK The City agrees to provide the cash value of 40 hours of vacation leave annually in November. Employees must maintain a minimum of 80 hours of accrued vacation subsequent to any payment of vacation buy back time. Employees who wish to buy back vacation, must request payment of not more than or less than 40 hours. The vacation buy back payment will be made in the first non- payroll week annually in November. Payment request must'be submitted in writing one week prior to the payment date. BILINGUAL COMPENSATION The City's Personnel Department will establish in the first six months of the first year of the three year contract a bilingual language program. City management will be responsible for identifying the need to provide bilingual language interpretation to conduct daily City business and operation. Management shall specify the number of positions to conduct the bilingual program. Compensation in the bilingual program will be provided at $50 per month based on the need to provide second language interpretation for normal and customary operation. The Personnel Department will set up proficiency standards and select candidates who will undergo a testing process to select qualified bilingual interpreters. Proficiency in a second language does not guarantee eligibility for the bilingual compensation contribution. For the General Employees Group: For the City: awre~~~~ Admin Svc Director tS~eiley Mad)dox Karen Silhanek Je e Spikes Pa~or i:~ltemple\971abor\97genmou .5'5 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 5, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council, Jack Lam, City Manager Lawrence I. Temple, Administrative Services Director Approval to Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Rescinding Resolution No. 96-096 and Implementing Salary and Benefits for Fiscal Year 1997-98 RECOMMENDATION The City Council adopt the attached Resolution which will enact the terms of the Memoranda of Understanding which are to be concurrently approved by the City Council on November 5, 1997. In addition, the Council rescind Resolution 96-096 which related to the prior fiscal year salary and benefit terms. BACKGROUND Staff has met collectively with the City's bargaining groups. Staff has successfully concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each group and these are before the City Council for approval on November 5, 1997. The attached Salary and Benefit Resolution implements the MOU's with the City's bargaining groups. The cost for enactment of the MOU's for Fiscal Year 1997-98 is contained within the 1997- 1998 Fiscal Year Budget. The attached Salary and Benefit Resolution is effective July 1, 1997. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence 1. Temple Administrative Services Direcl:or Attachment LIT:pjm I :\ltemple~971abor\salaryres RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-096 AND IMPLEMENTING SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that it is necessary for the efficient operation and management of the City that policies be established prescribing salary ranges, benefits, and holidays and other policies for employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that it competes in a marketplace to obtain qualified personnel to perform and provide municipal services, and that compensation and conditions of employment must be sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain qualified employees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1997. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of November, 1997. Executed this 5th day of November, 1997 at Rancho Cucamonga, California Debra J. Adams, City Clerk EE '- ~ 0 ~ E~ 0 0 0 XO0~O Resolution 97-* Page 8 SECTION 3: Three Tiered Management Program Employees designated as either Professional/Supervisory, Management, or Executive Management are not eligible for overtime pay, or compensatory time for working hours over and above the normal daily work schedule. Employees so designated shall be entitled to all benefits provided to general employees and the following: Supervisory/Professional A successfiJi completion of six months service classification. B. Life insurance policy of an additional $20,000. C. Deferred compensation program of 2% of salary. Management A. Administrative leave to a maximum of 50 hours per fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate supervisor, after within this successful completion of six months service classification. B. Life insurance policy of an additional $20,000. C. Deferred compensation program of 4% of salary. Executive Management So Administrative leave to a maximum of 75 hours per fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate supervisor, after within this Administrative leave to a maximum of 100 hours per fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate supervisor, after successful completion of six months service within this classification. Life insurance policy of an additional $30,000. Deferred compensation program of 6% of salary. Automobile allowance of $250 per month if a City vehicle is not provided.. SECTION 4: Life Insurance The City provides $30,000 base coverage of life insurance for all employees. Employees who want to purchase additional life insurance coverage with Resolution 97-* Page 9 personal funds may do so at the City's group rate. SECTION 5: Health Insurance The City provides health insurance plans available to all full time continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to average the cost of medical insurance for all current employees as one group, providing for no additional payment by employees for coverage through June 30, 2000. The City will provide up to $337 per month in medical coverage for all full time employees hired after July 1, 1994. SECTION 6: Retiree Medical Employees who retire at the age of 55 or above with ten years of service with the City of Rancho Cucamonga can pay for medical insurance at a group rate through the City until 18 months prior to the age of 65 at which time they can convert to Cobra. SECTION 7: Dental Insurance The City shall provide a dental insurance plan for all full-time continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to average the cost of dental insurance for all full time continuous salaried employees and elected officials through June 30, 2000. SECTION 8: Optical Insurance The City shall provide an optical insurance plan for all full-time continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to average the cost of optical insurance for all full time continuous salaried employees and elected officials through June 30, 2000. SECTION 9: Bereavement Leave When a death occurs in the family of a full time employee, the employee shall be granted up to five (5) bereavement leave days with pay. A death certificate or other acceptable evidence may be required by the department head before leave is allowed. Family members are defined as follows: employee's spouse, employee's parents, employee's grandparents, employee's children, employee's siblings, or employee's grandchildren, employee's spouse's parents, employee's spouse's grandparents, employee's spouse's siblings, employee's spouse's children, employee's spouse's grandchildren, or a blood relative residing with employee. The depadment head and the City Manager shall approve such bereavement leave. Resolution 97-* Page 10 SECTION 10: Personal Leave Employees can use up to 20 hours of accrued sick leave, vacation, administrative leave or holiday time as personal leave. This 20 hours can be used incrementally (i.e., 1 hour, ~ hour) throughout the fiscal year. Use of this time is for situations requiring the employee's attention and needs to be cleared with their supervisor when using this time. Personal leave can be taken after six months service. SECTION 11: Vacation All full-time employees shall, with continuous service, accrue working hours of vacation monthly according to the following schedule. Vacation can be taken after six months service. Length of Service Hours Accrued Annual Hours in Years Per Pay Period Accrued I 3.077 80 2 3.461 9O 3 3.846 100 4 4.230 110 5 4.615 120 6-8 5.000 130 9 5.384 140 10 5.769 150 11-13 6.153 160 14 6.538 170 15+ 6.923 180 SECTION 12: Vacation buyback City to provide the cash value of 40 hours of vacation leave annually in November. Employees must maintain a minimum of 80 hours of accrued vacation subsequent to any payment of vacation buy back time. Employees who wish to buy back vacation must request payment of not more than or less than 40 hours. SECTION 13: Sick Leave All full-time employees shall, with continuous service, accrue 120 hours of sick leave annually. Sick leave can be taken after six months service. Resolution 97-* Page 11 SECTION 14: Sick Leave Buyback Employees who terminate their city employment after 5 years of continuous service and have at least 50% of five years' sick leave accrued on the books upon termination can sell 120 hours back to the City. SECTION 15: Holidays The City Offices shall observe the following 14 holidays. All full time continuous salaried employees shall be compensated at their regular rate for these days. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) July 3, 1997 & July 2, 1998 - Independence Day September 1, 1997 & September 7, 1998 - Labor Day November 11, 1997 & November 11, 1998 - Veteran's Day November 27, 1997 & November 26, 1998 - Thanksgiving Day November 28, 1997 & November 27, 1998 - Day following Thanksgiving (floater) December 24, 1997 & December 23, 1997- The day preceding Christmas (floater) December 25, 1997 & December December 24, 1998 - Christmas Day January 1, 1998 & December 31, 1999 - New Years January 15, 1998 & January 18, 1999 - Martin Luther King's Birthday February 16, 1998 & February 15, 1999 - President's Day May 25, 1998 & May 31, 1999 - Memorial Day Three discretiionary days may be taken by an employee at his/her convenience after six months service subject to approval of the department head. Days may not be carried over from one fiscal year to the next. Whenever a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed as a holiday. Whenever a holiday falls on a Friday or Saturday, the preceding Thursday shall be observed as the holiday. When a holiday combination occurs (Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc) where two consecutive days are holidays and it would result in the City Hall being open to serve the public only 2 days during the week, only one of the holidays will be observed and the other holiday will become a floating holiday. For example, for Thanksgiving, Thursday will be observed as the regular holiday, however Friday will become a floating holiday to be used at a later date. For Christmas, Wednesday will be observed as the regular holiday, however Tuesday (the day preceding Christmas) will become a floating holiday to be used at a later date. In the instance of Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Years, employees will have until June 30 to use those floating holidays accrued between Thanksgiving and New years. Also, those days will not accruE; as floating holidays until the actual holiday has occurred. Each year the City will designate which days will be observed and which are floating holidays. Resolution 97-* Page 12 Employees who are eligible to bank a holiday have until June 30 (end of fiscal year) to use the banked holiday earned from July 1 through April 30. Any holiday banked in May and June, employees have until September 30 to use the banked holiday. SECTION 16: Holiday Time The City agrees that employees who are assigned to work on a holiday, whether or not their regular shift assignment requires they work that day, are eligible for pay at time and one-half for working that day. This time and one-half may be taken as compensation or put in a compensatory time off bank, (in effect, compensating at double time and one-half). That rate of compensation is tallied as follows: the ten hours compensation for the holiday, plus compensation at time and one-half for the hours actually worked. This payment at time and one-half abrogates the employees right to that holiday. SECTION 17: Premium Holiday Compensation Maintenance employees required as part of the regular work assignment to work on Christmas Day, New Years Day, Independence Day or Thanksgiving Day, are allowed to observe the holiday on another day. Additionally, these employees who work on the aforementioned designated holidays may select to receive compensation on that holiday at time and one-half for the ten hour shift, or take a second holiday as time off at a later date. SECTION 18: Natal and Adoption Leave without Pay Employees are granted up to four months natal and adoption leave for the birth or adoption of a child. Employees on this leave of absence without pay will be responsible for the payment of medical, dental and optical premiums to keep the coverage in force during the leave of absence. SECTION 19: Natal and Adoption Leave with Pay Employees are granted up to 2 days natal and adoption leave with pay for the birth or adoption of a child. Any paid time required beyond this initial 2 days must be charged to sick leave, vacation, compensatory or floating holiday time. SECTION 20: Military Leave Employees required to serve military leave will be compensated pursuant to the Military and Veterans Code. To qualify for compensation the military orders must be submitted to the supervisor prior to their tour of duty and must be attached to the timecard for that pay period. Resolution 97-* Page 13 SECTION 21: Military Service Buy Back Employees havE; the option for military service buy back at the employee's expense. SECTION 22: Overtime - Maintenance The City agrees that employees who are sent home to rest and to be available to work additional hours as a result of a storm or impending emergency situation and are not subsequently recalled to work, will be compensated for the hours not worked in that shift, due to them having been sent home, to bring the total hours to 10 worked in that shift. Employees who are subsequently recalled to work the storm or emergency situation will work no more than 12 consecutive hours. Any hours worked in excess of 10 in that 12 hour shift will be paid at time and one-half, regardless of the total numbers of compensated hours for that work week. SECTION 23: Standby Pay Employees required to be on standby shall be compensated at the rate of $150 per week. SECTION 24: Safety Footwear The City will provide up to $150 annually toward the purchase of safety footwear at a city designated vendor for employees required to wear safety footwear as pad of their job responsibilities. SECTION 25: 2% ~. 55 City to provide the employees contribution for 2% @ 55 years PERS retirement benefit. SECTION 26: Tuition Reimbursement City to provide all regular full time employees for tuititon reimbursement who meet criteria outlined in tuition reimbursement policy up to a maximum of $250 per person per fiscal year. SECTION 27:4/10 Work Week The City will operatE: on a 4/10 work week, hours 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Thursday. Resolution 97-* Page 14 SECTION 28: Carpool Banked Hours Employees who are eligible to bank % hour carpool time have until June 30 (end of fiscal year) to use the banked hours earned from July 1 through April 30. Any carpool hours banked in May and June, employees have until September 30 to use the banked time. SECTION 28: Bi-Lingual Pay Employees who qualify for bi-lingual pay will be provided at $50 per month. SECTION 29: The City Manager's contract #89-037 is renewed for fiscal year 1997-98. SECTION 30: City Council members have the option to join PERS; members contribution to be paid by councilmember. City Council members are eligible for a $200 per month car allowance. SECTION 31: Confidential Employees Confidential employees are designated as such when an employee in the course of his or her duties, has access to information relating to the City's administration of employer-employee relations. Employees designated as confidential employees may not act as representatives of employee organizations which represent other employees of the City. The employees designated as confidential employees are as follows: Personnel Services Coordinator Personnel Clerk Benefits Technician Account Technician - Payroll Office Specialist II .. Admin Svc Secretary Planning commission Secretary Admin Secretary Sr Admin Secretary Risk Management Coordinator Deputy City Clerk Records Clerk Records Manager/City Clerk SECTION 32: The provisions of this resolution are effective July 1, 1997. RESOLUTION NO. 97-171 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION 96-096 IMPLEMENTING SALARY AND BENEFITS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997-98 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that it is necessary for the efficient operation and management of the City that policies be established prescribing salary ranges, benefits, and holidays and other policies for employees of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga recognizes that it competes in a marketplace to obtain qualified personnel to perform and provide municipal services, and that compensation and conditions of employment must be sufficiently attractive to recruit and retain qualified employees, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, as follows: PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1997. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of November, 1997. Executed this 5th day of November, 1997 Rancho Cucamonga, California Debra J. Adams, City Clerk E t- O 0 (D z Z C f~ 0 ~ CO. 0 ~ E~ c ~ ~ · 0 ~ ~ .... C: ~ C: CL E~ ............................ c: CL EE E~ Resolution 97-171 Page 8 * Denotes Management Class + Denotes Executive Class Executive Management employees will be assigned to salary ranges which are no less than 20% (40 salary code steps) below the control point and no more than 15% (30 salary code steps) above the control point. All other employees will be assigned to salary ranges which are no less than 20% (40 salary code steps) below the control point and no more than 5% (10 salary code steps) above the control point. Actual salary within the range is determined by performance, achievement of goals and objectives, or for recent appointments, growth within the position. SECTION 3: Three Tiered Management Program Employees designated as either Professional/Supervisory, Management, or Executive Management are not eligible for overtime pay, or compensatory time for working hours over and above the normal daily work schedule. Employees so designated shall be entitled to all benefits provided to general employees and the following: Supervisory/Professional A Administrative leave to a maximum of 50 hours per fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate supervisor, after successful completion of six months service within this classification. Life insurance policy of an additional $20,000. Deferred compensation program of 2% of salary. Management Administrative leave to a maximum of 75 hours per fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate supervisor, after successful completion of six months service within this classification. Life insurance policy of an additional $20,000. Deferred compensation program of 4% of salary. Executive Management ao Administrative leave to a maximum of 100 hours per fiscal year. Days off must be approved by appropriate supervisor, after successful completion of six months service within this classification. Life insurance policy of an additional $30,000. Deferred compensation program of 6% of salary. Automobile allowance of $250 per month if a City vehicle is not provided. Resolution 97-171 Page 9 SECTION 4: Life Insurance The City provides $30,000 base coverage of life insurance for all employees. Employees who want to purchase additional life insurance coverage with personal funds may do so at the City's group rate. SECTION 5: Health Insurance The City provides health insurance plans available to all full time continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to average the cost of medical insurance for all current employees as one group, providing for no additional payment by employees for coverage through June 30, 2000. The City will provide up to $337 per month in medical coverage for all full time employees hired after July 1, 1994. SECTION 6: Retiree Medical Employees who retire at the age of 55 or above with ten years of service with the City of Rancho Cucamonga can pay for medical insurance at a group rate through the City until 18 months prior to the age of 65 at which time they can convert to Cobra. SECTION 7: Dental Insurance The City shall provide a dental insurance plan for all full-time continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to average the cost of dental insurance for all full time continuous salaried employees and elected officials through June 30, 2000. SECTION 8: Optical Insurance The City shall provide an optical insurance plan for all full-time continuous salaried employees and elected officials. The City agrees to average the cost of optical insurance for all full time continuous salaried employees and elected officials through June 30, 2000. SECTION 9: Bereavement Leave When a death occurs in the family of a full time employee, the employee shall be granted up to five (5) bereavement leave days with pay. A death certificate or other acceptable evidence may be required by the department head before leave is allowed. Family members are defined as follows: employee's spouse, employee's parents, employee's grandparents, employee's children, employee's siblings, or employee's grandchildren, employee's spouse's parents, employee's spouse's grandparents, employee's spouse's siblings, employee's spouse's children, employee's spouse's grandchildren, or a blood relative residing with employee. The department head and the City Manager shall approve such bereavement leave. Resolution 97-171 Page 10 SECTION 10: Personal Leave Employees can use up to 20 hours of accrued sick leave, vacation, administrative leave or holiday time as personal leave. This 20 hours can be used incrementally (i.e., 1 hour, ~ hour) throughout the fiscal year. Use of this time is for situations requiring the employee's attention and needs to be cleared with their supervisor when using this time. Personal leave can be taken after six months service. SECTION 11: Vacation All ful14ime employees shall, with continuous service, accrue working hours of vacation monthly according to the following schedule. Vacation can be taken after six months service. Length of Service Hours Accrued Annual Hours in Years Per Pay Period Accrued I 3.077 80 2 3.461 90 3 3.846 1 O0 4 4.230 110 5 4.615 120 6-8 5.000 130 9 5.384 140 10 5.769 150 11-13 6.153 160 14 6.538 170 15+ 6.923 180 SECTION 12: Vacation buyback City to provide the cash value of 40 hours of vacation leave annually in November. Employees must maintain a minimum of 80 hours of accrued vacation subsequent to any payment of vacation buy back time. Employees who wish to buy back vacation must request payment of not more than or less than 40 hours. SECTION 13: Sick Leave All full-time employees shall, with continuous service, accrue 120 hours of sick leave annually. Sick leave can be taken after six months service. SECTION 14: Sick Leave Buyback Employees who terminate their city employment after 5 years of continuous service and have at least 50% of five years' sick leave accrued on the books upon termination can sell 120 hours back to the City. Resolution 97-171 Page 11 SECTION 15: Holidays The City Offices shall observe the following 14 holidays. All full time continuous salaried employees shall be compensated at their regular rate for these days. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (9) (10) (11) (12) July 3, 1997 & July 2, 1998 - Independence Day September 1, 1997 & September 7, 1998 - Labor Day November 11, 1997 & November 11, 1998 - Veteran's Day November 27, 1997 & November 26, 1998 - Thanksgiving Day November 28, 1997 & November 27, 1998 - Day following Thanksgiving (floater) December 24, 1997 & December 23, 1998 - The day preceding Christmas (floater) December 25, 1997 & December 24, 1998 - Christmas Day January 1, 1998 & December 31, 1998 - New Years January 19, 1998 & January 18, 1999 - Martin Luther King's Birthday February 16, 1998 & February 15, 1999 - President's Day May 25, 1998 & May 31, 1999 - Memorial Day Three discretionary days may be taken by an employee at his/her convenience after six months service subject to approval of the department head. Days may not be carried over from one fiscal year to the next. Whenever a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed as a holiday. Whenever a holiday falls on a Friday or Saturday, the preceding Thursday shall be observed as the holiday. When a holiday combination occurs (Thanksgiving, Christmas, etc) where two consecutive days are holidays and it would result in the City Hall being open to serve the public only 2 days during the week, only one of the holidays will be observed and the other holiday will become a floating holiday. For example, for Thanksgiving, Thursday will be observed as the regular holiday, however Friday will become a floating holiday to be used at a later date. For Christmas, Wednesday will be observed as the regular holiday, however Tuesday (the day preceding Christmas) will become a floating holiday to be used at a later date. In the instance of Thanksgiving, Christmas, or New Years, employees will have until June 30 to use those floating holidays accrued between Thanksgiving and New years. Also, those days will not accrue as floating holidays until the actual holiday has occurred. Each year the City will designate which days will be observed and which are floating holidays. Employees who are eligible to bank a holiday have until June 30 (end of fiscal year) to use the banked holiday earned from July 1 through April 30. Any holiday banked in May and June, employees have until September 30 to use the banked holiday. Resolution 97-171 Page 12 SECTION 16: Holiday Time The City agrees that employees who are assigned to work on a holiday, whether or not their regular shift assignment requires they work that day, are eligible for pay at time and one-half for working that day. This time and one- half may be taken as compensation or put in a compensatory time off bank, (in effect, compensating at double time and one-half). That rate of compensation is tallied as follows: the ten hours compensation for the holiday, plus compensation at time and one-half for the hours actually worked. This payment at time and one-half abrogates the employees right to that holiday. SECTION 17: Premium Holiday Compensation Maintenance employees required as part of the regular work assignment to work on Christmas Day, New Years Day, Independence Day or Thanksgiving Day, are allowed to observe the holiday on another day. Additionally, these employees who work on the aforementioned designated holidays may select to receive compensation on that holiday at time and one-half for the ten hour shift, or take a second holiday as time off at a later date. SECTION 18: Natal and Adoption Leave without Pay Employees are granted up to four months natal and adoption leave for the birth or adoption of a child. Employees on this leave of absence without pay will be responsible for the payment of medical, dental and optical premiums to keep the coverage in force during the leave of absence. SECTION 19: Natal and Adoption Leave with Pay Employees are granted up to 2 days natal and adoption leave with pay for the birth or adoption of a child. Any paid time required beyond this initial 2 days must be charged to sick leave, vacation, compensatory or floating holiday time. SECTION 20: Military Leave Employees required to serve military leave will be compensated pursuant to the Military and Veterans Code. To qualify for compensation the military orders must be submitted to the supervisor prior to their tour of duty and must be attached to the timecard for that pay period. SECTION 21: Military Service Buy Back Employees have the option for military service buy back at the employee's expense. Resolution 97-171 Page 13 SECTION 22: Overtime- Maintenance The City agrees that employees who are sent home to rest and to be available to work additional hours as a result of a storm or impending emergency situation and are not subsequently recalled to work, will be compensated for the hours not worked in that shift, due to them having been sent home, to bring the total hours to 10 worked in that shift. Employees who are subsequently recalled to work the storm or emergency situation will work no more than 12 consecutive hours. Any hours worked in excess of 10 in that 12 hour shift will be paid at time and one-half, regardless of the total numbers of compensated hours for that work week. SECTION 23: Standby Pay Employees required to be on standby shall be compensated at the rate of $150 per week. SECTION 24: Safety Footwear The City will provide up to $150 annually toward the purchase of safety footwear at a city designated vendor for employees required to wear safety footwear as part of their job responsibilities. SECTION 25: 2% ~ 55 City to provide the employees contribution for 2% @ 55 years PERS retirement benefit. SECTION 26: Tuition Reimbursement City to provide all regular full time employees for tuititon reimbursement who meet criteria outlined in tuition reimbursement policy up to a maximum of $250 per person per fiscal year. SECTION 27:4/10 Work Week The City will operate on a 4/10 work week, hours 7 am to 6 pm, Monday through Thursday. SECTION 28: Carpool Banked Hours Employees who are eligible to bank ~ hour carpool time have until June 30 (end of fiscal year) to use the banked hours earned from July 1 through April 30. Any carpool hours banked in May and June, employees have until September 30 to use the banked time. Resolution 97-171 Page 14 SECTION 28: Bi-Lingual Pay Employees who qualify for bi-lingual pay will be provided at $50 per month. SECTION 29: The City Manager's contract #89-037 is renewed for fiscal year 1997-98. SECTION 30: City Council members have the option to join PERS; members contribution to be paid by councilmember. City Council members are eligible for a $200 per month car allowance. SECTION 31: Confidential Employees Confidential employees are designated as such when an employee in the course of his or her duties, has access to information relating to the City's administration of employer-employee relations. Employees designated as confidential employees may not act as representatives of employee organizations which represent other employees of the City. The employees designated as confidential employees are as follows: Personnel Services Coordinator Personnel Clerk Benefits Technician Account Technician - Payroll Office Specialist II - Admin Svc Secretary Planning commission Secretary Admin Secretary Sr Admin Secretary RiskManagement Coordinator Deputy City Clerk Records Clerk Records ManagedCity Clerk SECTION 32: The provisions of this resolution are effective November 5, 1997. BASIC SCHEDULE I -- SALARY CODE TABLE PAY SCHEDULE IN HOURLY, BI-WEEKLY AND MONTHLY ONE HALF PERCENT BETWEEN RANGES MONTHLY AMOUNTS ROUNDED TO NEAREST DOLLAR AMOUNTS Range Number 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216, 217. 218. 219. 220. 221 . 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. Hourly Rate 5.1552 5.1809 5.2069 5.2329 5.2591 5.2853 5.3118 5.3383 5,3650 5.3919 5.4188 5.4459 5.4731 5.5005 5.5280 5.5556 5.5834 5.6113 5.6394 5.6676 5.6959 5.7244 5.7530 5.7818 5.8107 5,8398 5.8690 5.8983 5.9278 5.9574 5.9872 6.0172 6.0472 6,0775 6,1079 6.1384 6.1691 6,1999 6.2309 6.2521 6.2934 Bi-Weekly Monthly Range Hourly Rate Rate ~---~r Rate 412.4139 894 231. 6.3249 232. 6.3565 414.4760 898 233. 6.3883 416.5483 903 234, 6.4202 418,6311 907 235. 6.4523 420.7242 912 236. 6.4846 422.8279 916 237. 6.5170 424.9420 921 238. 6.5496 427.0667 925 239. 6.5823 240. 6.6153 429.2020 930 431.3481 935 241. 6.6483 433.5048 939 242. 6.6816 243. 6.7150 435.6723 944 244. 6.7486 437.8507 949 245. 6.7823 246. 6.8162 440.0399 953 247. 6.8503 442.2401 958 248. 6.8845 444.4513 963 249. 6.9190 446.6736 968 250. 6.9536 448.9070 973 451.1515 977 251. 6.9883 453.4073 982 252. 7.0233 253. 7.0584 455.6743 987 254. 7.0937 255. 7.1291 457.9527 992 256. 7.1648 460.2424 997 257. 7.2006 462.5436 1002 258. 7.2366 464.8564 1007 259. 7.2728 467.1806 1012 260. 7.3092 469.5165 1017 471.8641 1022 474.2234 1027 476.5946 1033 478.9775 1038 481.3724 1043 483.7793 1048 486.1982 1053 488.6292 1059 491.0723 1064 493.5277 1069 495.9953 1075 498.4753 1080 500.9677 1085 503.4725 1091 261. 7.3457 262. 7.3824 263. 7.4193 264. 7.4564 265. 7.4937 266. 7.5312 267. 7.5689 268. 7.6067 269. 7.6447 270. 7.6830 271. 7.7214 272. 7.7600 273. 7.7988 274. 7.8378 275. 7.8770 276. 7.9163 277. 7.9559 278. 7.9957 279. 8.0357 280. 8.0759 Bi-Weekly Rate 505.9899 508.5198 511.0624 513.6177 516.1858 518.7667 521.3606 523.9674 526.5872 529.2202 531.8663 534.5256 537.1982 539.8842 542.5836 545.2965 548.0230 550.7631 553.5170 556.2845 559.0660 561.8613 564.6706 567.4940 570.3314 573.1831 576.0490 578.9292 581.8239 584.7330 587.6567 590.5950 593.5479 596.5157 599.4982 602.4957 605.5082 608.5358 611.5784 614.6363 617.7095 620.7981 623.9021 626.0216 630.1567 633.3075 636.4740 639.6564 642.8546 645.0689 Monthly Rate 1096 1102 1107 1113 1118 1124 1130 1135 1141 1147 1152 1158 1164 1170 1176 1181 1187 1193 1199 1205 1211 1217 1223 1230 1236 1242 1248 1254 1261 1267 1273 1280 1286 1292 1299 1305 1312 1318 1325 1332 1338 1345 1352 1359 1365 1372 1379 1386 1393 1400 Range N-~r 281. 282. 283. 284. 285. 286. 287. 288. 289. 290. 291. 292. 293. 294. 295. 296. 297. 298. 299. 300. 301. 302. 303. 304. 305. 306. 307. 308. 309. 310. 311. 312. 313. 314. 315. 316. 317. 318. 319. 320. 321. 322. 323. 324. 325. 326. 327. 328. 329. 330. Hourly Rate 8.1162 8.1568 8.1976 8.2386 8.2798 8.3212 8.3628 8.4046 8.4466 8.4889 8.5313 8.5740 8.6168 8.6599 8.7032 8.7467 8.7905 8.8344 8.8786 8.9230 8.9676 9.0124 9.0575 9.1028 9.1483 9.1940 9.2400 9.2862 9.3326 9.3793 9.4262 9.4733 9.5207 9.5683 9.6161 9.6642 9.7125 9.7611 9.8099 9.8590 9.9083 9.9578 10.0076 10.0576 10.1079 10.1585 10.2092 10.2603 10.3116 10.3632 Bi-Weekly Rate 648.2993 652.5458 655.8085 659.0875 662.3830 665.6949 669.0234 672.3685 675.7303 679.1090 682.5045 685.9170 689.3466 692.7933 696.2573 699.7386 703.2373 706.7535 710.2872 713.81387 717. 4079 720. 9949 ?24.5!)99 ?28.2229 731.8640 ?35.5233 739.2009 ?42.8969 746.6114 750.3245 754.0962 757.8667 761.6560 765.4643 769.2916 773.1381 777.0038 780.8888 ?84.?932 788.7172 792.6608 796.6241 800.6072 804.6103 8O8.6333 812.6765 816.7399 820.8236 824.92?? 829.0523 Monthly Rate 1407 1414 1421 1428 1435 1442 1450 1457 1464 1471 1479 1486 1494 1501 1509 1516 1524 1531 1539 1547 1554 1562 1570 1578 1586 1594 1602 1610 1618 1626 1634 1642 1650 1659 1667 1675 1684 1692 1700 1709 1717 1726 1735 1743 1752 1761 1770 1778 1787 1796 Range 331. 332. 333. 334. 335. 336. 337. 338. 339. 340. 341. 342. 343. 344. 345. 346. 347. 348. 349. 350. 351 . 352. 353. 354. 355. 356. 357. 358. 359. 360. 361 . 362. 363. 364. 365. 366. 367. 368. 369. 370. 371 . 372. 373. 374. 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. Hourly Rate 10.4150 10.4670 10.5194 10.5720 10.6248 10.6780 10.7314 10.7850 10.8389 10.8931 10.9476 11.0023 11 0573 11 1126 11 1682 11 2240 11 2802 11 3366 11.3932 11.4502 11.5075 11.5650 11.6228 11.6809 11.7393 11.7980 11.8570 11.9163 11.9759 12.0358 12.0959 12.1564 12.2172 12.2783 12.3397 12.4014 t2.4634 12.5257 12.5883 12.6513 12.7145 12.7781 12.8420 12.9062 12.9707 13.0356 13.1008 13.1663 13.2321 13.2983 Bi-Weekly Rate 833.1976 837.3636 841.5504 845.7581 849.9869 854.2369 858.5080 862.8006 867.1146 871.4502 875.8074 880.1864 884.5874 889.0103 893.4554 897.9226 902.4123 906.9243 911.4589 916.0162 920.5963 925.1993 929.8253 934.4744 939.1468 943.8425 948.5617 953.3045 958.0711 962.8614 967.6757 972.5141 977.3767 982.2636 987.1749 992.1108 997.0713 1002.0567 1007.0669 1012.1023 1017.1628 1022.2486 1027.3598 1032.4966 1037.6591 1042.8474 1048.0617 1053.3020 1058.5685 1063.8613 Monthly ~ate 1805 1814 1823 1832 1842 1851 1860 1869 1879 1888 1898 1907 1917 1926 1936 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2O35 2045 2055 2065 2076 2O86 2097 2107 2118 2128 2139 2150 2160 2171 2182 2193 2204 2215 2226 2237 2248 2260 2271 2282 2294 2305 Range ~r 381. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 387. 388. 389. 390. 391. 392. 393. 394. 395. 396. 397. 398. 399. 400. 401. 4O2. 403. 404. 405. 406. 407. 408. 409. 410. 411. 412. 413. 414. 415. 416. 417. 418. 419. 420. 421. 422. 423. 424. 425. 426. 427. 428. 429. 430. Hourly Rate 13.3648 13.4316 13.4987 13.5662 13.6341 13.7022 13.7707 13.8396 13.9088 13.9783 14.0482 14.1185 14.1891 14.2600 14.3313 14.4030 14.4750 14.5474 14.6201 14.6932 14.7667 14.8405 14.9147 14.9893 15.0642 15.1395 15.2152 15.2913 15.3678 15.4446 15.5218 15.5994 15.6774 15.7558 15.8346 15.9138 15.9933 16.0733 16.1537 16.2344 16.3156 16.3972 16.4792 16.5616 16.6444 16.7276 16.8112 16.8953 16.9798 17.O647 Bi-Weekly Rate 1069.1806 1074.5265 1079.8992 1085.2987 1090.7252 1096.1788 1101.6597 1107.1680 1112.7038 1118.2673 1123.8587 1129.4780 1135.1254 1140.8010 1146.5050 1152.2375 1157.9!)87 1163.7887 1169.6076 1175.4557 1181. 3329 1187. 2396 1193. 1758 1199. 1417 1205. 1374 1211. 1631 1217.2189 1223. 3050 1229. 4215 1235. 5686 1241.7465 1247.9552 1254.1950 1260.4660 1266.7683 1273.1021 1279.4676 1285.8650 1292.2943 1298.7558 1305.2496 1311.7758 1318.3347 1324.9264 1331.5510 1338.2087 1344.8998 1351.6243 1358.3824 1365.1743 Monthly Rate 2317 2328 2340 2351 2363 2375 2387 2399 2411 2423 2435 2447 2459 2472 2484 2497 2509 2522 2534 2547 256O 2572 2585 2598 2611 2624 2637 2650 2664 2677 2690 2704 2717 2731 2745 2758 2772 2786 2800 2814 2828 2842 2856 2871 2885 2899 2914 2929 2943 2958 Range uN~-~r 431 . 432. 433. 434. 435. 436. 437. 438. 439. 440. 441 . 442. 443. 444. 445. 446. 447. 448. 449. 450. 451 . 452. 453. 454. 455. 456. 457. 458. 459. 460. 461. 462. 463. 464. 465. 466. 467. 468. 469. 470. 471 . 472. 473. 474. 475. 476. 477. 478. 479. 480. Hourly Rate 17.1500 17.2358 17.3219 17.4085 17.4956 17.5831 17.6710 17.7593 17.8481 17.9374 18.0271 18.1172 18.2078 18.2988 18.3903 18.4823 18.5747 18.6577 18.7609 18.8547 18.9490 19.0437 19.1389 19.2346 19.3308 19.4274 19.5246 19.6222 19.7203 19.8189 19.9180 20.0176 20.1177 20.2183 20.3194 20.4210 20.5231 20.6257 20.7288 20.8325 20.9366 21.0413 21.1465 21.2522 21.3585 21.4653 21.5726 21.6805 21.7889 21.8978 Bi-Weekly Rate 1372.O002 1378.8602 1385.7545 1392.6833 1399.6467 1406.6449 1413.6781 1420.7465 1427.8503 1434.9895 1442.1645 1449.3753 1456.6222 1463.9053 1471.2248 1478.5809 1485.9738 1493.4037 1500.8707 1508.3751 1515.9169 1523.4965 1531.1140 1538.7696 1546.4634 1554.1957 1561.9667 1569.7766 1577.6254 1585.5136 1593.4411 1601.4083 1609.4154 1617.4625 1625.5498 1633.6775 1641.8459 1650.055t 1658.3054 1666.5969 1674.9299 1683.3046 1691.7211 1700.1797 1708.6806 1717.2240 1725.8101 1734.4392 1743.1114 1751.8269 Monthly Rate 2973 2988 3002 3017 3033 3048 3063 3078 3094 3109 3125 3140 3156 3172 3188 3204 3220 3236 3252 3268 3284 3301 3317 3334 3351 3367 3384 3401 3418 3435 3452 3470 3487 3505 3522 3540 3557 3575 3593 3611 3629 3647 3665 3684 3702 3721 3739 3758 3777 3796 Range Number 481. 482. 483. 484. 485. 486. 487. 488. 489. 490. 491. 492. 493. 494. 495. 496. 497. 498. 499. 500. 501. 502. 503. 504. 505. 506. 507. 508. 509. 510. 511. 512. 513. 514. 515. 516. 517. 518. 519. 520. 521. 522. 523. 524. 525. 526. 527. 528. 529. 530. Hourly Rate 22.0073 22.1174 22.2279 22.3391 22.4508 22.5630 22.6759 22.7892 22.9032 23.0177 23.1328 23.2484 23.3647 23.4815 23.5989 23.7169 23.8355 23.9547 24.0745 24.1948 24.3158 24.4374 24.5596 24.6824 24.8058 24.9298 25.0545 25.1797 25.3056 25.4321 25.5593 25.6871 25.8155 25.9446 26.0743 26.2047 26.3357 26.4674 26.5998 26.7328 26.8664 27.0007 27.1358 27.2714 27.4078 27.5448 27.6826 27.8210 27.9601 28.0999 Bi-Weekly Rate 1760.5861 1769.3890 1778.2359 1787.1271 1796.0627 1805.0431 1814.0683 1823.1386 1832.2543 1841.4156 1850.6227 1859.8758 1869.1752 1878.5210 1887.9136 1897.3!532 1906.8400 1916.3742 1925.9560 1935.5858 1945.2637 1954.9!)01 1964.7650 1974.5888 1984.4618 1994. 3841 2004. 3560 2014.3778 2024.4497 2034.5719 2044.7448 2054.9685 1065.2434 2075.5696 2085.9474 2096.3772 2106.8590 2117.3933 2127.9803 2138.62!02 2149.3133 2160.0599 2170.8602 2181.7145 2192.6230 2203.5862 2214.6041 2225.6771 2236.8055 2247.9895 Monthly Rate 3815 3834 3853 3872 3891 3911 3930 3950 3970 3990 4010 4030 405O 4070 4090 4111 4131 4152 4173 4194 4215 4236 4257 4278 4300 4321 4343 4364 4386 4408 4430 4452 4475 4497 4520 4542 4565 4588 4611 4634 465? 4680 4704 4727 4751 4774 4798 4822 4846 4871 Range uN--~r 531. 532. 533. 534. 535. 536. 537. 538. 539. 540. 541. 542. 543. 544. 545. 546. 547. 548. 549. 55O. 551. 552. 553. 554. 555. 556. 557. 558. 559. 560. 561. 562. 563. 564. 565. 566. 567. 568. 569. 570. 571. 572. 573. 574. 5?5. 576. 577. 578. 579. 580. Hourly Rate 28.2404 28.3816 28.5235 28.6661 28.8094 28.9535 29.0982 29.2437 29.3900 29.5369 29.6846 29.8330 29.9822 30.1321 30.2827 30.4342 30.5863 30.7393 30.8930 31.0474 31.2027 31.3587 31.5155 31.6730 31.8314 31.9906 32.1505 32.3113 32.4728 32.6352 32.7984 32.9624 33.1272 33.2928 33.4593 33.6266 33.7947 33.9637 34.1335 34.3042 34.4757 34.6481 34.8213 34.9954 35.1704 35.3462 35.5230 35.7006 35.8791 36.0585 Bi-Weekly Rate 2259.2295 2270.5256 2281.8783 2293.2876 2304.7541 2316.2779 2327.8592 2339.4985 2351.1960 2362.9520 2374.7668 2386.6406 2398.5738 2410.5667 2422.6195 2434.7326 2446.9063 2459.1408 2471.4365 2483.7937 2496.2127 2508.6937 2521.2372 2533.8434 2546.5126 2559.2452 2572.0414 2584.9016 2597.8261 2610.8152 2623.8693 2626.9886 2650.1736 2663.4245 2676.7416 2690.1253 2703.5759 2717.0938 2730.6793 2744.3327 2758.0543 2771.8446 2785.7038 2799.6323 2813.6305 2827.6987 2841.8371 2856.0463 2870.3266 2884.6782 Monthly Rate 4895 4919 4944 4969 4994 5019 5044 5069 5094 5120 5145 5171 5197 5223 5249 5275 5302 5328 5355 5382 5408 5436 5463 5490 5517 5545 5573 5601 5629 5657 5685 5713 5742 5771 5800 5829 5858 5887 5916 5946 5976 6006 6036 6066 6096 6127 6157 6188 6219 6250 Range ]~-~r 581. 582. 583. 584. 585. 586. 587. 588. 589. 590. 591 . 592. 593. 594. 595. 596. 597. 598. 599. 600. 601. 602. 603. 604. 605. 606. 607. 608. 609. 610. 611 612 613 614 615 616 61 619. 620. 621. 622. 623. 624. 625. 626. 627. 628. 629. 630. Hourly Rate 36.2388 36.4200 36.6021 36.7851 36.9690 37.1538 37.3396 37.5263 37.7139 37.9025 38.0920 38.2825 38.4739 38.6663 38.8596 39.0539 39.2492 39.4454 39.6426 39.8409 40.0401 40.2403 40.4415 40.6437 40.8469 41.O512 41.2564 41.4627 41.6700 41.8784 42.0878 42.2982 42.5097 42.7222 42.9358 43.1505 43.3663 43.5831 43.8010 44.0200 44.240 44.461 44.683 44.906 45.131 45.357 45.584 45.812 46.041 46.271 Bi-Weekly Rate 2899.1016 2913.5971 2928.1651 2942.8059 2957.5199 2972.3075 2987.1691 3002.1049 3017.1154 3032.2010 3047.3620 3062.5988 3077.9118 3093.3014 3108.7679 3124.3117 3139.9333 3155.6330 3171.4111 3187.2682 3203.2045 3219.2206 3235.3167 3251.4932 3267.7!507 3284.0895 3300.5100 3317.0125 3333.5975 3350.2655 3367.0168 3383.8!519 3400.7712 3417.7750 3434.8639 3452.0382 3469.2q84 3486.6449 3504.0781 3521.5985 3539.206 3556.902 3574.687 3592.560 3610.523 3628.576 3646.719 3664.953 3683.278 3701.694 Monthly Rate 6281 6313 6344 6376 6408 6440 6472 6505 6537 6570 6603 6636 6669 6702 6736 6769 6803 6837 6871 6906 6941 6976 7011 7046 7081 7117 7152 7188 7224 7260 7296 7333 7370 7407 7444 7481 7518 7556 7594 7632 7670 7709 7747 7786 7825 7864 7903 7943 7983 8023 Range Number 631. 632. 633. 634. 635. 636. 637. 638. 639. 640. 641. 642. 643. 644. 645. 646. 647. 648. 649. 650. 651. 652. 653. 654. 655. 656. 657. 658. 659. 660. 661. 662. 663. 664. 665. 666. 667. 668. 669. 670. Hourly Rate 46.502 46.735 46.969 47.204 47.440 47.677 47.915 48.155 48.396 48.638 48.881 49.125 49.371 49.618 49.866 50.115 50.366 50.618 50.871 51.125 51.381 51.638 51.896 52.155 52.420 52.689 52.943 53.208 53.474 53.741 54.010 54.280 54.551 54.824 55.098 55.373 55.650 55.928 56.208 56.489 Bi-Weekly Rate 3720.202 3738.803 3757.497 3776.284 3795.165 3814.141 3833.212 3852.378 3871.640 3890.998 3910.453 3930.005 3949.655 3969.403 3989.250 4009.196 4029.242 4049.388 4069.635 4089.983 4110.433 4130.985 4151.640 4172.400 4193.262 4214.230 4235.301 4256.478 4277.760 4299.150 4320.646 4342.249 4363.906 4385.780 4407.709 4429.748 4451.897 4474.156 4496.527 4519.010 Monthly Rate 8063 8103 8144 8184 8225 8267 8308 8349 8391 8433 8475 8518 8560 8603 8646 8689 8733 8776 8820 8864 8908 8952 8996 9040 9085 9130 9175 9220 9266 9312 9359 9406 9453 9500 9548 9596 9644 9692 9740 9789 Range Number 671. 672. 673. 674. 675. 676. 677. 678. 679. 680. 681 . 682. 683. 684. 685. 686. 687. 688. 689. 690. 691 . 692. 693. 694. 695. 696. 697. 698. 699. 700. 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 Hourly Rate 56.771 57.055 57.340 57.627 57.915 58.205 58.496 58.788 59.082 59.377 59.674 59.972 60.272 60.573 60.876 61.180 61.486 61.793 62.102 62.413 62.725 63.039 63.354 63.671 63.989 64.309 64.631 64.954 65.279 65.605 65.933 66.263 66.594 66.927 67.261 67.597 67.934 68.273 68.614 68.957 Bi-Weekly Rate 4541.605 4564.313 4587.135 4610.071 4633.121 4656.287 4679.568 4702.966 4726.481 4750.113 4773.864 4797.733 4821.722 4845.831 4870.060 4894.410 4918.881 4943.476 4968.193 4993.034 5017.999 5043.089 5068.304 5093.646 5119.114 5144.710 5170.434 5196.286 5222.267 5248.378 5274.620 5300.992 5327.496 5354.133 5380.903 5407.807 5434.846 5462.0,20 5489.330 5516.776 Monthly Rate 9838 9887 9936 9986 10,036 10,086 10,137 10,188 10,239 10,290 10,341 10,393 10,445 10,497 10,550 10,603 10,656 10,709 10,763 10,816 10,870 10,925 10,979 11,034 11,090 11,145 11,201 11,257 11,313 11,370 11 426 11 483 11 540 11 597 11 654 11 712 11,770 11,828 ~1,887 11,946 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: November 5, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer ;Lq5 RELEASE OF CASH MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,800.00, FOR CUP 95-15, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, EAST OF ROCHESTER RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Cash Maintenance Guarantee Bond in the amount of $9,800.00, for CUP 95-15, located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Rochester. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Developer: Howard Chastain 830 Harbor Island Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Receipt No. 01-44761 Respectful..~submitt ,ed, ,~ /,~ City Engineer WJO:LRB:ls Attachments oo C~ DATE: TO:. FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT November 5, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IN GRANTING A TAXICAB SERVICE PERM1T TO BELL CAB CO. BACKGROUND~NALYSIS The City has an ordinance that requires that all companies that wish to provide taxicab service in the City receive a permit. As part of that permit process, the applicant must submit a completed application form. The applicant must also appear before the City Council for a public hearing to determine that the public interest, convenience and necessity justify the issuance of the permit. Staff has reviewed the application submitted by Bell Cab and finds it to be complete. The necessary information regarding the owners of the company, the automobiles to be used and the company's insurance meets the requirements of the City's ordinance. In regards to the public interest, convenience and necessity, the burden is on the applicant to show public need and necessity. Some of the factors to be considered as the City Council receives testimony on this matter are: 1. The inadequacy of existing taxi services. The population density and socio-economic characteristics in the proposed area of operation. Type and frequency of transportation service needed in the proposed area of operation. Existing public transportation patterns, schedules and service levels and the impact of the application upon such service. 5. Traffic and parking conditions. 6. The probable permanence and quality of the services offered by the applicant. The character of taxi service proposed by the applicant as demonstrated by: the proposed use, if any, of a radio communications system, the proposed use of terminals and private and public taxi stands, the time of day and night when service is to be offered, and the proposed number and character of vehicles. The financial status, character and responsibility of the applicant as demonstrated by: the applicant's ability to provide, maintain and operate the number of vehicles proposed to be operated in accordance with the character CONSDERATION OF GRANTING A TAXICAB SERVICE PERMIT TO BELL CAB CO. November 5, 1997 Page 2 of service proposed in the application, the applicant's criminal and driving record, if any, as well as credit record and evidence of liability and worker's compensation insurance. The experience of the applicant in taxicab service operations as an owner, manager, or taxi driver. In reviewing this information, the City Council must keep in mind that the taxicab business is a bit different than most other businesses in our free enterprise system. Studies of the taxicab industry have shown that competition does not necessarily equate to better customer service or lower prices. The demand for taxi services is relatively stable and as the number of taxis on the street increase, the number of daily trips per cab decline and therefore so do the revenues to the cab operators. In response to this pressure, cab operators cut costs and cab drivers begin to target longer, higher fare trips at the expense of shorter trip fares. The potential for decreased service and longer waits for residential call-in customers (like those in Rancho Cucamonga) increases. The difficult part of this issue is determining at what level does competition create negative effects. Our ordinance is written to put the burden on the applicant to show that his entry into our market will not hurt consumers. However, we cannot view the existing taxicab company and the applicant's company in terms of Rancho Cucamonga alone. If we did, then their would be far too many taxis than would be necessary for the demand in our City. Unlike an urban area, Rancho Cucamonga is a small ancillary part in a larger regional taxicab market. The decisions of the current permit holder and the applicant on the number of cabs they should have on the road is not based on demand from Rancho Cucamonga but from overall regional demand. The applicant will have to demonstrate to the City Council how their regional operations will not harm or how they will enhance current taxicab services to our residents. For tonight's hearing, the City Council should consider the evidence as presented keeping in mind the unique economics and regional nature of the cab business. After receiving all of the testimony, the City Council may determine that the public interest, convenience and necessity is not met by allowing a new taxicab permit and thus deny the applicant; or the City Council may decide that the public interest, convenience and necessity are met by the applicant and direct staff to issue a permit. tfully submitted, Duane A. Baker Assistant to the City Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 5, 1977 TO: Mayor and Mere bets of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: Lawrence 1. Temple, Administrative Services Director BY: Joan Kruse, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the adoption of the attached resolution which will establish facility fees at the Family Sports Center; establish and/or adjust certain fees within the Engineering, Fire District, Planning, and Public Safety Sections. This resolution also will incorporate fees already adopted by the Library Board for the new Technical Center. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Fire District has revised its previous format aud breaks down existing fees into more clearly defined categories. Additionally, it has increased existing fees based on actual departmental increases and established a new fee category tbr use of"Newby", the substance sniffing dog. Colmnunity Services has added a new category of fees for the Family Sports Center, increased fees associated with hourly rates for tkcility rentals and per day charges for equipment; and reduced rates on sky box and other facility rentals for non-ticketed events. The definition of Group 3 has been revised to include religious organizations with paid management. Planning has established four new tees: Pre-Application Review, Land Use Verification Report; Public Convenience or Necessities (Alcohol Beverage Control License); and Trail Easement Vacation. There has been no change to other existing fees. Engineering has revised the title Subordination Agreement to Standard Agreement/Document Processing and added a section entitled "Other Fees", to provide for the collection of San Bernardino Cotmty f~es as adopted by the County, including but not limited to: documentary handling fee for filing notice of determination; development review tke; county recording fee; and county printing fee. The Police Department has added a per page fee for citation copies. Respectfully submitted, Lawrence I. Temple Administrative Services Director Attach. 7- / 7D A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT, BY MODIFYING CERTAIN FEES ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION 96-012 A. .Recitals. (i) The Government Code requires that prior to levying a new fee or increasing an existing fee or service charge, local agencies shall hold a public meeting at which oral or written presentations may be made; and (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Notice of the time and place of the hearing has been properly provided; and No valid request for mailed notice is on file with the City, and Copies of the required data were made available in the City Clerk's office to the public on October 16, 1997; and All legal prerequisites to adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that the following fees are established: Section 1.0 Building and Safety Fees: 1.0 A fee for each building permit or service shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Total Valuation of Work Fees $1.00 to$1,000.00 $25.00 $1,001.00 to $2,000.00 $25.00 for the first $1,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00. $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00. $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $217.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $5.50 for each additional $1,000.00 of fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00. $ 50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $355.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00. $100,000.00 and over 1.1 Plan Review Fees: $555.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. (a) When the valuation of proposed construction exceeds one thousand dollars, and a plan is required to be submitted, a plan review fee shall be paid to the Building Official at the time of submittal of plans. (b) Plan review fees for buildings and structures shall be equal to seventy-five percent (75%) of the building permit fees set forth in Section 1.0 herein. (c) Plan review fees for electrical, mechanical and plumbing work shall be equal to 25% of the total permit fee as set forth under the pertinent Section 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 herein. (d) Plan review fees for grading shall be as set forth in the following schedule: Quantity of Cut and Fill .Fee 50 -100 yards $ 50.00 101 -500 yards 100.00 501 -1,000yards 200.00 1,001 -2,000 yards 250.00 2,001 -3,000 yards 300.00 3,001 -4,000 yards 350.00 4,001 5,000 yards 400.00 5,001 -10,000 yards 500.00 10,001 - 50,000 yards 600.00 50,001 -100,000 yards 700.00 100,001 - And up 900.00 The sum of cut and fill yardages shall be used in computing grading permit and plan checking fees. (e) Additional Plan Checking made necessary due to changes in plans or incomplete plan submission, $55.00 per hour for the estimated time of checking revisions. 1.2 Compliance I nspections/Reinspections Inspections to determine compliance of existing construction with applicable codes when not included in an active, valid building permit or inspections made necessary due to work not being ready at time specified, or work not corrected after prior written correction notice ..................................................................................................................... $30.00 1.3 Change of Occupancy: Change of Occupancy Inspection ..........................................................................$50.00 1.4 Relocated Buildings: Fees for inspection of a structure to be relocated into or within the City, shall be $100.00 when located within 25 miles of City offices, plus $2.00 per mile, round trip, when located more than 25 miles from City offices. 1.5 Appeal of Abatement Notice: An appeal of a notice to abate a substandard or dangerous building ............................................................................................................................. $100.00 1.6 Inspection for Temporary Utility Connection or Temporary Occupancy: Inspection ............................................................................................................$ 30.00 1.7 Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge four hours) ...................................................................................................... $50.00 per hour 1.8 Inspections for which no permit fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge one-half hour) ......................................................................................................... $50.00 per hour 1.9 Electrical Permit Fees: (a) Permit Issuance: For issuing each permit ................................................................................$15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit ...........................................................$ 4.50 (b) System Fee Schedule: (NOTE: The following are in addition to permit-issuing fee.) New Residential Buildings: The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time. For new residential buildings not including the area of garages, carports and other noncommercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same time, per square foot ............................................................................................................... $ .035 For new garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed in conjunction with a new residential building per square foot ............................. $ .02 For other types of residential occupancies and alterations, additions and modifications to existing residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Private Swimming Pools, Spas: For new private residential, permanently installed spas, hot tubs or swimming pools for single-family and multi-family occupancies including a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool, each ...............................................................................$ 30.00 For other types of swimming pools, spas and alterations to existing swimming pools, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Carnivals and Circuses: Carnivals, circuses, or other traveling shows or exhibitions utilizing transportable- type rides, booths, displays and attractions. For electric generators and electrically driven rides, each ............................................................................................................$15.00 For mechanically driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays having electric lighting, each ....................................................................................$ 4.50 For a system of area and booth lighting, each ..............................................$ 4.50 For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Services: For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each ...........................................................................................................$ 18.50 For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in rating, each ..........................................................................................................$ 37.50 For services over 600 volts or over 1000 in rating, each ...........................................................................................................$ 75.00 Temporary Power Service: (c) For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or pedestal- mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each ................................ $ 15.00 For a temporary distribution system and temporaw lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc., each ............................................................................................................. $ 7.50 Unit Fee Schedule: NOTE: The following are in addition to permit issuing fee. Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets: For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders and meters. First 20, each ..................... $ .75 Additional outlets, each ..................................................................................$ .45 NOTE: For multi-outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet. Lighting Fixtures: For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp-holding devices. First 20, each ..............................................................................................................$ .75 Additional fixtures, each ................................................................................$ .45 For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures, each ..................................... $ .75 For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies, each ...............................................................................................................$ .75 Residential Appliances: For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall- mounted electric ovens; counter-mounted cooking tops; electric ranges, self contained room, console, or through-wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor-operated appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt-ampere (KVA), in rating, each .......................................... $ 3.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Non-residential Appliances: For non-residential appliances and self-contained factory-wired, non-residential appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt-ampere (KVA), in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases, drinking fountains, vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each ..................... $ 3.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Power Apparatus: For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment and other apparatus, as follows: Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KW), kilovolt-amperes (KVA), or kilovolt- amperes-reactive (KVAR): Up to and including 1, each ...........................................................................$ 3.00 Over 1 and not over 10, each .......................................................................$ 7.50 Over 10 and not over 50, each ...................................................................$15.00 Over 50 and not over 100, each .................................................................$ 30.00 Over 100, each ...........................................................................................$ 45.00 NOTE: 1. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. 2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly-related control equipment. Busways: For trolley and plug-in-type busways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof ......................................................................................................... $ 4.50 NOTE: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type busways. No fee is required for portable tools. Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees: For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one branch circuit, each ........................................................................................................... $ 15.00 For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting system or marquee, each ............................................................................................ $ 3.00 6 1.10 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors: For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is herein set forth .............................................................. $ 11.00 NOTE: This fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs or other equipment. Plumbing Permits: (a) Permit Issuance: For the issuance of each permit ....................................................................$ 15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit .........................................................$ 4.50 (b) Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to issuance fee above): For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection therefor) .................................... $ 6.00 For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer ...............................$15.00 Rainwater systems --per drain (inside building) ...........................................$ 6.00 For each cesspool (where permitted) .........................................................$ 22.50 For each private sewage disposal system .................................................$ 45.00 For each water heater and/or vent ..............................................................$ 7.50 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps ......... $12.00 For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and/or water-treating equipment, each ........................................................................................... $ 3.00 For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture .......................................................................................................... $ 3.00 For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices therefor ........................................................................................... $ 9.00 For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in lawn sprinkler system: 1 to 5 ............................................................................................................$ 7.50 over 5, each .................................................................................................$ 1.50 For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric-type vacuum breakers: 1.11 2 inches and smaller ....................................................................................$ 7.50 over 2 inches ...............................................................................................$15.00 For each gas piping system of one to four outlets .......................................$ 3.00 For each gas piping system of five or more, per outlet ................................$ 0.75 Swimming pool or spa piping including water heater (not including gas piping) ......................................................................................................... $10.00 Mechanical Permits: A fee for each mechanical permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: (a) Permit Issuance: For the issuance of each permit ................................................................$ 15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit ........................................................$ 4.50 (b) Unit Fee Schedule (In addition to issuance fees above): For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................... $ 9.00 For the installation or relocation or each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h ........................................................................................................... $11.00 For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent .............................................................................................................. $ 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater ........................................................................ $ 9.00 For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit ............................................................. $ 4.50 For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by this code ............................................................................................................. $ 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including three horsepower, or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h .... $ 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1.12 100,000 Btu/h and including 500,000 Btu/h ................................................$16.50 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h ................................................................. $ 22.50 For installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h .................................................................. $ 33.50 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor over 50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h .................. $ 56.00 For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto ................................................................................. $ 6.50 Note: -f'his fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit which is an integral portion of a factory assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in this code. For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm ................................................$11.00 For each evaporative cooler other than portable type ..................................$ 6.50 For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct ......................................$ 4.50 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit ...................................................................... $ 6.50 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood ................................................................................. $6.50 For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator ................................................................................................... $11.00 For the installation or relocation of each commercial industrial-type incinerator ................................................................................................... $ 45.00 For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code..$ 6.50 Grading Permit Fees: A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Quantity of Cut and Fill 50 cubic yards or less Fee $15.00 51 to 100 cubic yards $22.50 101 to 1,000 cubic yards -- $22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards -- $117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards -- $198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more -- $562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1.13 Application for Plan Duplication Application for duplication processing ............................$ 30.00 Section 2.0 Business License Fees Fees for business licenses are found within Title 5 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations and contained in Chapters 5.04, 5.08, 512 and 5.16, thereof. Section 3.0 City Clerk Fees Municipal Code Supplements to the municipal code will vary in cost and will be billed accordingly $150.OO Variable Section 4.0 Copying Rates, Media and Subscription Fees: Fee Activity Photocopies Microfilming Microfiche jackets Audio Tape Computer Diskettes Subscriptions: ]0 Fee $ .25/page* $ .25/page* $1.00/plan page $1.00/sheet $10.00/tape $ 5.00 diskette 7/ Council Agenda Minutes $118.00/yr. $145 00/yr. Planning Commission Agenda Minutes $ 43.50/yr. $160.00/yr. Historic Preservation Comm. Agenda $ 9.00/yr. Engineering Plans and Specifications per set cost Mailing Costs (Overnight) for above $Variable $15.00 Research Requests -All Departments Time spent beyond 1/2 hour will be billed in increments of 1/4 hr. at: First 1/2 Hour No Charge $ 25.00/Hr. *There will be a minimum charge of $1.00 for 1-3 pages FAX Requests - All Departments A maximum of 6 pages may be requested. If material requested is more than 6 pages, material will be mailed and billed at rate established by this Resolution. No Charge Section 5.0 Engineering Fees 5.1 Applications Tentative Parcel Map Initial Study Tentative Parcel Map Appeal Time Extension - Tentative Parcel Map Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment Amending Parcel Map and Modification of map conditions Reapportionment Map (A two-sheet parcel/tract Street Vacation Standard AgreementYDoc. Processing Release of Lien Agreement ]! map; Fee $2,514.00 $ 225.00 $ 251.00 $ 549.00 $1,190.00 $1,190.00 $1,190.00 $ 600.00 $30.00 for $1,156.00 $ 298.00 $ 298.OO each additional sheet) 5.2 5.3 Certificate of Correction Flood Hazard Letter Bond Substitution Private Street Designation Reimbursement Agreement Storm Drain Street and Utilities Traffic Study Review (Dev. Proj.) Map and Plan Checking Fees Property Legal Description Map Checking Residential Parcel Maps $ 256.00 $ 314.00 $ 42O.OO $ 495.0O $2,227.00 $2,827.00 $ 751.00 $ 584.00 $1,370 + $180 per Parcel Tract Maps and Non-Residential Parcel Maps of 10 lots or less Tract Maps and Non-Residential Parcel Maps over 10 lots Improvement Plans Widening of existing streets Interior Streets 1-2 sheets: 3-5 sheets: 6-10 sheets: 11 or more: Storm Drain Plans - Hydrology Study: Drainage areas up to 150 acres Drainage areas over 150 acres Landscape and irrigation plans for City-maintained areas $2,070.00 $1,720 + $35 per parcel or lot $1.35 per LF + sheet charge for interior streets $1,370 per sheet $2,740 + $1,200 per sheet over 2 sheets $6,340 + $1,095 per sheet over 5 sheets $11,815 + $1,025 per sheet over 10 sheets Same as for interior streets $1,370.00 $2,74OOO $ 400.00 per sheet For maps and plans checking, the fees for rush checking, when approved by the City Engineer, will be 50% greater than those listed above. The fees for checking the revisions to approved 12 plans will be on the basis of actual costs at hourly rates as determined by the City Engineer with a minimum fee of $100.00. 5.4 Public Works Construction Permit Fee: 5% of Improvement Cost to $25,000; Min. $50 4.5% of Improvement Cost next $75,000 4% of Improvement Cost over $100,000 The improvement cost of a project shall be based on the Engineer's Cost Estimate as shown on Surety Bond and as approved by the City Engineer. NOTE: Development Impact Fees may also apply and are addressed under separate resolutions. 5.5 Oversize Loads *Single Permit $15.00 *Repetitive Permit $70 initial fee + $15 per month renewal fee to a maximum of 6 months *Annual Permit $70 per year *These fees are based on the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Section 35795 and Caltrans Fee Schedule. 5.6 Other Fees Collection of San Bernardino County fees, as adopted by the County, including but not limited to: Documentary Handling Fee for Filing Notice of Determination Development Review Fees County Recording Fee County Printing Fee Section 6.0 Fire Protection District Fees (These fees have been adopted by the Fire Board) 6.1 Plans Checking Fees (Includes plan review and two inspections. Does not include fee for any required Fire District Permits.) Start-up fee for commercial, industrial or multi-family dwelling units ..........................................................................................$100.00 Plan Review Fees 1. Single family residence .....................................................................$132.00 2. Single family residential tract, per phase ...........................................$132.00 3. Multi-family residential, per building ....................................................$677.00 4. Commercial and industrial development, per building ........................$677.00 5. Water plan/underground waster supply approval ...............................$132.00 6.2 6. Conditional use permit .........................................................................$132.00 7. Minor development review ...................................................................$132.00 8. Parcel map review ...............................................................................$132.00 9. Tenant improvement: Per hour, one hour minimum .............................$ 87.00 10. Special Events review ..........................................................................$ 87.00 11. Accessory plans review: aisles, access, seating, etc ...........................$ 66.00 12. Alternate Method approval ...................................................................$ 92.00 13. Revision to existing plan (e.g., as-builts, excluding TI plans) ...............$ 92.00 14. New fire sprinkler systems, standpipes or over ten heads ..................$164.00 a. Single family residential sprinkler systems .....................................No Fee 15. Fire sprinkler alteration, ten heads or less ............................................$ 92.00 16. Pre-engineered fire protection systems ..............................................$147.00 17. Fire detection and alarm systems .........................................................$154.00 18. Flammable finishes spray booth (per booth) ........................................$164.00 19. LPG tank installation review (per tank) ................................................$147.00 20. Underground storage tank removal review (per tank) ..........................$147.00 21. Flammable & combustible liquid, tank & piping ....................................$164.00 22. Division consulting fees not otherwise stated (one hour minimum) ......$137.00 23. Failure to keep appoint (one hour minimum) ........................................$ 66.00 24. Microfilm charges- (per page) ..............................................................$ 1.00 25. Minor plan review not requiring a District inspection .............................No Fee C. Inspection Fees (per hour - one hour minimum) 1. Field Inspection required after the initial and follow-up inspection .......$110.00 2. Failure to keep an inspection appointment ............................................$ 66.00 3. Field inspection of self inspection occupancies, failure to comply .........$ 66.00 4. Fire flow test, witness test .....................................................................$ 87.00 5. Unscheduled field inspection or investigation .........................................$ 66.00 6. Same day, short notice inspection .........................................................$ 87.00 Permit Fees (Initial permit and subsequent renewal of permit unless otherwise indicated [e.g. one time only permit activity]) A. Permits 1. General Use Permit ...................................................................................$ 84.00 2. Aerosol products - more than 500 lbs. of level 2 or 3 ................................$131.00 3. Aircraft refueling vehicles ...........................................................................$ 95.00 4. Aircraft repair hangar .................................................................................$ 84.00 5. Automobile wrecking yard ..........................................................................$ 84.00 6. Asbestos removal ......................................................................................$132.00 7. Bowling pin or alley refinishing - involving flammable finishes ...................$ 84.00 8. Candles and open flames in assembly areas ...................................Not permitted 9. Carnivals and fair (see also 6.2E) .............................................................$132.00 10. Cellulose nitrate film ..................................................................................$ 84.00 11. Cellulose nitrate storage - more than 25 lbs ............................................$ 84.00 12. Combustible fiber storage - more than 100 cubic feet .............................$ 84.00 13. Combustible material storage - more than 2,500 cubic feet ....................$115.00 14 14. Compressed gases: a. Corrosive, 200 cubic feet or more .....................................................$ 95.00 b. Flammable, 200 cubic feet or more ..................................................$ 84.00 c Highly toxic, any amount ..................................................................$ 95.00 d. Inert/simple asphyxiant, 6,000 cubic feet or more ...........................$ 84.00 e. Irritant, 200 cubic feet or more ...........................................................$ 84.00 f. Other health hazards, 650 cubic feet or more ..................................$ 84.00 g. Oxidizing (includes oxygen), 504 cubic feet or more .......................$ 84.00 h. Pyrophoric, any amount ..................................................................$ 95.00 i. Radioactive, any amount ................................................................$115.00 j. Sensitizer, 200 cubic feet or more ....................................................$ 95.00 k. Toxic, any amount ............................................................................$ 95.00 I. Unstable (reactive), any amount .....................................................$132.00 15. Commercial rubbish-handling operations ............................................$ 84.00 16. Cryogens: a. Corrosive-inside, over 1 gallon .......................................................$ 95.00 b. Corrosive- outside, over 1 gallon .....................................................$ 95.00 c. Flammable-inside, over 1 gallon ......................................................$ 84.00 d. Flammable-outside, 60 gallons or more ..........................................$ 84.00 e. Highly toxic-inside, over 1 gallon .....................................................$95.00 f. Highly toxic,outside, over 1 gallon ....................................................$ 95.00 g. Nonflammable-inside, 60 gallons or more .......................................$ 95.00 h. Nonflammable-outside, 500 gallons or more ..................................$ 84.00 i. Oxidizer-inside, 50 gallons or more .................................................$ 84.00 j. Oxidizer-outside, 50 gallons or more ...............................................$ 84.00 17. Dry cleaning plants ...............................................................................$132.00 18. Dust-producing operations ..................................................................$ 84.00 19. Explosives or blasting agents: a. Storage, manufacture, process or sell .................................................$ 84.00 b. Use ....................................................................................................$150.00 Fire hydrants and water-control valves - use for other purposes ............$ 84.00 Fireworks: a. Retail sales ..................................................................................Not permitted b Aerial displays (see also 6.2E) ...........................................................$ 84.00 Flammable or combustible liquids: a Pipeline, To use, operate, repair or modify a pipeline .....................$132.00 b Class I liquids, more than 5 gallons inside a building .....................$ 84.00 c. Class I liquids, more than 10 gallons outside of a building .............$ 84.00 Exceptions to b & c: 1. Storage or use of Class I liquids in vehicle, vessel, aircraft or equipment fuel tanks. 2. Storage or use of paints, oils, varnishes, or similar mixtures for maintenance, painting or similar purposes for less than 30 days. d. Class II or II-A liquids, more than 25 gallons inside a building .......... $ 84.00 e. Class II or III-A liquids, more than 60 gallons outside ofa building.$ 84.00 f. To remove Class I or II liquids from an UST by other than normal operation ........................................................................................... $ 95.00 g. Installation, construction, alteration or operation where flammable or combustible liquids are produced, procesed, transported, stored, dispensed or used in any of the following: Tank vehicles ...........................................................................$ 95.00 Equipment ................................................................................$105.00 20. 21. 22. ]5 23. 24. 25. Tanks, per tank .....................................................................$121.00 Plants ...................................................................................$132.00 Terminals ..............................................................................$132.00 Wells, per well ........................................................................$ 84.00 Fuel-dispensing stations (single and/or multiple pump stations) ........................................................................$ 95.00 Refineries ...............................................................................$132.00 Distilleries ...............................................................................$132.00 h. Installation, alteration, removal, abandon, place temporarily out of service or otherwise dispose of a tank which contained flammable or combustible liquid .............................................................$121.00 i. To change the type of contents in a flammable or combustible liquid ......................................................................................................$132.00 Fruit ripening ...............................................................................................$105.00 Fumigation or themal insecticidal fogging ....................................................$121.00 Hazardous materials: (see also other permit sections) For multiple permits within this Section 25, the fee will be the total of all related permits to a maximum of $400.00 or actual costs, whichever is greater. a. Carcinogens, 10 lbs. or more .................................................................$132.00 b. Corrosive liquids, 55 gallons or more ....................................................$ 84.00 c. Corrosive solids, 500 lbs. or more ..........................................................$ 95.00 d. Flammable solids, 100 lbs. or more .......................................................$ 95.00 e. Highly toxic liquids and solids. Any amount ..........................................$ 95.00 f. Irritant liquids, 55 gallons or more ...........................................................$ 84.00 g. Irritant solids, 500 lbs. or more ...............................................................$84.00 h. Oxidizing liquids: Class 4, Any amount ..........................................................................$ 84.00 Class 3, 10 lbs. or more ......................................................................$ 84.00 C, lass 2, 100 lbs. or more ....................................................................$ 84.00 Class 1,500 lbs. or more .....................................................................$ 84.00 i. Oxidizing solids: (;lass 4, Any amount ............................................................................$ 84.00 (;lass 3, 10 lbs. or more ......................................................................$ 84.00 (;lass 2, 100 lbs. or more ....................................................................$ 84.00 (;lass 1,500 lbs. or more ....................................................................$ 84.00 Organic peroxide liquids and solids: (;lass I, Any amount ............................................................................$ 95.00 (;lass II, Any amount ..........................................................................$ 95.00 (;lass III, 10 lbs. or more ...................................................................$ 95.00 (;lass IV, 20 lbs. or more ...................................................................$ 95.00 k. Other health hazards: Liquids, 55 gallons or more ................................................................$ 84.00 Solids, 500 lbs. or more .....................................................................$ 84.00 I. Pyrophoric liquids, Any amount .............................................................$ 95.00 m. Pyrophoric solids, Any amount ...............................................................$ 95.00 n. Sensitizer liquids, 55 gallons or more .....................................................$ 95.00 o. Sensitizer solids, 500 lbs. or more .........................................................$ 95.00 p. Toxic liquids, 10 gallons or more ...........................................................$ 95.00 q. Toxic solids, 100 lbs. or more .................................................................$ 95.00 r. Unstable (reactive) liquids: (::lass 4, any amount ...........................................................................$132.00 16 Class 3, any amount ..........................................................................$132.00 Class 2, 5 gallons or more ................................................................$132.00 Class 1, 10 gallons or more ..............................................................$132.00 s. Unstable (reactive) solids: Class 4, any amount .........................................................................$132.00 Class 3, any amount .........................................................................$132.00 Class 2, 50 lbs. or more ....................................................................$132.00 Class 1, 100 lbs. or more ..................................................................$132.00 t. Water-reactive liquids: Class 3, any amount .........................................................................$ 95.00 Class 2, 5 gallons or more ................................................................$ 95.00 Class 1, 10 gallons or more ..............................................................$ 95.00 u. Water-reactive solids: Class 3, any amount ..........................................................................$ 95.00 Class 2, 50 lbs. or more .....................................................................$ 95.00 Class 1, 100 lbs. or more ...................................................................$ 95.00 26. Hazardous production materials - for H-6 occupancies ..............................$132.00 27. High piled combustible storage ..................................................................$105.00 28. Liquefied petroleum bases - store, use, handle or dispense .....................$ 84.00 29. Liquid or gas-fueled vehicles or equipment in assembly buildings .............$105.00 30. Lumber yards .............................................................................................$ 84.00 31. Magnesium workings ..................................................................................$121.00 32. Mall, covered (see also 6.211D4) ................................................................$ 84.00 33. Motor vehicle fuel-dispensing stations .......................................................$105.00 34. Open burning .............................................................................................$ 84.00 35. Organic coatings ........................................................................................$132.00 36. Ovens, industrial baking or drying ..............................................................$ 84.00 37. Parade floats ...............................................................................................$ 48.00 38. Places of assembly: a. A-4 Stadiums, reviewing stands and amusement park ........................$ 84.00 b. A-3 occupant load of 50 to 299 without a stage ...................................$ 95.00 c. A--2.1, occupant load of 300 or more without a stage .............................$147.00 d. A-2 occupant load of less than 1000 with a stage ................................$178.00 e. A-1 occupant load of 1000 or more with a stage .................................$225.00 39. Pyrotechnical special effects material (see also 6.2E) ...............................$ 84.00 40. Radioactive materials ..................................................................................$132.00 41. Refrigeration equipment .............................................................................$115.00 42. Repair garages ...........................................................................................$ 84.00 43. Spraying or dipping .....................................................................................$ 84.00 44. Tents, canopies and temporary membrane structures: a. 2(:)1 to 400 square feet ..........................................................................$ 84.00 b. 4(:)1 to 1500 square feet .......................................................................$110.00 c. 1501 to 15,000 square feet ...................................................................$147.00 d. 15,001 to 30,000 square feet ..............................................................$178.00 e. Over 30,000 square feet ......................................................................$210.00 45. Tire storage ................................................................................................$132.00 46. Welding and cutting operations ..................................................................$ 84.00 Special Services Excessive or malicious false alarms causing response of fire apparatus 1. Response due to "failure to notify" the fire department when working on or testing sprinkler or fire alarm system. $153.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding 112 hour minimum. 2. Malicious false alarms. $153 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding with 1/2 hour minimum. 3. Response due to alarm malfunction. $153.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding to all false alarms in excess of 2 false alarms in 30 days with 1/2 hour minimum. 4. Response to false alarms due to negligence, tampering with the system, construction or modification of the building. $153.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding with 1/2 hour minimum. 5. Response to false alarm by Battalion Chief and/or Fire Inspector. $50.00 per hour with 1/2 hour minimum. Response to firesetter incidents (juvenile or adult) and "DUI" callouts: 1. Cost recovery for emergency apparatus responding. $2.50 per minute per piece of equipment. 2.Cost recovery for personnel responding, $0.83 per minute per person. 3. Cost recovery for Battalion Chief or Fire Investigator responding. $0.50 per minute. Response to mitigate extended hazardous chemical and material incidents beyond normal service requires (this includes response to railroad properties, freeways, and aircraft crashes). 1. Hazardous incident, overhead and command, per hour. $273.00 per hour per piece of apparatus 2. Apparatus and crews assigned to the incident, per hour. $170.00 per hour per piece of equipment 3. Specialized resources - HAZMAT crews and equipment. Actual costs 4. Materials and supplies used for the incident. Actual costs Special Activities - Apparatus and crews assigned to activities that require the services, at permittees expense, of one or more standby firefighters. $153.00 per hour per piece of apparatus $ 30.00 per hour, two hour minimum per District employee Accelerant Detection Canine Team - Use of Arson K-9 Team by other agencies. Fire Scene Examinations: Hourly Travel Rate: Mileage (round trip): Administrative reports Mounted Photographs: $50.00 per hour, two hour minimum $25.00 per hour, one hour minimum (to and from search area) $0.35 mile $25.00 per hour $1.50 each G. Board of Appeals - requiring a special meeting Section 7.0 Geographic Information System Fees $245.00 REQUEST FEE PARCEL DATABASE: (Digital format) $10,000.00 There are 8 layers included in this database: Lotlines, rights-of-way, ownership, situs addresses, Assessor Parcel Numbers, street names, street centerlines, and assessment districts. Zoning Map 34 X 44" color $30.00 (2 "E" size sheets) Zoning or General 8-1/2 X 11" b/w $1.00 Plan Map (Vicinity) Zoning or General 8-1/2 X 11" color $5.00 Plan Map (Vicinity) General Plan Map 34 X 44" color $30.00 (2 "E" size sheets) Flood Plain Map 34 X 44" color $30.00 (2 "E" size sheets) Land Available for Poten- tial Development Report Citywide Report $25.00 Land Available for Poten- tial Development Report Residential Report $15.00 Land Available for Poten- tial Development Report Com/Ind Report $15.00 Land Available for Poten- tial Development Report Specific Plan Report $15.00 Land Available for Potential 34 X 44" color Development Citywide (2 "E" size sheets) Special Reports and/or Maps $50.00 Time and Materials with a $500.00 deposit Section 8.0 Library Fees (These fees have been adopted by the Library Board) FINES: Fines are based on item rather' than patron. A child borrowing adult materials will be assessed an adult overdue fine. Per Day Maximum Fine Borrowing thresholds Overdue Fine: adult $0.25 Overdue Fine: children $0.10 Overdue Fine: video $1.00 Overdue Fine: CD Rom $2.00 Overdue Fine: magazine $0.10 $10.00 $5.0O $ 5.OO $5.OO $10.00 $10.00 $1.00 FEES FOR RENTAL Charge Loan Period Limit of Items Video Cassette Loan Fee $1.00 Business Video Series $2.00 Best seller videos $2.00 Audio Cassette Fee $0.25 CD Fee $0.25 Best Seller CD $0.50 Read Alongs $0.25 Best Seller Rental Books $1.00 CD Rom Software Test/Deposit Books 7 days 4 video titles total per tape 3 days ........ per tape 3 days ........ per tape/S2 max 14 days 4 cassette titles per CD 14 days 4 CD titles per CD 14 days 4 CD titles per cassette 14 days 4 Readalong titles 7 days 4 books/no reserves $2.00 7 days 4 titles $20 refundable deposit charge; checks allowed; credit card allowed FEES FOR SERVICES Charge Interlibrary Loan Reserves Marketing Library Card Lost Library Card Collection Fee: Test Monitoring Fee: Access to on-line magazines Single sided disc: $2.00 $0.50 $3.OO $2.00 ~rregularcard;$3.00 ~r marketing card $15.00 per account $10.00 pertestsession $35.00 $0.50 2O TECHNOLOGY CENTER In-house Computer Rental Printouts Color B&W $3.00 per hour $0.25 $0.15 PHOTOCOPIES Color photocopies $0.25 B & W photocopies Coin $0.15 Debit Card $0.10 Color photocopies $0.50 Microform copies $0.15 FEES FOR RESEARCH/ BUSINESS SERVICES Business Locator Services: $5.00 per business, no charge if business not located Brief Business Profile: $10.00 per business, no charge if not located Each additional profile $6.00 Business Lists on Demand: $0.05 cents per record, $10.00 minimum On line Data Base searches: Cost of online connect time plus $5.00 LOST MATERIALS Cost of Item Processing Fee Books Original Cost $5.00 Media Original Cost $6.00 Paperback Books Original Cost $2.50 Magazines Cover' Price $1.50 DAMAGE FEES Charge Bar Code Removed Books: Cover damaged Plastic cover damaged Page torn Compact Discs: Broken Jewel Case Singles Doubles Loss of liner notes Loss of book/pams Video Cassettes: Shell replacement Storage case damage Audio Book Cases Double 4 Storage 12 Storage Cassette boxes $2.00 List cost in computer $5.OO $2.OO $1.00 per page List cost in computer $1.50 $3.00 $5.OO $5.OO List cost in computer $5.OO $5.OO $5.OO $6.OO $7.OO $1.00 Section 9.0 - Planning Fees 9.1 Applications Those charged as a base fee, plus a per unit or per acre amount, with a maximum 9.2 9.3 set at 3X base fee. Application Base Fee Per Unit Fee Maximum Fee Tentative Tract Map $2,987 $60.00 per d/u $8,961.00 Conditional Use Permit $2,921 $292.00 per acre $8,763.00 DeWDes Review Res $2,851 $57.00 per d/u $8,55300 (5 or more) Dev/Des Review - Comm/ Industrial $2,851 Initial Study $225 General Plan Amendment $2,866 Spec/Comm Plan Amend.* $2,866 Dev Distr Amendment* $2,866 $285.00 per acre $22.00 per acre $287.00 per acre $287.00 per acre $287.00 per acre $8,553.00 $ 675.OO $8,598.00 $8,598.00 $8,598.00 *Should be charged at half rate if filed in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment. Applications Those charged on a time-and-materials basis with a deposit taken up front. Application EIR Review- Sensitive Development Agreement Review Mitigation Plan - Complex Annexation Development Agreement New Specific/Community Plan EIR Preparation Other Application Fees Application Non-Construction CUP Deposit Amount $10,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,OOO.OO $2,OOO.OO $10,000.00 $5,OOO.OO $ 435.00 22 Uniform Sign Program Minor Exception Dev/Design Review: 4 du's or less Variance Variance: 4 du's or less Use Determination Preliminary Review Minor Development Review Time Extension Minor Time Extension Sign Permit Hillside Development Review 5 or more du's Hillside Development Review 4 or less du's Temporary Use Permit Temporaw Use Model Home EIR Review Only Landmark Application Residential and Small Business Landmark Alteration Residential and Small Business Mills Act Application Residential and Small Business Mitigation Plan (Simple) Mitigation Plan (Complex) 9.5 - Appeal Fees Appeal of a City Planner Decision Appeal of a Commission Decision in Connection with an Application 23 $ 580.00 $ 170.00 $1 ,O27.OO $ 871.00 $ 291.00 $ 315.00 $ 325.OO $ 296.00 $ 549.OO $ 136.00 $ 51.00 $1,462.00 $ 244.00 $ 68.OO $ 219.00 $2,370.00 $ 728.00 No Charge $ 835.OO No Charge $ 724.00 No Charge $ 719.00 See 7.2 $ 62.00 $ 126.00 Appeal of a Tract Map $ 251.00 9.6 - Other Fees Pre-application Review (Planning Commission) Entertainment Permit $ 571.00 Home Occupation Permit $ 53.00 Large Family Day Care Permit $ 170.00 Public Convenience or Necessities (Alcohol Beverage Control Licenses) $ 315.00 Recycling Facilities Permit $ 296.00 Status Map Application $ 15.00 Trail Easement Vacation $1190.00 Tree Removal/New Development $ 432.00 Tree Removal/Existing Development $ 72.00 Land Use Verification Report $ 25.00 $ 325.00 NOTE: Planning Division fees for documents, which are individually priced, are contained in the Document Price List Section 10.0- Recreation Fees Following are current fees for recreation activities and rentals. All consumable costs are to be recovered. Definition of classes of fees by groups. Group 1: City of Rancho Cucamonga sponsored and co-sponsored events; other governmental agencies serving Rancho Cucamonga residents. Group 2: Not-for-profit, civic, athletic, social organizations which are located and based in the City whose management is not paid and organizations sponsoring a public forum or candidate's information night. Group 3: Not-for-profit, civic, athletic, and social organizations which has paid management and are located and based in the City. Group 4: City resident private party activity, City resident employee organizations City resident political candidate use for fund raisers; City resident college organizations and 24 committees; work parties and social events. Group 5: City' resident commercial, business, profit-making, non-resident not-for-profit, civic and social organizations, non-resident colleges, their organizations and committees, non-resident private party activity, non-resident employee associations. Group 6: Non-resident commercial, business, and profit-making organizations. Neighborhood and Community Park Lighted Sports Venue Fees Commencing September 1, 1993, each user group shall be charged fees equal to seventy-five percent (75%) of the costs of electricity used to provide light to that user group based on the most recent rates published by Southern California Edison (SCE). Commencing September 1, 1994, fees will be charged at one hundred percent (100%). Upon acceptance by the City of new parks in Rancho Cucamonga, a use fee of 100% of the full light costs shall be implemented. This fee shall include electrical usage and demand charges as outlined by Southern California Edison (SCE) rate policies. This use fee will be updated annually or as rate policies by SCE are amended. Classes/Workshops/Programs Classes and workshops shall be structured on a cost-covering basis, and fees shall be set based upon the market rate of similar programs provided in the cities of Chino, Fontana, Ontario and Upland. Non-Resident Charge: A $5.00 fee shall be paid by each non-resident, each class, each team, each season to participate in City-sponsored classes. Said fee is payable at the time of registration. Does not include one day activities or any trips sponsored by the City. Facility Rentals: Hourly fees for Monday through 5 p.m., Friday use as follows: (Friday, 5 p.m. and later, Saturday, Sunday and holiday use will be charged the 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. rate.) Building Rentals Hourly Fee GROUP ROOM TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 SIZE Small 8am-5pm None $ 4.00 $ 8.00 $17.00 $17.00 $34.00 Small 5pm-8am None $ 8.00 $13.00 $27.00 $27.00 $54.00 Patio at Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center shall be rented only as a small room at 8am-5pm rate. Large 8am-5pm None $ 7.00 $12.00 $30.00 $30.00 $50.00 Large 5pm-8am None $12.00 $17.00 $40.00 $40.00 $70.00 Four hour minimum charge for large room use on Friday and Saturday nights. Kitchen Hourly Fee 0 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $10.00 $10.00 $15.00 25 Other Fees If additional City staff is required, services will be charged at the rate of $10.00 per hour for staff time. When a damage/security deposit is required, the charge is $200.00. Per Day Charges Coffee Pot (small) $ 5.00 Coffee Pot (large) $10.00 Small Stage $20.00 Large Stage $50.00 T.V. W/video player $20.00 Microphone $10.00 Small PA system $40.00 Slide/Overhead Projector $10.00 Piano $25.00 Professional Lighting Tree or Spot $40.00 (Staff for lighting at $10/hr.) (The piano is tuned by the City twice a year. If the piano does not meet the standards of the user, the City will arrange for tuning at the user's sole expense. Tuning fees will be added to rental cost.) Community Amphitheater: The following are rental fees for amphitheaters. The first hour of monitoring is included in the stage rental for Groups 2 and 3. GROUP USAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stage-flat fee None $25.00 $40.00 $72.00 $80.00 $95.00 Sound Monitor/hrly None $12.00 $12.00 $30.00 $30.00 $43.00 Equestrian Center Fees and Charges will be as follows: GROUP 1 2 3 4 5 Hourly Room Rental* Small 8am-5pm Small 5pm-Sam Daily Snack Bar/** Kitchen Lights*** Annual Shared Storage Fee None $ 4.00 $ 8.00 $17.00 $17.00 $34.00 None $ 8.00 $13.00 $27.00 $27.00 $54.00 N/C $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 100% ACTUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION N/C $75.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Storage: For City Community Centers and Public Facilities, no storage will be provided to groups on an ongoing basis without the approval of the Community Services Manager. 26 *Includes use of P.A. System. **A deposit may be required for this use. (See Equestrian Usage Policies.) ***The small arena will have a coin metered box for electrical cost recovery. EpiC:enter Stadium Complex Tournament Fees Group I & II Rental Fees Per Field Group III thru Vl Field Rental* $120.00 $245.00 Deposit 75.00 75.00 Infield Lining Actual Cost Actual Cost Light Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost *Includes initial field dragging and watering. The deposit will be applied to the total rental fee. When additional City staffing, equipment and material is required for tournaments and/or special event programs scheduled at the Adult Sports fields, the applicant is required to pay all event-related expenses. Community and Neighborhood Park Leagues & Tournaments A $50.00 non-refundable deposit is required to reserve fields. Said deposit shall apply to final field rental totals. Should there be a need for City staff to oversee and coordinate activities, the fee is $15.00 per hour. The applicant shall meet all comprehensive public liability insurance requirements for usage of facilities and provide additional equipment needed to hold the tournament at their own cost. Softball Field & Soccer Fields (Per Field) Organized Leagues & Tournaments Group 1 - 2 None Group 3 - 4 Group 5- 6 $20/2hr & less $35/4hr & less $65/AII day $50/2hr & less $90/4 hr & less $140/AII day Snack Bar: USAGE Seasonal Bases* Groups I & II $20.00 per field Groups III & IV $40.00 per field *Bases are available only when renting the fields for a tournament. per day, basis subject to availability by City. For City-owned snack bars located in City Parks. 1 None GROUP 2 $450.00 Fee is based on per field, 3-6 N/A 2? Drag & Line* Groups I-IV Actual Cost *Drag and Line fees include staff costs and are for one drag and line per field. Other non-profit groups bringing in snack bars (i.e. trailers) will be charged a flat $300.00 seasonal permit fee, unless group is participating in a City sponsored event. Storage: For City-owned storage located in City parks GROUP USAGE 1 2 3 - 6 Seasonal None $75.00 N/A R.C. FAMILY SPORTS CENTER Rental Rates Basketball Courts (Per Court-Athletic Use Only) Group 1 Group 2 - 4 Group 5 - 6 None $ 40 (2 hr & less) $ 50 (2hr & less) $ 75 (4 hr & less) $ 90 (4 hr & less) $100 (6 hr & less) $120(6 hr & less) Plus $15 per hour (2 staff) Cleaning/Damage Deposit $100.00 Racquetball Courts (Per Court) Group 1 Group 2- 4 Group 5- 6 None $ 45 (3 hr & less) $ 60 (3 hr & less) $ 75 (6 hr & less) $ 90 (6 hr & less) Plus $15 per hour (2 staff) Cleaning/Damage Deposit $100.00 EPICENTER STADIUM COMPLEX FEES 1. Stadium Facility Ticketed Events* Non-Ticketed Events a. Stadium Rental Rate $1,500 per day plus 10% of gross ticket sales $2,000 perday b. Sky Box Rental Rate $50.00 perhour $30.00 perhour c. Cafe Area Rental Rate $50.00 perhour $30.00 per hour Pavillion Area Rental Rate 1. Covered Pavillion 3rd base side $50.00 per hour $30.00 per hour 2. Open Pavillion 1st base side $25.00 per hour $15.00 perhour 28 e. Event Expenses Applicant is required to pay all event related expenses including personnel, equipment and materials and other related costs. Parking Lot Events a. Stadium On-Site Lots Ticketed Events* Non-Ticketed Events i. Rental rates for $500.00 per day Parking Lots A, B, C plus 10% of gross ticket sales $670.00 perday ii. Parking Lots D, E, F $250.00 per day plus 10% of gross ticket sales $ 335.00 per day b. Expanded Parking Lots i. Parking Lot #1 $500.00 per day plus 10% of gross ticket sales $ 670.00 per day ii. Parking Lot #2 $250.00 per day plus 10% of gross ticket sales $ 335.00 per day iii. Parking Lot #3 or $1,500.00 per day plus 10% of gross ticket sales $2,000 perday Event Quadrant (A-F) $250.00 per day plus 10% of gross ticket sales $ 335.00 per day c. Event Expenses Applicant is required to pay event-related expenses including personnel, equipment and materials and other related costs. Parking Rates** a. Baseball Events $2.00 per car; $15.00 per bus b. Concerts and Special Events $3.00 to $5.00 per car; $5.00 to $10.00 VIP per car, $15.00 per bus, depending on event c. Parking Lot Events Option to charge $2.00 to $5.00 per car Concessions a. Food & Beverage 20% of gross sales - 10% for non-profit organizations utilizing the Adult Sports Park 29 b. Merchandise and Novelties Miscellaneous 20% of gross sales to be negotiated -- books, tapes, CD's, programs, T-shirts, etc.; 10% for non-profit organizations. a. Commercial Filming Minimum of $1,000.00 to $4,000.00 per day, depending on filming requirements, plus actual costs for City services. b. Commercial Filming in Parking Lot Minimum of $500.00 to $2,000.00 per day, depending on filming requirements, plus actual costs for City services. c. Commercial Photograph Minimum of $500.00 to $2,000.00 per day, depending photography requirements, plus actual costs for City services. Audio Broadcast Recording Fee Taping - TV Location Credit Required $ 300.00 per performance $ 500.00 per performance $1,500.00 per performance e. Deposit Minimum of $500.00 to $2,500.00 per day, depending upon event/rental requirements. Additional Move-in Take Down/Move- Out Days 50% of daily event rental rate. Tent/Canopy Main- tenance Reserve Fee Minimum of $300.00 to $1,000.00 per event. depending upon event/rental requirements. * Based on Provisions of Municipal Ordinance. ** Exception to Parking Rates apply to vehicles entitled to occupy the preferred parking area (lot A) delineated in lease with Valley Baseball Club, Inc. on Section 11.0 - Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff Department Fees Description Fingerprinting Criminal Reports Traffic Accident Reports Traffic Accident Reports - Mail Criminal History Letters 30 Fees $ 10.00 $ 2O.OO $ 2O.OO $ 2O.OO $ 15.00 ?/ Bicycle License *Special Event Jobs Costs associated with towing and releasing stored or impounded vehicles $ 3.00 No Charge $ 75.00 **Citation proof of correction Copy of citation or other document, not a report, per page Public Information Clerk- Hourly Station Clerk - Hourly Station Clerk Supervisor - Hourly Secretary - Hourly Secretary II - Hourly Forensic Specialist II - Hourly Community Services Officer - Hourly Deputy Reserve- Hourly Deputy II - Hourly Deputy III- Hourly Sergeant- Hourly Lieutenant - Hourly Captain - Hourly Vehicle Cost - Hourly *There is no fee for special events. $ 15.00 $ 5,oo $ 14.00 $ 16.00 $ 18,00 $ 17,00 $ 19.00 $ 35O0 $ 20,00 $ 31,00 $ 57.00 $ 58.OO $ 64.OO $ 74.OO $ 82.OO $ 85.OO However, if security services are required for the event such as regular or reserve officers, or private security, these fees are separate. **This fee will not apply to persons residing or working within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or citations issued by the Rancho Cucamonga Police. Section 12.0 - Miscellaneous Fees Amendment I:o tax statements for prepaid assessments 31 $ 20.00 ?Z Bingo License Calculation for 1915 Bond Act Assessment Districts Dog Licensing See Resolution 81-79 Filming Permits Business License Tax Application Fee (Planning Fees) Basic Fee for each day of filming Investigation Fee Fire Department *per hour for each 3-man piece of equipment Police Department** (See Sheriff Fees) **Number and type of personnel is determined by the station commander after reviewing plans for the event. Home Park Rent Mediation - Filing Fee Home Park Rent Mediation - Appeal Fee Industrial Bond Development Bond Application A fee of 1/4 of 1% of the established maximum amount of the proposed bond application and not less than Massage Establishment Application Massage Technician Application Massage Outcall Service Renewal Massage Establishment Appl. Renewal Massage Tech. Application Renewal Massage Outcall Service School Fees - Please refer to Ordinance Nos. 69-C and 74 regarding these fees. Solicitor (Non-profit)identification badge Taxicab Service Application Taxicab Driver's Permit Application Taxicab Service Application Renewal Taxicab Driver's Permit Appl. Renewal c. Effective Date: $ 50.00 $ 7.5o $ 20.00 $ 129.00 $ 132.50 $ 110.00 per filming day $ 100.00 per Hr.* $ 15.00 $ 3OO.OO $1,250.00 $ 225.OO $ 178.00 $ 9o.oo $ 111.00 $ 90.00 $ 45.00 $ 5.00 each $ 95.0O $ 120.00 $ 45.00 $ 60.00 This Resolution shall become effective with its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of November, 1997. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of November, 1997. Executed this 6th day of November, 1997 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk 33 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ........ , ....1,.,~' '.. STAFF REPORT .... "'- DATE: November 5, 1997 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9.30 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO LOITERING BY MINORS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached amendment to keep our ordinance consistent current case law. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS In June 1996, the City Council approved an ordinance prohibiting minors from loitering after curfew (10:00 p.m.) and from loitering during the daytime when school is in session. This ordinance was adopted to provide the police and the schools with another tool in fighting juvenile crime and truancy. Recently, the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal handed down a decision in Nunez v. City of San Diego that affects our current ordinance. In essence, this decision struck down terms such as "loiter", "idle", and "wander as unconstitutionally vague. The decision also raised concerns with curfew ordinances interfering with a minor's ability to exercise First Amendment rights to freely associate and communicate. The proposed amendment you are considering alters the language of the ordinance to eliminate the "vague" terminology. It also adds a section which specifically addresses a minor's rights under the First Amendment with parental consent. This amendment maintains the original intent of the ordinance as adopted by the City Council in June 1996 while updating it to be consistent with the most current case law on the subject. For this reason, staff is recommending approval of the amendment. Re~-'~tfully Submitted, Assistant to the City Manager /dab AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING CHAPTER 9.30 OF TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO LOITERING BY MINORS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section l. Sections 9.30.010 and 9.30.020 of Chapter 9.30 of Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby are amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Section 9.30.010 Loitering by minors after curfew prohibited. It is unlawful for any minor to be in or upon the public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds, public buildings or other places open to the public, places of amusement, eating establishments, or any vacant lots between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and sunrise immediately following. This section shall not apply: "(a) When the minor is accompanied by his or her parent, legal guardian, or other person having the care or custody of the minor; or "(b) When the minor is engaged in or going directly to or returning directly from any lawful activity with the written permission of the minor's parent or legal guardian; or "(c) When the minor is traveling directly to or from his or her place of gainful employment or to or from a medical appointment and the minor can produce written evidence of same; or "(d) When, with the approval of the minor's parent, legal guardian or other adult person having the care or custody of the minor, such minor is traveling directly to or from a meeting, entertainment, recreational or school activity, or dance and the minor can produce written evidence of such approval; or "(e) During such time as the minor is exercising rights protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article 1 of the California Constitution, including, but not limited to, free exercise of religion, freedom of speech and/or freedom of assembly, provided such minor has in his or her possession a form of written consent signed by the minor's parent or legal guardian. The form of consent must state the hours during which the minor is permitted to be away from home, the nature of the permitted activities involving the exercise of constitutional rights, and the specific location where the minor is permitted to be during such hours; or 970905 11231-00001 gg 1950018 "(f) When the minor is emancipated pursuant to the laws of any state, provided the minor maintains written evidence of such emancipation in his or her possession during curfew hours; or "(g) When the minor is in a motor vehicle involved in interstate or intrastate travel provided that in the event the minor is not accompanied by his or her parent or guardian, the minor possesses a parent's or guardian's written consent thereto; or "(h) When the minor is homeless. "Section 9.30.020 Daytime loiterinq by minors prohibited. It is unlawful for any minor who is subject to compulsory education or to compulsory continuation education, to be in or upon the public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds, public buildings or other places open to the public, places of amusement, eating establishments, or any vacant lots during school hours and on school days applicable to such minor. This section shall not apply: "(a) When. the minor is accompanied by his or her parent, legal guardian, or other adult person having the care or custody of the minor'; or "(b) When. the minor is on a medical emergency errand directed by his or her parent, legal guardian, or other adult person having care or custody of the minor and can produce written evidence of same; or "(c) When. the minor is traveling directly to or from a medical appointment and can produce written evidence of same; or "(d) When the minor has in his or her possession written permission or a permit to leave the school campus, or is traveling to or from, or is otherwise engaged in an event or activity sponsored, sanctioned or arranged for by the minor's school and in which the minor is authorized to participate." Section 2. Civil Remedies Available. A violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by preemptire legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it 970905 11231-00001 gg 1950018 - 2 - would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or' other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional, or be preempted. Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this , 1997 day of I, , City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 1997, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember: NOES: Councilmember: ABSENT: Councilmember: ABSTAINED: Councilmember: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 970905 11231-00001 gg 1950018 - 3 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: November 5, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager BY: Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst I SUBJECT: Narcotics Offender Eviction Ordinance As requested by City Council at the September 3, 1997 City Council meeting, attached is a copy of a Narcotics Offender Eviction Ordinance. The concept of the Narcotics Offender Eviction Ordinance, which originated from the City of Los Angeles, is to help expedite eviction proceedings against gang or drug offenders committing offenses on or near their place of residence and provides an effective law enforcement tool in the war against drug offenders. Specifically, the ordinance prohibits a landlord from causing or permitting a rented premises "to be used or maintained for any illegal drug activity, drug-related nuisance or drug-related crime" or to cause or permit a tenant to use or occupy rented property "if the tenant commits, permits, maintains or is involved in any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance or the premises or within a 1,000 foot radius from the boundary on the premises." R~pectfully Subm' Deputy City Manager 5EP-24-1997, 17:14 RICHACDS 1,4ATGON ~ GE~SHOI'.,I P. ID5x09 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONCd% MUNICIPAL CODE AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS A~PLICABLR TO LANDLORDS RENTING PROPERTY UPON WHICH SPECIFIED DRUG AND/OR C4%NG RELATED ACTIVITIES ARE OCCURRIN~. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows: Section !. Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 9.34 to read, in words and figures, as follows~ "Chapter 9.34 ,'NARCOTIC~ AND GANG-RRLATED CRIME EVI_CrION PRO~RAM "Sec.t_i_ons: "9.34. 010 "9.34.020 "9.34.030 "9.34.040 "9.34.050 "9.34. 060 Definitions. Duties of the landlord. Administrative procedures. Recovery of possession by landlord. Enforcement. Lien authorized. "9.34.010 D_~finitions. Pot pug-poses of this Chapter, the following definitions sh~11 apply: "A. 'Controlled Substance' shall mean any drug, substance, or immediate precursor, as listed in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Health and Sa£ety Code Section 11000, et seq. "B. 'Drug-Related Nuisance' shall mean any activity rela~ed to ~he possession, sale, use or manufacturing of a controlled substance tha~ creates an unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life, property and safe~y of other residents of the premises or residents occurring within a 1000 foot radius from the boundary line of the premises. Such activity includes, but is not limited =o, any activity commonly associated with illegal drug dealing, such as noise, steady traffic day and night to a particular unit, barricaded units, display or observance of weapons, 970915 11231-00001 ..... ~?: ]_4 D. iCHARD 14ATSON ~ GER.'D,..40N P.E~/I;D3 drug loitering as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11532, or other drug-related circumstances. "C. 'Gang-Related Crime' means any crime in which the perpetrator is a known member of a gang, or any crime motivated by gang membership in which the victim or the intended victim of the crime is a known member of a gang. "D. 'Illegal Drug Activity' means a violation of any of the provimions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 11350) or Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 11400) of the Health and Safety Code, or any successor provisions thereto. "E. 'Landlord' means any owner, lessor, or sublessor (including any person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other entity) who receives or is entitled to.receive rent for the use of any rental unit, or the agent, representative or successor of any of the foregoing. "F. 'Premises' means any rental unit and the land on which it and any other buildings of a complex are located and common areas, including but not limited to, garage ~acilities, streets, alleyways, stairwells and elevators. "G. 'Rental Unit' means any dwelling as defined in Section 17.02.!40 of this Code, including, but not limited to, any single and multi-~amily residence, duplex, and/or condominium in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. This term shall also include any mobile home, whether rent is paid for the mobile home, the land upon which the mobile home is located, or both. It shall also mean any recreational vehicle, as defined in California Civil Code Section 799.24, if located in a mobile home park or recreational vehicle park, whether rent is paid for the recreation vehicle, the land upon which it is located, or both. "H. 'Tenant' means any tenant, sub,chant,' lessee, sublessee or any person entitled to use or occupancy of a rental unit, or any other person residing in the rental uni~. ' "9.34.D2~. D~i=s oK ~he landlo~r_d. A landlord shall not cause or knowingly permit: "A. Any premises under his or her control to be used or maintained for any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or in such manner as to constitute a drug-related nuisance; or - 2 - IOI q_EP-24- ~'q9'? ~?: :5 P;CHAP£S taATSON S GEPSHON "B. Any tenant to use or occupy premises under the landlord's control, if the tenant commits, permits, maintains or is involved in any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1000 foot radius from the boundary line of the premises. "9.34.030 Administrative procedures. The City Attorney, or his or her designee, may promulgate such administrative procedures as may be necessary to be implement the provisions of this Chapter. "~.34.94Q_..~covery o~ posses~.~pn.~v landlord. "A. Grounds for eviction. Notwithstanding any provision of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to the contrary, a landlord may bring an action to recover possession of a rental unit upon any of the following grounds; 1. The tenant is committing or permitting to exist any illegal drug activity, gang-related crime, or drug-related nuisance on the premises or within a 1000 foot radius from the boundary line of the premises, or 2. The tenant has been convicted of a crime wherein the underlying offense involves illegal drug activity, drug-related nuisance activity or a gang- related crime on the premises. "9.34.050 Enforcement. If the landlord has been served with written notice that he or she is in violation of Section 9.34.020A hereof and has failed to com~ly with the provisions of said Section within seven (7) days of the date of service of such notice, the City may file an action for injunctive relief or utilize any other remedy provided by law to compel compliance, including, but not limited to, all remedies available to abate a nuisance. A court rendering a judgment pursuant to this Subsection B may, in addition to any other penalty or remedies provided by law, impose a civil penalty in the maximum amount permitted by law, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and/or require the payment of the City's reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of investigation, discovery and court costs. "9.34.060 Lien authorized. Any judgment for money may be recorded as a lien on the subject property and if multiple defendants exist, they shall be jointly and severally liable for any payments so ordered." - 3 - SEP-24-19q? 17:15 RICHAPDS WATSON S GE~SHON P.~/09 Section 2. Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any o£ the requirements of this Ordinance. Any person violating any provision of this Ordinance or failing to comply with any of it~ requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00, or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each Derson shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Ordinance. Section 3. Civil Remedies Available. The violation of any of the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances. Section 4. Severability. The City Council declares that should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or words of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemDtive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. .$~ction 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. 1997. PASSED ARDADOPTED this day of , MAYOR I, Debra Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting o~ the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 1997, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of , 1997 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS= COUNCIL MEMBERS: 990~,'~.~ z~23~-ooool laJ 195o0'~3 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 5, 1997 Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager Discussion of "Guess Who" Concert RECOMMENDATON: The City Council requested discussion of the "Guess Who" concert. The following is information relating to this concert: BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: The "Guess Who" Concert was held at the Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter on Friday, October 10, 1997. The total concert tickets sold were as follows: Gold Circle 251 $6,275 General Floor 241 3,615 Grandstand 349 4,188 Total Tickets Sold 841 The final budget for the concert is as follows: REVENUES: Concert Tickets Sales Parking Revenues Merchandise Concessions Food & Beverage Concessions Total Revenues $14,078 $14,078 1,050 522 762 $16,412 Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Continued... Page 2 EXPENDITURES: Personnel Community Services-P/T Staff $2,360 Public Works-Seasonal Maint. Staff 679 Sub-total $3,039 Maintenance & Operations Marketing & Promotions 7,889 Reception & Event Supplies 837 Port-a-potties 910 Misc. - City Tickets 674 Artist Rooms 855 Sub-total $11,165 Contract Services Mt. High Entertainment $ 5,000 Production Costs (Stage, Lights Sound, Prod. Staff, seats) 14,269 Entertainment/Artists 20,000 Private Security 626 Special Event Insurance 2,275 Stage Structural Engineer 400 Sub-total $42,570 Grand Total $56,774 Note: Community Services part-time staff was used to assist with ticket sales, ushering, parking, VIP reception, merchandise concessions and with floor seating set-up and taken-down. EVENT INSURANCE: Rain insurance was purchased tbr the concert through Harbour Insurance Management in the amount of $70,000. Staff has been advised by the insurance carrier that the weather report demonstrates proof of loss and that the insurance company will be providing the loss payment to the City by November 21, 1997. Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Continued... Page 3 TICKET REFUNDS: Staff has received approximately 20 telephone calls from the public requesting ticket refunds. Most of these people were pleased with the concert but were concerned that they were not able to fully enjoy the "Guess Who" performance. The concert tickets state that there are no refunds for the concert. Most of the concert and entertainment facilities contacted indicated that no refunds are given except when the concert is cancelled. However, given the fact that the City purchased rain insurance, City Council may wish to consider that ticket refunds be provided to those who request it subject to presentation of their ticket or proof of ticket purchase. Rain insurance was purchase because of the season, and the weather conditions did adversely affect the concert attendance. FUNDRAISING FOR YOUTH SPORTS GROUPS: The total revenues from the event rain insurance, parking and concessions is $72,334. This does not include ticket revenues as the City Council may wish to consider ticket refunds. The direct costs for concert expenses is $56,774. The net revenue balance is $15,560. If the City Council wishes to consider providing funds for the youth sports groups, you may wish to consider referring this matter to the Parks & Recreation C, ommission for review and discussion with the Sports Advisory Committee with their recommendations back to the City Council. I have also attached some general information regarding the "Guess Who" concert. Respectfully submitted, ~ //i~ atom. ta~er so/gwfinalsummary CC: Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager GUESS WHO CONCERT (10-10-97) - MARKETING & PROMOTIONS 1. Radio Station Promotions: Arrow 93.1, Kola 99.9, K-CAL 96.7, Y-109 (Victor Valley). 2. Newspapers: The Daily Bulletin, The Sun, The Press-Enterprise, The San Gabriel Valley Tribune (also covers the Pasadena Star-News and the Whittier Daily News). 3. Mt. High Entertainment: Mt. High also prepared and mail artist press releases to 43 newspaper and radio media distributors. 4. Cable TV - Marks CableVision prepared the concert video and advertised on commercial cable networks as well as provided the City with a video for its Channel 3; advertised with ComCast Cable station. 5. 40,000 flyers were distributed to local schools, youth sports organizations, City businesses, Chamber of Commerce, music stores at Montclair Shopping Center and Ontario Mills. 6. Concert mailings were made to past concert mailing list, Community Services sports program registrations, youth program registrations, City businesses through the business license lists, major businesses through the Library telethon major donor list. Mailings were also made to L.A. Times (L.A. and Orange County areas), Chaffey College, Citrus College (Glendora), Azusa-Pacific College, CA State San Bernardino, University of CA, Riverside, Riverside College, CA State Fullerton, Cal-Poly, Pomona, Mt. San Antonio College, Fullerton College. Mailings were made to neighboring cities (Community Services, Library & Personnel Depts.) of Ontario, Fontana, Rialto, Colton, Redlands, Riverside, San Bernardino, Victorville, Barstow, Palm Springs, Corona, Norco, Moreno Valley, Claremont, Glendora, Covina, San Bernardino County, West Covina, Pomona, Montclair, Upland, Diamond Bar, Chino, Chino Hills, Brea, La Habra, Yorba Linda, Placentia, Anaheim, Fullerton, Walnut, San Dimas, La Verne, Azusa, Riverside County. Mailings were also made to local churches, civic organizations, local credit unions, etc. so/gwmarketing GUESS WHO CONCERT (10-10-97) - SPONSORS MAJOR SPONSORS: 1. KOLA 99.1 Radio - Over $15,000 radio advertising and concert promotions. 2. The Daily Bulletin - Over $1,500 in concert advertising. 3. Marks CableVision - Over $1,500 in cable TV advertising. 4. Ontario Hilton - Over $1,400 in hotel accommodations discounts for artists. 5. The Sign Shop - Over $1,200 savings on developing two (2) street banners. 6. The Claim Jumper Restaurant - Over $500 in food donations for VIP Reception. OTHER SPONSORS: 1. Sir Speedy - Discount on printing flyers and posters. 2. Home Depot - Donation of 15 flashlights. 3. Flower Outlet - Donation of three (3) floral arrangements. 4. Brooklyn Deli - Donation of food for production crew. 5. Grocery Stores: Ralphs, Albertsons, Lucky's and Food 4 Less - Food and beverage donations. 6. Other sponsors: Guido's Deli, Arrow Market, Rancho Rentals, Pic-N-Save. so/gwsponsors VILLA DEL REY 8825 BASELINE RD. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 PETITION oF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. 7"~e 4,e~: ,~e~ ;o~/or.s e~,~ ~t~ ~.l K'~.ff n, ~/r~ ~a~,~ N~ ~D~ S S - PETITION OF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME ADDRESS PHONE t 7 " 15 NAME ADDRES S PHONE PETITION oF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME ADDRESS PETITION OF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. '-.~-~:~; NAME ADDRESS PHONE 15 NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION oF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME NAME ADDRESS PHONE PETITION OF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. N~AI~ _ ,~ ADDRESS 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 U .) 15 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME ADDRESS :':,( :-,: 54 55 56 57 PETITION OF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME Agenda Item #13 POLICE AND FIRE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1997 CONCLUSION/ACTION SUMMARY In attendance: Committee Members Thomas and McDonough. City Manag~ Milhiser, Public Safely Director Thouvenell, Revenue Manager Hagmaier, Transportation En~neer Drama, Support Services Manager Ameson, Code Enforcement Officer Wiese; Scott $chaffer, Executive Vice President, Bell Cab Co.; Russ Blewitt, Mr. Marfino, Jim Reed 1) Oral Communications, * 1) Mr. Martiao discussed his disagreeanent with the City's towing regulations and the Committee recommended denial of his request for reimbursement; 2) Jim Rccd provided the Committee with an update on the audit study for fire station ~4 at San Antonio Lakes. Tbe Committee recommended that the audit be expanded to include a manpower assessment and to wait on the audit until the City had a clear understanding of the development of the San Antonio Lakes project. *2) Application for Taxicab Owner's Permit by San Gabriel Transit, Inc. d/b/a Bell Cab Company, upon hearing testimony, Councilmember Thomas and McDonough agreed to submit the issue to Council for consideration and approval of the application for a Taxicab Owner's Permit by San Gabriel Transit, Inc. d/b/a Bell Cab Company. (Res. No. ****) *3) 1997 Traffic and Engineering Surveys/Speed Limit Ordinance, the Committee members requested that the existing 35 MPH speed limits on Campus Avenue between 22nd and 24th Streets and on 21st Street between Mountain and Campus Avenues be retained. They also requested that the existing 30 MPH speed limit on Deakin Avenue be retained. Staff was directed to amend the ordinance to reflect these changes and present it at the November 10, 1997 Council meeting. They also requested increased police presence on these street segments during the next few months. Public Works staff shall re-survey each segment immediately thereafter. (Ord. No. ****) 4) Review of U.M.C. 7240.6, allowable plantings in parking strips, the Committee recommended that staff review and suggest amendments to all applicable sections of the Upland Municipal Code. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 5, 1997 President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the City Counrcil Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager | , Debra J. Adams, CMC, C~ty Clerk FEE RESOLUTIONS Please remove the following items from the Fire Board and City Council agendas: Fire District Agenda Item E 1 - Resolution No. FD 97-019 City Council Agenda Item F2 - Resolution No. 97-170 More information is required before these two items can be scheduled for a public hearing. Thank you. /dja 0 0 0 0 _ 0~00 / # of Pages: 3 Original in m.~!l: ~(/~,es no Fax #: Da~: Far Message from Brad Mitzelfelt Director of Government Affzirs Building Industry Association of Southern California, Inc. 9227 Haven Ave., Suite 280 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 945-1884 FAX: (909) 948-9631 E-Maih biab~I.com http-J/www.~l~com infotmstion k ~tly pmb~it~ If yon have ~ this te!~:opg, in en~r, pkas~ notify m by ~Ie~bo,~ {~,,,,~,~ly ~o we cln arrun~ fix- thc return o~thc original docun~t~ m our officc a~ no col ~o You. BIR November 4, 1997 Mayor ami City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Ce~-r Drive Rancho C,,c-~nonga, CA 91729 Dear M~yor ami City Conn~il: Ba/dy Chapter We are writing r~garding Resolution No. 97-170, City of R~r. ho Cucamon~ Co~ivc Fee Sch~tulc, ~ for consideration ~ your F'~e Prm~tion District ~ amt City Council merinos of November 5, 1997. We object to this resolution for the following reasons: F'u~'t, it is very difftcult to analyze thi.~ fee proposal based upon the material provided to us. We were simply given a copy of the draft rcsotution which includes what appears to be the city's entire Comprehensive Fee Schedule. The r~olution and fee sctzdule do not provide strikeouts or undmtims in c, xder to make it easy for a City Council Member or a member of the public to ideutify which fees aze proposed new fees and which fees are proposed for iratease. The only refereac~ to the changed amounts is in the Staff Report, which simply states that various changes ate either "established,' "adjusted," 'revised," "tncoqx)rate(d)," "increased," "added a new category," "tzdur. ed,' "revisai the defifiifi,m," aml "added a section emifled..." Th~ is no 'mdic~ion in either ~ sm'r P. zixm or ~h~ Resoh,rioa of which fecs are 'adjusted," '~,vised,' 'increased," etc. One would hav~ to ot~.in a copy of the existing Co--re Fee Schedule in orde~ ~o do a line-by line compnrison to ascertain which fees are proposed for ~, or call city raft, as we did, to clarify t~i,. The manact in which these fee changes are presemed maims it ~-bly ~ for a member of the public or a City Council Member to perform such an analysis, particularly Second, with r~'pect to Resolution No. 97-170, we talin e~ception to ~ resolution language in Paragraph (c), which states that 'This Rcsol,~ion shnl] become cffccti~ with i*~ adoption (emp~,i_~ added)." City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 2 We refer the city to California Government Code Section 66017, which pmvidm thra new or ~i~creased fees shall become effective .no sooner than 60 days subsequent to their adoption. Pursuant w Government Code Section 66024C0) (2), wc r~qucst e~ tlmt t!~ following fc~ se. hedoles outlined in Resolution 9'/-170 do not exceed the estimaUx[ rea,vonable cost of providing services~: - Section 1.0, Building and Safety Fees; - Section :5.4, Public Works Construction; - Section 6.0, Fire Protcction District Fees; eva - Section 9.0, Planning F~:zs. As you imow, Subdivision (a) of California Government Code Section 66014 provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law. when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use perutits; building inspections; building permits; filing and processing applications and i~titiona filed with the local agency formation commission...; the processing of mel~ ...; or planning services ...; those fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approval by, a populmr vote of two-thirds of those electors voting on the issue. Tha~ you for your comideradon of our position. Sincerely, Brad Mitzelfelt Director, Government Affairs Nick C'nmm-rl~,~, C~:!~era] Coullsel t Pleats rmtm that vmluation illbitS ~ 1101 O~lS~tl~! sui~h evi~fllC~ (~e~l CliJfOfll~ AttOriley Oen~tr$ Opinioo TOTAL P.03 ii ~=-,, 1997 02:37 )09987,.8t-",5 FAX Transmittal ./~om Diane Williams ,~,,, The..Home Office and ~:;~(:ho Cucamonga Mayor Pro Tern 7251 Amethyst A venue Rancho Cuc¥~monga, CA 9170! ' l Phone.' 909/980-6336 ,,:4 hr.> Fax.' 90.9/987-4085 E-mail: diane@dianewilliams. corn Date- To; Number. "':' r,,~Jes including cover: FAX Transmittal .fTOttl Diane Williams ~.,, The Home Office and R(.tt~ cho Cucamon ga Mayor Pro Tern 7251 Amethyst Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA, 9l 701 Phone: 909/980-6336 Fax.' 909/987-408.5 {2~ E-mail: diane .(O...dianewilliams. com Date' Memo DATE; 997 Bill Alexander .~...<.,.~.......,.~tman Rex (sutterfez ilman J'im Curatato ~.,~d m an Paul Biane FROM. ?~i.:~ ,,-~,. W i!t.ianxs. Mayor Pro Tern ,'t~.,,~, F ' City r,..ouncd Agenda November 5 1997 :.,,,t~_~s[me~t ot' ~qe (.,lL s comprehensive [~e schedule I wish to ~:.~c..:c- r'~w comments entered into the record of tonight's meeting. Even ~,hough tt~5. s i,, ::~'~ advertised public hearing I do not feel comfortable with the li~i.~ed ii'~?~',~','~, ~';~',i comained in the staff report regarding how ~e new fees and the ~k-e adi',.~5. m~cr~ts were decided. The report states that some of the adjustr:~e~:.t:.: ?~re recommended due to an adjustment in the actual cost of the prvcedur,::~ Tss. ia.i l:r~akes sense. however, it would be very help~l if a matrix were pro.~d,zd i:o demonstrate I:t~e adjustments that are being reconunended. It is very d~ff:ic~A~ ::o remember whm the fees were previously. What percemage increase ..-; b~c, in.g recommended and how is it justified'? What mfc..n'riatb,::.r~. was used in calculating the recreation fees, especially for the 'R. (7.'. ?~'=~niiv Spot'rs Center? Were there comparisons nrade with other cities or even p~"iv;~r~:~ W~'~r~s clubs? Has {.he Park and Recreation Commission reviewed ,:;,~e,~c f~-zc~: ~:~tici ,..:!,.:~ they recommend adoption of them? Perhaps Ibis i~,'~2:,rmation will be brought out during the hearing, however, since t am nrta'bit ;~> a~[end tonigl'a's hearing these are my concerns. I am concerned ;hat the 5.:,-<xs ik~r ~he courls seem rather expensive, ahnost prohibitive to the average:~ ::'?izet; wishing to use them. Please consider continuing ~is hearing timit mi>r~.: ~.-~fi..~'mation is available. City Manager Memo ,Bill Atcxandcr ~ciiman Rex Gutierrez txcilman Jim Curatalo >~,~:'ilman Paul Biane Williams, Mayor Pro Tern 2, City Counci! Agenda - November 5. t997 ~,J.~;s io~ o'f PI a mfi ng Co minission Applications tonight's City Council meeting, however, I wish to have into the meeting record. Wltiie ~,v~ ~:~vc ?~:~:~;ivcd ai.~plic:~tions l¥om some outstanding individuals wishing to servv o:: ~:~,'~.~::: ?l~m~Sng Commission I would recommend that we re-o~n the applica~ic'~: p~:.?'5~,:,d, [ am recom~nending this ~cause I would like to have a ..... ' .....s ~ opinion that a field of ~fine is entirely larger iieM ,:~" ~,,,~ ,d~dat,,,. and it is mv Please c~,~"~.s;i~,? ~::,x,:,ending the application period into rite first or second week of Memo DATE: M,~,,:o.'..' Bill Alexander (; ~'~.~-~cihnan Re x Gutierrez C~.:,~3.~:citman Jim Curatalo <i~.~i.~i'~citman Paul Biane FROM: ,~.~ ,~....,. Williams. Mayor Pro Tern ~",:'"" ~ 1. City Council Agenda - Noveml~r 5. 1997 Dis:::,..~ssion of "Guess Who" Concert [ am u~x;C~':e '.;':, '<~?:cmd ~on; ht'g Cny C. ouncit tneefing, however. I wish to have my con m~<:r~,.x :4...~:'~',<'rc:d into tile meeti[tg record. After rcat, ir,.¢:!. '~',," background analysis of the "Guess Who" concert I would like to make d:~.:~ ....." Ad',:er~.:',.,:. ihat refunds will Ix.~. given for anyone presenting proof of p~i.~. ~~ .- .... ,~.~,:~,: 0/' a ticket witl') rdm~d period of approximately 60 days. There t.., ,:~.:.~,<~:, no way to differentiate be~een a comp ticket and one actc;d~'v m~'chased. dqmrtment that participated in file production of the concert whole". In other words, replace in their budget whatever ,~.-s ~scre sIrent on the concert, not just consumable costs. if y. ,t~.v sc,,':~fimcnt is to give any balance remaining to six)ns groups I woukl ?a~!<~:.~st putting whatever thnds remain into the recreation :~,.a,.l<,.r ,,~..> t:und. It would be imN)ssible to be equitable among all sports ,, .4 ......4-.;~ ,,,',',',,,¥' this way children who really need the .~ssistance would r.,c<.',>,',-, :* r~gard. tess of the sport of their participation, I submii .....'~ .., .~:e :-. sm.~,g. esl~tons to you. my colleagues, and ask. that you take them into consi~ier~H~'~ as you conduct 'your discussion. November 1, 1997 Honorable Mayor and Council City or Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA ~1729 2623 River Avenue Rose'head, California 91770 · Telephone: [818] 307 - 1510 · Fax: [818] 307 - 1529 Via Facsimile (909) 477-2848 Dear Sirs: At the council meeting of November 5, 1997, there is an item on your agenda to approve or disapprove the application for taxicab permits by San Gabriel Transit Inc., d.b.a. Bell Cab Co. Based on our prior city approvals, this promises to be a "liveIf' session. There are several taxicab issues that Brian Hunt, 'President of Diversified Paratransit, (Yell6w Cab) has conveyed personally or written to the Council that cites facts that we believe deserve further infoi-mation. Because there are so many issues that are extremely time consuming in open debate, I have taken the liberty of writing to you to explain a few points that have been understandably manipulated to depict one side of the story. Informed of both sides of the story, I am h,oping that you have a better understanding of the following issues. De-Regulation Increased Administrative Cost to Rancho Cucarnonga Effect on Yellow Cab employees De-Rel~ulation It is my understanding that you have a copy of the studies made of de- regulation in the taxicab market. These studies are absolutely true. A perfect case/n point would be San Diego. The City elected to license any taxicab opera, tor that passed the milaimum requirements. The City had over 80 d/fferent companies. Most of them, one tax/cab/one driver companies. It confused the residents and visitors and promoted activities that were not in the best interest of San Diego. This is not the scenario in Rancho Cucamonl~a. Two taxicab companies are not de-regulation. In all of the Cities we have apphed and successfully attained taxicab permits in the Inland Valley, a "spin' has been placed on this report with carefully placed excirpts for your perusal. This 'spin' suggests that another Taxicab Company in Rancho Cucamonga is de- regulation'. Two taxicab companies are regulated competition. This is · not open-entry. Regulation is the exact opposite of de-regulation. The exact opposite affect takes place with competing companies. It promotes a healthy, competitive environment, which gives residents a choice of taxicab companies. As important, it keeps other "bandit' type (one-cab unmarked vehicles) from proliferating as we have seen in all other cities that have grown at the rate of Rancho Cucamonga. Due to the growth of the cities and the Ontario Airport, this will inevitably become an issue. Bandit taxicabs prey on cities where there is resident .dissatisfaction. Increased Costs, The word regulated certainly has the connotation of expense. In our industry this is not true unless the City population becomes in excess of one to three million residents. In which case, it would be inevitable regardless of the number of taxicab operators. Yellow Cab has intentionally applied for rate increases in many cities in the Inland Valley. They have cited additional expenses due to competition. This rate increase was a direct result of their tactics to convince Cities they are being unjustly treated. This is ludicrous and without merit. The rates charged the residents in this valley are in line. There is no need for a taxicab rate increase. AS a matter of fact, taxicab highest operating expense is insurance, Inland Valley taxicab insurance is far less expensive that other locations in Southern California. Rates are normally driven by the cost of operation. The city rates cited by Yellow Cab have no relative value to your assessment. They are specialized markets. With the exception of the Inland Valley, I know of two cities that do not promote or have taxicab competition in Southern California. I urge you to call any of these cities to ask about the cost of regulating taxicabs. With the exception of Los Angeles and San Diego (due to numbers of residents and large airport traffic) no one corroborates the accusation that expenses are a factor. Again, this "spin' was created as an illusion to the real facts. Undoubtedly, you will hear the scenario that our being in competition with yellow cab in Ontario has devastated them financially. This will be used as a comparison. The facts are that Yellow Cab intentionally escalated tl~e costs at Ontario Airport by convincing the airport management that his drivers would have serious altercations with ours. He insisted on curb managers, holding lot, independent management fh'm (Ampco) etc. The facts are a comparable airport that we serve {Burbank) who has the same exact set of circumstances, is managed by the cab owners at no cost to the passengers. Yellow Cab is using these costs to convince neighboring cities that these costs are the effect of competition. Yellow instigated these costs and are now under a direction from Ontario to rectify the situation within two weeks. Our competitive environment in Ontario is a classic example of how regulated competition has no financial impact on the city except increased revenue. Yellow Cab. There are only a handful of taxica/) operators in California who do not compete. Until recently, Yellow Cab of Pomona has been an anomaly. Gene Stalians, the former owner and current shareholder and Brian Hunt have never had to~corhpete. Since the November decision by Ontario to grant us permits, this has changed. Because we operate in a competitive enviror~ment in the forty one cities we serve, I appealed to Brian that competition would stimulate the business. While I did not expect him to concede because he had no knowledge and experience in competition, we have demonstrated to him that competition is a win-win situation. At the time of our application submittal to Ontario, Brian had 63 taxicab in his fleet. Yellow Cab had one taxicab per every 17,000 plus residents. Our industries national study indicates one taxicab per 1,000 residents is the industry norm. The important point that I want to make clear is that Yellow Cab currently has in excess of 80 taxicabs in their fieeti The fact is, and he · will soon understand, that exposure of competition stimulates peoples interest in using taxicabs as a transportation alternative. Drivers are a very 'important issue. Their w. ell being and income is tantamount to their providing quality, friendly service. Many of them live locally. Taxicabs are leased to a driver for a twelve (12) hour period. Yellow Cab charged their drivers approx/mately One hundred ($100) dollars per shift plus eight cents (.08) per mile over one hundred miles. The industry standard is $60-$70 per twelve hours. A driver typically takes in between $180.00 to $220.00 per shift. A profitable day for a Yellow driver would be $100.00 less gas. With that in mind, you can see that the driver's incomes were limited to approximately four to five hundred doRars per week. In a national survey, I know of no company, in the United States that charged drivers more money that Pomona Yellow Cab for a 19. hour lease. Because there has been no competitive market, drivers had no altemative but to accept these inflated lease rates. Due to the location of the Inland Valley and the nearest competition that drivers could work for, taken into account the?'traffic and twelve-hour shifts, drivers had no viable options. Taxicab companies realize a profit char'ging $60-$70 per shift. In conclusion, Yellow Cab has been forced to charge a lease fee that will provide drivers the opportunity to make a living wage. If the "spin~ that has been generated that suggests financial devastation of Yellow Cab, is based on their having to charge reasonable rates to their drivers, their- claim is true. Tonight you will see conclusive evidence that competition is a positive step for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Evidence of no complaints, particularly after thirty years, is not a barometer of good service. Residence that are frustrated from lack of adequate service find other ways to meet their needs. You will hear testimony from residence that volunteered to vent their' frustration and experience. The business community has overwhelmingly supported our endeavors for transportation options. 'I hope this letter will serve to provide our side of the story and help you make a decision that is ha the best interest of your community. Thank You. Partner TO: Honorable Mayor and City Coum Cucamonga j Marilyn Decker Manager I am signing this petition as a resi 6628 Amethyst Street * Rancho Cucarnonga, CA 91737 recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grox Phone: (909) 980-4875 · Fax: (909) 980-7825 demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am ............,,, xx~,x~ro x.,u~,nlll~Ollgia UOgB llOt have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME VILLA DEL REY 8825 BASELINE RD. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 PETITION oF SUPPORT Council Members of the City of Rancho a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In grown dramatically and so has the community's I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not my community's transportation needs. and open competition, I support the addition of San Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professiona! taxi company. 7~e NAME ADDRESS . PHONE , ~.~ . ~. ,7~~,~/ 7 ~ ~ ~/.~:-- PETITION OF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho One Block North of Baseline 9333 La Mesa Dr. off Hellman Alta Loma, CA 91737 Care Center 909-987-2501 Fax: 909-987-0282 · resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In grown dramatically and so has the community's I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not , community's transportation needs. tnd open competition, I support the addition of San 2ucamonga transportation community. Rancho and professional taxi company. NAME ADDRESS PHONE 28 29 3O 31 32 33 PETITION or SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME ADDRESS PETITION oF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Pancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME ADDRESS 15 NAME ADDRESS PHONE ¥ r'7/ PETITION oF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit 15 NAME ADDRESS PHONE 35 PETITION oF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second NAME ADDRESS / / 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 PHONE PETITION OF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NAME 38 ./z:z ADDRESS ( 54 55 56 57 PETITION OF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME Agenda Item//13 POLICE AND FIRE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1997 CONCLUSION/ACTION SUMMARY In attendance: Committee Members Thomas and McDonough, City Manager lViilhiser, Public Safety Director Thouvenell, Revenue Manager Ha~,maier, Transportation En~neer Danna, Support Services Manager Ameson, Code Enforcement Officer Wiesc; Scott Schaffer, Executive Vice President, Bell Cab Co.; Russ Blewitt, Mr. Martino, Jim Reed 1) Oral Communications, * 1) Mr. Martiao discussed his disagreement with the City's towing regulations and the Committee recommended denial of his request for reimbursement; 2) Jim Reed provided the Committee with an update on the audit study for fire station//4 at San Antonio Lakes. The Committee recommended that the audit be expanded to include a manpower assessment and to wait on the audit until the City had a clear understanding of the development of the San Antonio Lakes project. *2) Application for Taxicab Owner's Permit by San Gabriel Transit, Inc. d/b/a Bell Cab Company, upon hearing testimony, Councilmember Thomas and McDonough agreed to submit the issue to Council for consideration and approval of the application for a Taxicab Owner's Permit by San Gabriel Transit, Inc. d/b/a Bell Cab Company. (Res. No. ****) *3) 1997 Traffic and Engineering Surveys/Speed Limit Ordinance, the Committee members requested &at the existing 35 MPH speed limits on Campus Avenue between 22rid and 24th Streets and on 21st Street between Mountain and Campus Avenues be retained. They also requested that the existing 30 MPH speed limit on Deakin Avenue be retained. Staff was directed to amend the ordinance to reflect these changes and present it at the November 10, 1997 Council meeting. They also requested increased police presence on these street segments during the next few months. Public Works staff shall re-survey each segment immediately thereafter. (Ord. No. ****) 4) Review of U.M.C. 7240.6, allowable plantings in parking strips, the Committee recommended that staff review and suggest amendments to all applicable sections of the Upland Municipal Code. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 5, 1997 President and Members of the Fire Board Mayor and Members of the City Counrcil Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager \ c Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk FEE RESOLUTIONS Please remove the following items from the Fire Board and City Council agendas: Fire District Agenda Item E1 - Resolution No. FD 9%019 City Council Agenda Item F2 - Resolution No. 97-170 More information is required before these two items can be scheduled for a public hearing. Thank you. /dja o o 0 0 o ~_._~ 0 ! # of Pages: 3 Original in rn~i_l: ~__._yes no Fax #: Datc: 7 Fax Message from Brad Mitzelfelt Director of Government Affairs Building Industry Association of Southma California, Inc. 9227 Haven Ave., Suite 280 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Phone: (909) 945-1884 FAX: (909) 948-9631 E-MaR: biab~I.com wc ~an art'an~ f~ t!~ z~tm~ uft!~ m.i~_' AI datumarea m out office at no ~ to you. BIR November 4, 1997 Mayor amt City Courteft City of Rancho Cucamong~ 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Dear Mayor ami City Council: Baldy View Chapter Wc are writing regarding Resolution No. 97-I70, City of ~ C-'ucamon~ Co~ivc Fee Sch~!ulc, proposed for consideration at your Fire Prmm:tion District Board and City Couacil me~ing~x of November 5, 1997. We object to this resolution for the following reasons: First, it is very difficult to analyze this f~e proposal based upon ti~ materini provided to u~. We we~ simply given a copy of the draft r~olution which includes what appears to be the city'$ eatire Comprehensive Fee Schedule. The resolution and fee schedule do not provide suikeouts or underlines in order to make it easy for a City Council Membe~ or a member of the public to identify which fees proposed new fees and which fees are proposed for iratease. The only reference to the changed amounts is in the Staff Report. which simply states that various changes are either "established," 'adjusted." "revised." "incorporate(d)." "increased," 'added a new category," "reduced," "revised the definition," and "added a sect/on entitled...* 'Vnere is no i~licafion in either ~he 5kaff Report or U~e Resoimiou of which fees are "adjusted," "t~vised,' "increased,' etc. One would have to obtain a copy of the existing ~ve Fee Schedule in order to do a line-by line comparison to ~ WhiCh ~ ~ propoged for ~, or call city stL~, aS We did, to ¢Litl"/fy thi=, The mann~ in which these fee chnnges are pres~rz~ mak~ it unren~?-bly difficult for a member of the public or a City Council Member to p~rform such an analysis, particularly wh~ given l~ss than thr~ winks' notice. Second, with respect to Resohtfion No. 97-170, we take exception to the resolution language in ~h (c), which states that 'This Rrsolufion stroll become c/Ycct/vc with its adoption (en~l~.~i~ added).' city of Ranc~ Cucamor~a Page 2 We refer the city to California Government Code Section 66017, which provides ~ new or increased fees shall become effective .Re sooner than 60 d~ys subsequeni to their sdopdon. Pumia~ to Governrecur Code Section 66024Co) (2), wc rcqucst cvideocc thst the following fc~ schedules outlined in Resolution 97o170 do not exceed the estimated rcasouablc cost of providing services~: - Section 1.0, Buildin~ and Safety Fees; - S~ction 5.4, Public Works ConstraCon; - Section 6.0, Fi~ Protection District Fees; and - Section 9.0, Plaxming Fees. As you know, Subdivision (a) of California Government Code Section 66014 provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes; use ~ni~s; building inspections; building permits; filing and processing applications am:l i:~etition$ filed with the local a[iencv formation commission...; tl~e proceweing of mel~ ...; or planning services ...; those fees shell not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding *d~e amount of the fee charged in excess of the e~imeted ree~onal~ie coat of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two-thirds of those elamors voting on the iuue. Thank you for your consideration of our position. S~ly, Brad Milzelfelt Director, Govm'mm'ot Aftmitre Nick C-ram*roe, General Counsel Fr~k L. W'fllizms, F..xecutive Offr~r I Pt. am. rmm th.~ valuation ~l~es d~ n~ eon~titut$ ~h evkJence (See California Attorney Ge~f~l's Opiraon $2-$0~). TOTRL P.O3 PETITION o~ SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel .Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi ,U PETITION oF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services to meet my community's transportation needs. In 'the spirit of free enterprise and open competition, I support the addition of San Gabriel Transit to the Rancho Cucamonga transportation community. Rancho Cucamonga needs a second experienced and professional taxi company. NAME 15 NAME ADDRESS 36 NAME ADDRESS , 54 55 56 57 PETITION oF SUPPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members of the City of Rancho Cucamonga I am signing this petition as a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In recent years Rancho Cucamonga has grown dramatically and so has the community's demand for taxi services. As a citizen I am concerned that Rancho Cucamonga does not have adequate taxi services 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 / 14 What Is Dial-A-Cab? Dial-A-Cab is a discount transportation pro- gram for seniors and persons with disabil- ities offered by Omnitrans in cooperation with participating local taxi service provid- ers. If eligible (see below), you will receive up to $5.90 in taxi service for $.85. Dial-A- Cab is perfect for those short trips to an Omnitrans bus stop, grocery store, or clinic. What Is The Cost? You pay $.85 for the first $5.90 of the taxi's meter reading. This will take you about two miles, depending on factors affecting travel time such as traffic and weather conditions. If your trip costs more than $5.90, you are responsible for any amount over $5.90. The meter starts when you get in the cab. When Can I Ride? Dial-A-Cab service is available from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. seven days a week except for the following holidays: July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Year's Day and Memorial Day. Who Is Eligible To Ride? If you are a senior (age 60 and over) or per- son with a disability and have documenta- tion of eligibility (see below), you can use Dial-A-Cab. Your ride must begin or end within the Omnitrans service area and the taxi operator's service area. How Do I Prove My Eligibility? If you have an Omnitrans Senior, Disability, or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ID card, you are eligible for Dial-A-Cab. These ID cards are offered for' your conve- nience, so you don't have to carry original documents of eligibility. Cards are free from the Omnitrans Metro Office in San Bernar- dino. To receive an application for an Om- nitrans ID card, call 1-800-966-6428. Eligibility Documents If you do not have an Omnitrans ID card, one of the following forms of identification will be accepted: Senior Eligibility Documents · Birth certificate · DMV ID card · Driver's license · Social Security Medicare card Disability Eligibility Documents · VA documentation of e/igibi/ity · Signed physician's statement on Omnitrans form · DMV disability ID card · Social Security disability award Who Do I Call For My Ride? If your ride begins in: Chino Chino Hills Fontana Montclair Ontario Rancho Cucamonga Upland Call 1-909-622-7893 Yellow Cab (west valley) If your ride begins in: Bloomington Colton Grand Terrace Highland Loma Linda Men tone Redlands Rialto San Bernardino Yucaipa Call 1-909-884-8~ Yellow Cab (east valley) Note: Depending on your destination, you may need to call a different taxi company for the return trip. For example: ff your trip begins in Fontana and you travel to Rialto, you first would call West Valley Yellow Cab. For your retum trip leaving Rialto, you would call East Valley Yellow Cab. Group Travel A benefit of using Dial-A-Cab is that the cost is per thp, not per passenger. Eligible riders may share their trip with more than one pas- senger, and the cost will not change. Travel Hints Requests for service can be ve~ high on the 1 st and the 15th of each month and from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. daily. If you are', planning to use Dial-A-Cab during these times, you should plan on a longer wait for service. When calling for Dial-A-Cab service, please have the following information ready: ad- dresses of pick-up and drop-off locations, eligibility information and a telephone num- ber where you can be reached. Cabs can wait while you do an errand, but remember that the meter will be running, and you must pay for any amount over $5.90. More Information For additional information regarding Dial-A-Cab, call Omnitrans Information at 1-800-9-OMNIBUS (1-800-966-6428). 1700 West Fifth Street San Bernardino, CA 92411 1-909-889-0811 dial A discount travel program for seniors and persons with disabilities Serving the San Bernardino Valley Effective July 1, 1997 METROLINK $ou~lle~'n California Rm31onal Raft Authority ° ~'0~ S. Flower S~, 26lb Floor * Los Angdes * gOOf T DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1997 PAGES: 2 MR.'.SCOTT SCHAFFER FROM: PETER HIDALGO Metro/ink Mecl/a & Government Relations Office (213) 452-0233 (213) 452-0421 Fax e-mail <; hidalgop@scrra.net > www.metrol|nktrains.com t DEAR MR. SC/~AF:FER - ,aftached. please find our most recent (Aug. '97) es*imales ai:,gnting at Metrolint. stations during Deal< l~ours. Ran¢t'~o Cucamonga boarding est!rnale is 11.4% (aDout 436 DoarJing/day pe~zse. pt. ridership]. FAX NUMBER: (818) 307-1529 N0~]-8~-1997 14: 21 SAN~AG 989 885 4487 P, 0_:~/04 lsernaraino Associated Governments ~ Be~rdi~ Coup' T~pon~on ~ission ~ BemaMfr~ ~ Tr~on~i~ San Be~a~no C~ ~ge~ Ma~ge~ Agen~ Se~Ce A~od~ for Freely E~genc~s 472 No~ ~h~d A~aue. Saa Be~rdi~, Cal[f~m~ 92~1-1421 (~) 8~276 F~: (~) ggS~7 NOVEMBER SANBAG COMMUTER RAIL REPORT WEEKDAY PATRONAGE San Bernardino Line: Weekday ridership increased to an a, vrage of 7,913 in October. This represents the highest weekdefy average to date. Additionally, another passenger record took pl~e on O~tober 20, 1997 when 8,340 passengers boarded San Bernardino Line trains. ]'his replaces the former 'weekday high of $,126 which was set on May 5, 1997. Since one year ago, ridership has increased 14% (See table below). Since September, ridership has grown by 4%. Riverside-Ontario-Los Angeles: Strong growth is being experienced on the Fiverside Line. In October. the average daily ridership was an even 4,100. This reprcaents a new high for the line, up from the pr~vious record of 3,838 (-March 1997). In addition to the new daily average record, the line also experienced a new weelaJay high of 4,357 passengers (Oc:ober 15, 1997). The growth shown on ttfis line most likely [elates to the new peak period train added to the schedule in September as well as the opening of the Montebello station. Since Octobe~ 1996, ridership has increased by 9~A. Since September, ridership has grown by 6%. Inland Empire-Orange County (IEOC): S~rong growth is also taking place on the IEOC Line. New Weekday boarding records were set as well as new weekday averages. ~ October, the average daily rtdershtp was 1,427. This is up from the previous weekday average high of 1,162 0uly 1997). Additionally. on October 6, 1997, 1,521 passengers boarded IEOC trains, up fxom the previous wedcday high of 1.382 (Nov. 11, 1995). Since one year ago, ridership on the IEOC Line has grown by 42%. Since, last month, ridership has inctea'sod 13%. Total System: Total system ridership increa,qed flora 24,658 passengers in September to 25,641 passengers in October. This figure again refieots a new weekday average. Of the OCtober totals, are San Bernardino Line passengers, 16% are Riverside-LA passengers, and 6% are IEOC passengers. Since last year, ridership on the total ~ystma has increased by CRg~ 11.M~d~ November Commuter Rail Report Page 2 Average Weekday Dally Ridership (Oct. 1997 v$ Oct. 1996) San 13ernardino Riverfide IEOC Systemwide Oct. 97* 7,913 (31%} 4,100 (16%) 1,427 (6%) 25,641 Oct. 96 6,966 (30°A) 3,747 06%) 1,007 (4%) 23,339 % Change + 14% + 9% + 42% + 10~ · As of 10/21t97 (1 ~ daya of ~i~, adjus~ fox Columbus Day) SATInBAY PATRONAGE Saturday ridership has increased by 23% when compared to October 1996. The average Saturday ridership in October 1997 wa~ 1,567 coraparM to 1,272 in October 1996 (See table below). When compared to September 1997, ridership declined by 3 I%. However, because the decline relates to the dosing o£tl~ Los Angeles fair, the compafiaon is invalid. Average Saturday Ridership (Oct. 1997 v$ Oct. 1996) Date of Service ~ Outbound ~ Oct. 4 880 812 1,692 Oct. 11 738 704 1,442 Oct. 1997* 809 758 1,567 Oct. 1996 674 598 1,272 % Change + 20~/o + 27% + 23% ' As of 10/11197 (2 *ernc~ dayi) CRR9711.t, LAB I"10U-03-1997 14:21 SAI'~3r"G 989 885 4407 P,04/04 November Commuter l~l l~port Page :3 SPEEDWAY PATRONAGE The lazt $peodway event was held on the weekend of October 18 and 19. Since the total number of race tickets sold for this event was down, th0 total number of passengers riding Metrolink trains was ako down. The October evont was a HASCAR track race. These race~ am apparently not as popular and are view~ by really as a minor league event. On Saturday, approximately gO0 pimsengers rode the trains; on Sunday approximately 900 rode. When compared to the Sunday races in June and September, ridership was drastically lower. In June, approximately 6,100 p~sengers rode the trains to the Speedway; in Sep[¢~nber approximately 6,300 passengers rode. CRR~71 I.I~AB TCiT:qL P. 0,4 City News Ontario/Montclair November 5, 1997 Page 4 Ontario mayor gets '>irtnc The following are selected entries from Montclair police reports for the week ending Oct. 27: Monday, Oct. 27 Stabbing, 10000 block Miles Avenue, 2:35 a.m. Auto theft, 9400 block Rose Avenue, 5:08 a.m. Sunday, Oct. 26 Auto theft, 5100 block Montclair Plaza Lane, 11:19 p.m. Battery, 4900 block Denver Avenue, 11:18 p.m. Car jacking, corner of Central Avenue and Moreno Street, 5:38 p.m. Auto theft, 4500 block Canoga Avenue, 7:11 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 25 Hit and run, corner of Monte Vista Avenue and interstate 10, 4:14 p.m. Petty theft, 2000 block Montclair Plaza Lane, 12:01 a.m. Friday, Oct. 24 BurglaW, 5300 block Kingsley Street, 7:52 p.m. Battery, 10400 block Mills Avenue, 12:22 p.m. Auto theft, 10300 Vernon Avenue, 8:13 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 23 Battery, 10300 Lehigh Avenue, 11:51 p.m. Burglaw, 4300 block Mission Boulevard, 11:18 p.m. Burglaw, 4700 block Huntington Drive, 2:44 p.m. Burglary, 4700 block Huntington Drive, 11:59 a.m. Wednesday, Oct. 22 Petty theft, 10600 Mills Avenue, 4:39 p.m. Auto theft, 10700 Ramona Avenue, 12:19 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 21 Burglaw, 5000 block Richton Street, 7:45 p.m. Burglaw, 5000 block Richton Street, 7:24 p.m. Burglaw, 10100 Central Avenue, 9a.m. NAILS FREE Specia with any seTvice /' Today's, Ontario Mayor Gus Skropos, you turn the big 4-0. You've knocked our socks off with economic development that won't quit in Ontario. You've led the people so well that we've become the economic engine of the Inland Valley. Kudos are in order as well as birth- day wishes for a career well spent. Long after you have gone on to higher office, Ontario will remember it was Skropos at the helm when the airport, convention center and Ontario Mills projects came to fruition. You have done well and we wish you well on your birthday. Have a happy olle. Two days from now, Ray Raft of Montclair will turn the big 5-0. He'll be celebrating with his wife, Montclair Councilwoman Carolyn Raft, and their three children. A private family dinner is planned. GOINGS ON Ocl. 19 brought the grand opening of the Ontario Bandstand with horse-drawn wagon rides, period costumes and an old- fashioned ice cream social as Euclid Aventle turned into turn-of-the-century Ontario. Kiwanis President Chuck Stokke joined Mayor Pro Tern Gary Ovitt, Gerald Du Bols, Alan Wapner, Jim Bowman and City Manager Greg Devereaux to cut the ribbon and transfer the Kiwanis-built venue to the city. Bell Cab picked up folks like Betty Brothers, C. Meyer, Delores Kime, Millie Sullivan, Wilma Gaunt, Norman Sarian, Ila Torte, Fran Tatum, Louis Castro and June Allen froln Grove Senior Housing so they could enjoy the fun. Angie Salas-Dark dressed in a dusty rose go-to-meeting gown; Rita Ramirez-Nelsen : =~O N T H. E ' II .i Katie ....,... Bent .... dressed as a 1920's woman in a cream-col- ored lace gown. Terry Carter played Capt. Benjamin West and Barbara Gaddie was eloquent in a gun-metal gray satin 1930's gown with matching skull cap decked with feather and sequins. Barte Mascarelli, Ken Meyers, Debra Ont~ Dorst-Porado, George Urch, Mark Chase, was ck Lillian Mendibles, Fred Nelsen, Kelly ly. Ch~ Carhart, Kent Hindes, Debby Acker, Inland Angel Enriquez, Carl Rogers, Angel nity Colon, Faye Meyers-Dastrup, Jeff Koontz, YMC.4 Sue Du Bols. Kim Tepstra, Kathleen Congr Wentz, John Herrera, Donna Bowman, Ernie and Ida Mary Payne, Betty Wiltsey, Sid and Pat Russell, Gene and tion t~ Polly Vought, Bill Pacitico, Steve Holtrus Bands and Bob Snow all attended the inaugural girlfrk concert. Teens from St. George's Confirmation and standi Program celebrated the Night of misty- Enrollment on Oct. 26. They were Alan agreet Carreon, Michael Cueilar, Erica De roses. Santiago, Brandon Flores, Deana Garcia,.~ Ify~ Sabrina Garcia, Sara Gonzales, Vincent ested Griego, Tina Guillen Ronni Gomez, New.~, Ruben Gomez, Michael Holguin, Lena Ontm. Melandrez, Vanessa Moreno, Geramina On th. Murilh Pachec Angela Elena ', Sanch~ Marlin Gonza Sanch( -Cath rumma Klensk Barne~ make i YW( Oct. 1 ! days o of Hot Projecl ~'~ Glass · China · Pottery o Old & New Collectibles · Iimited Editions · Plates · Dolls Inland Empire Antiques 216 W. "B" St., Ontario 909/986-9779 Monday-Saturday 10am-6pm D i 't a turk Stere 109 N. Euclid Ave., Ontario 909/983-9338 Volt can help you earn a living. Plenty of thanks, you'll be giving. Come and apply here .today. Bountiful jobs are on the way. If you need money to buy turkey IBM · 166 MH · 32 MB ~ - 2.5GB [ TRANSPORTATION LAW JOURNAL INDUSTRY LEADER IN MULTI-MODAL LAW, ECONOMICS ~ ~°OLICY UNIVERSITY OF DENVER * COLLEGE OF LAW Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation: The Paradox of Market Failure PAUL STEPHEN DEMPSEY VOLUME 24 ~o~..~, l~'t · NUMBER I · SUMMER 1996 Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation: the Paradox of Market Failure Paul Stephen Dempsey* II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...................................... : ........ 74 Historical Antecedents of Modem Taxicab Regulation .... 76 Contemporary Statutory & Regulatory Criteria Governing the Taxi Industry .......................................... 77 A. New York ............................................. 78 B. Los Angeles...' ........................................ 78 C. Houston .............................................. 79 Copyright © 1996 by the author * Paul Stephen Dcmpsey is Professor of Law and Director of the Transportation Law Program at the University of Denver. He formerly served as an attorney with the Civil Aero- nautics Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission in Washington, D.C.. Professor Dempsey has written more than forty law review at ticlea and six books: AVIATION LAW & R£OULA~nON (tWO volumes. Butterworth 1993); Aim. n~£ D£~GUt,ATION & LAiSSeZ FA~,~ M'CrHOLOOY (Quorum Books, 1992); FL¥1r~G BtaNO: T~m FAu,um~ oF Atm. xn£ D~a~a. ~LnTION (Economic Policy Institute, 1990); T~m SOCIAL ANO ECOnOMiC Consr-otJ~nc£s oF D~.a£OtJaAT~on (Quorum Books, 1989): LAw & Fo~u~lon Pouch, m [N'I~RNATIONAL AVIATION (Transnational Publishers, 1987); and LAw & ECONOn4~C R~Gt~LATION ~ T~t^NSrOaTATION (Quorum Books, 1986). Dr. DemIysey holds the following degrees: A.B.J., J.D, University of Georgia; LL.M., George Washington University; D.C.L.. McGill University. He is admitted to practice law in Colorado, Georgia and the District of Columbia. The author would like to thank Greg Hall. John Joiner & Sam Scinta. J.D. candidates, Uni- versit.v of Denver, for their assistance in the preparation of this article. 73 L I 74 Transportation Law Journal [VoL 24:73 D. Chicago ............................................... E. St. Louis .............................................. F. Boston ................................................ G. _Minneapolis ........................................... H. Denver ................................................ IV. -The Economic Characteristics of the Taxi Industry ........ A. Industry Size and Structure ........................... 1. Radio-Dispatched Cabs ........................... 2. The Cabstand Business ............................ 3. Cruising Cabs ..................................... 4. Public Contract Services ........................... B. Industry Costs ......................................... C. The Passenger Market ................................. 1. The Transportation Disadvantaged ................ 2. Non-Residents .................................... 3. Affluent Residents ................................ V. Market Imperfections & Theoretical Explanations Therefor . ................................................. A. The Absence of a Competitive Market ................ B. Imperfect Information & Transactions Costs ........... C. Externalities .......................................... D. Cross-Subsidies and Cream Skimming ................. E. Economies of Scale & Scope .......................... F. The Absence of Sound Economic Conditions .......... VI. VII. VIII. IX. 81 82 83 84 85 87 87 88 88 88 89 89 90 90 90 91 91 91 93 94 96 97 97 Bipolar Views on Regulation and Deregulation ........... 100 Empirical Results of Open Entry in the Taxicab Industry . 102 A. Entry ................................................. 102 B. Operating Efficiency and Productivity ................. 105 C. Highway Congestion, Energy Consumption & Environmental Pollution .............................. 106 D. Price .................................................. 107 E. Income ................................................ 11(3 F. Service ................................................ 111 G. Administrative Costs .................................. 114 Summary of the Empirical Results of Taxicab Deregulation .............................................. 114 The Need For Governmental Planning & Oversight ....... 116 I. INTRODUCTION During the last fifteen years, Congress has deregulated, wholly or partly, a number of infrastructure industries, including most modes of transport--airlines, motor carriers, railroads, and intercity bus compa- 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 75 hies.~ Deregulation emerged in a comprehensive ideological movement which abhorred governmental pricing and entry controls as manifestly causing waste and inefficiency, while denying consumers the range of price and service options they desire.2 In a nation dedicated to free market capitalism, governmental re- straints on the freedom to enter into a business or allowing the competi- tive market to set the price seem fundamentally at odds with immutable notions of e~;onomic liberty. While in the late 19th and early 20th Cen- tury, market failure gave birth to economic regulation of infrastructure industries, today, we live in an era where the conventional wisdom is that government can do little good and the market can do little wrong.3 Despite this passionate and powerful contemporary political~eco- nomic ideological movement, one mode of transportation has come full circle from regulation, through deregulation, and back again to re-regula: tion--the taxi industry. American cities began regulating local taxi firms in the 1920s. Beginning a half century later, more than 20 cities, most located in the Sunbelt, totally or partially aleregulated their taxi compa- nies. However, the experience with taxicab deregulation was so pro- foundly unsatisfactory that virtually every city that embraced it has since jettisoned it in favor of resumed economic regulation. Today, nearly all large and medium-sized communities regulate their local taxicab companies. Typically, regulation of taxicabs involves: (1) limited entry (restricting the number of fu-ms, and/or the ratio of taxis to population), usually under a standard of "public convenience and neces- sity," [PC&N] (2) just, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory fares, (3) ser- vice standards (e.g., vehicular and driver safety standards, as well as a common carrier obligation of nondiscriminatory service, 24-hour radio 1. Such legislation includes the Air Cargo Deregulation Act of 1977, the Airline Deregula- tion Act of 1978, the International Air Transportation Competition Act of 1979, the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, the Household Goods Transportation Act of 1980. the Bus Regulatory Reform Act of 1982, the Civil Aeronautics Board Sunset Act of 198,*. the Surface Freight Forwarder Deregulation Act of 1986. the Negotiated Rates Act of 1993, the Trucking Industry, Regulatory Reform Act of 1994. and Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of 1994. See generally, PAUL D£M!~S£Y & WILLIAM Tt!OMS. LAw & ECONOMIC RIT. GULATION IN TRA~SPOaTAT1Ora (1986), and PAUL D£M~S£V, RoeEar HAar)^WAV & W~LZ.t^M T!!OMS, Av~^- 'now LAW & R~at~t.n~o~ (1993). Note however. that although the U.S. Congress has pre- empted much of state and local regulation of the airline, railroad. and trucking industries. economic regulation of the surface passenger transportation industry. has remained largely un- touched by federal preemption. 2. See. e.g., PAUL DEMI~E¥. THE SOCIAL .~ ECONOMIC CONSEOUENCES OF DEREGUL^- ~ON (1989); PAUL DEMI'~r-Y & ANDhaw GOETZ, Alm-l~£ DEREGUL^T1ON & LAISSEZ FAIRE M,t'rno~oav (1992). 3. See generally Paul Dempsey. Market Failure and Regulatory Failure As Catalysts for Political Change: The Choice Between Imperfect Re,~u!atton and Imperfect Regulation. 46 W^s~. & L££ L. REV. 1 (1989). 76 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 dispatch capability, and a minimum level of response time), and (4) finan- cial responsibility standards (e.g., insurance).4 This article explores the legal, historical, economic, and philosophical bases of regulation and deregulation in the taxi industry, as well as the empirical results of taxi deregulation. The paradoxical metamorphosis from regulation, to deregulation, and back again, to regulation is an inter- esting case study of the collision of economic theory an ideology, with empirical reality. We begin with a look at the historical origins of taxi regulation. II. HISTORICAL ANTECEDENTS OF MODERN TAXICAB REGULATION Hackneys (horse drawn coaches for hire), the predecessors of to- day's taxicabs, were regulated shortly after they appeared on the streets of London and Paris between 1600 and 1620.s In 1635, Charles I ordered that London hackneys be licensed so as "to restrain the multitude and promiscuous use of coaches."6 Nineteen years later the British Parlia- ment adopted a regulatory regime which limited the number of hackneys.7 In the United States, governmental regulation of private firms, rather than public ownership, has been deemed the appropriate means of protecting tiie public interest in economically viable modes of transporta- tion.s Although some attribute comprehensive regulation of taxicabs to the Great Depression, in fact, regulation began in earnest during the 1920s.9 In the 1930s, the growth in unemployment and unsold 4. See Michael Kemp, Taxscab Service, in PARA-TRANSIT:. N£GL£C'rr.o O~rlons ~OR UR- aAn MOBtU'rY 6~ (Urban Institute 1984): D£~Ps£¥ & T~4oMs. supra note 1. at 1: Roger Teal & Mary. Berglund. The Impacts of Taxicab Deregulation in the USA, J, T~,xssP. EcoA. & Pol-'Y 37 (Jan. 1987). 5. David Williams, Information and Price Determination m Taxi Markets. 20 Q. R~.v. op EcoA. & Bus. 36 (1981). Actually, common carrier liability owes its origins to Roman Law, beginning about the year 200 B.C, See D£M~£¥ & THOMS, supra note I. at 2. 6. U.S. DEP'T OF TR^NS~'.. TAXICAB REGULATION IN U.S, CITIES 5 (1983). 7. ld. at 6. The London Hackney Carnage Act of 1831 (as amended in 1843) was the first comprehensive taxicab regulation ordinance: Gene Siallens, Regulato.ry Revision and the Taxicab Industry: What We Have Learned 1. Address before the 50th Annual Convention of the New Zealand Taxi Proprietors' Federation. Wellin,on, New Zealand. Aug. 30. 1988. 8. WILLIAM BARKI~R & MARY BEARD. URBAN TAXICABS: PROBLEMS. POTENTIAL. AND PLAJ, tNING. m PROC'£~DINGS OF THE CONF£RENC£ Otq TAXIS AS PUBLIC TRANSIT 40 (Univ. of Califorma, 1978). Modes of transpor~ which were not economically viable in the market (e.g., urban railways. Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Serwce) were provided by government in a process John Kenneth Galbraith is said to have referred to as "Lemon Socialism." 9. M,,~RK Fi~AN~CENA & PAUl- PAUTl-£~. AN ECOnOMiC Ar~Al-YSlS O~: TAXtCAa REGUI-A- TION 75 (Fed. Trade Comm., 1984); See Kemp. supra note 4, at 65. "The campaigns of profes- sional cab associations for vehicle licensing during the [ate 1920s were a direct response to the disruption in the market created by hit-and-run entrants."; see also Edward Gellick & David Sisk, A Reconsideratton of Taxi Regulation. 3 J.L. ECON. & ORG. 117, 123 (1987). 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 77 automobiles produced a drastic increase in the number of taxicabs.~° While fewer people could afford to ride a taxi, the number of taxicabs skyrocketed, while occupancy rates and revenue per taxi declined.~ Ca- pacity _and demand were moving in opposite directions, An editorial published by the Washington Post in January 1933 illus- trates the public's perception of the chaotic state in which the taxicab industry found itself: Cut-throat competition in a business of this kind always produces chaos. Drivers are working as long as sixteen hours per day, in their desperate ef- forts to eke out a living. Cabs are allowed to go unrepaired .... Together with the rise in the accident rate there has been a sharp decline in the financial responsibility of taxicab operators. Too frequently the victims of taxicab accidents must bear the loss because the operator has no re- sources of his own and no liability insurance. There is no excuse for a city exposing its people to such dangers.12 Economists of the era argued that taxis were a declining cost indus- try; excessive competition between numerous small operators decreased carrier efficienc3r and increased consumer costs.~3 The U.S. Department of Transportation also summarized the tenor of the times: The excess supply of taxis led to fare wars, e~tortion, and a lack of insurance and financial responsibility among operators and drivers. Public officials and the press in cities across the country cried out for public control over the taxi industry. The response was municipal control over fares, licenses, insurance and other aspects of taxi service.TM III. CONTEMPORARY STATUTORY AND REGULATORY CRITERIA GOVERNING THE TAXt INDUSTRY Virtually all municipalities engage in taxi industry regulation under state legislation requiring or permitting such regulation. which itself acts under the guise of the state's police power. Although sometimes chal- lenged as unconstitutional on various grounds, or preempted by federal law, these statutes and municipal ordinances have been nearly universally 10. See GORMAN GR..BERT & ROBeRt S^MU~. T~IE TAXICAB: AN URBAN TRANS~'OR~t^- ~ON SURV~VOR 149 (1982). 11. F~NKENA & PADDLER. ~upra note 9. at 75. 12. T~icab Chaos. Wns~. Pos~. Jan. 25. 1933, edilonal page. t3. Sandra Rosenbl~m. The T~t in the Urban Tra~pon S.vstem; T~e ~NGE TO PUBLIC TRANS~)RTATION (Charles ~ve. ed.. 19~). Similar arguments were made in the 192~ and 19~ in favor of regulating the tracking lndust~. See Paul Dem~ey, Runntng On Empty: Trucking Deregu~tion and Economic Theo~. 43 A~. L. R~v. ~3, ~-3~ 14. U.S. DcP"t ol~ T~n~sP.. supra note 6. at 6-7. 78 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 upheld.is Typically, taxis are regulated at the local level, with city or county boards restricting the number of firms and number of taxis (with the issu- ance of medallions), and setting prices (usually on a mileage basis), safety, insurance and service standards. Their decisions are given ex- treme deference by reviewing courts. In this section, several of the ap- proaches to economic regulation of taxis in some of the nation's major cities are examined. As we shall see, their similarities are far more nu- merous than their differences. A. NEW YORK The state of iNew York permits its municipalities to adopt ordinances which require the registration and licensing of taxicabs.a6 New York mu- nicipalities may also establish restrictions concerning parking and passen- ger pick-up and discharges? Jurisdiction to promulgate rules and regulations concerning the supervision and operation of taxis has been vested in the Police Commissioner. as Typically, the municipal ordinances require that taxis be insured for specific amounts.to New York City has regulated its taxis since the 1930s. Medallions were limited to 11,787 in 1937,2° causing the medallion price to reach ex- orbitant levels, itself generating some measure of legitimate criticism of taxi regulation. B. Los ANGELES In contrast to New York, which permits municipalities to enact taxi regulations, the Texas and California state statutes require municipalities to regulate the local taxi industry.2~ These municipalities may enact ordi- nances which regulate entry, such as "controls, Limits or other restrictions 15. See e.g.,. Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles 726 F.2d 1430 (D.C. Cir. 1983}. cer~ dented. 105 S. Ct. 1865 (1983). Here, a municapality's taxicab regulation survived scrutiny under the Sherman Act. as it fell under the "state action" exemption to that legislation. Although Title VI of the Federal Aviation A~t of 199~ preempted intreatate regulation of motor carriers of property, it did not preempt intreatate regulation of the transportation of passengers. The Bus Regulatory. Reform Act of 1982, although providing for Interstate Commerce Corerres- sion review of intreatate entry, exit and rate regulation. did not apply to the taxi industry. See also Rudac, k v. Valentine, 295 N.Y.S. 976 (1937) (taxi statute unsuc, c, essfully challenged on grounds that it violated elaimant's due process rights). 16. N,Y. Gen. Mutt. § 181(1). 17. ld. 18. See Teuch v. Murphy. 256 N.YS.2d 25 (1965L 19. See Foley v. McKnealley, 325 N.Y.S.2d 165 (1971). 20. Peter Suzuki. Unregulated Taxicabs, 49 TR^NS~,. O. 129, 132 (1995). 21. California's statute is typical: [E}very city or county shall protect the public health. safety. and welfare by adopting an ordinance or resolution m regard to tamcab transportation service rendered in 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 79 on the total number of persons providing the services, rates, safety and insurance requirements" and other requirements which will "ensure safe and reliable passenger transportation service."va The city of Los Angeles requires an applicant to prove "public con- venience ~nd necessity" in order to gain entry into the taxicab industry, with entry, rates and business practices governed by the Los Angeles Board of Transportation Commissioners.23 In evaluating the PC&N cri- teflon, the Board may consider the applicant's financial capability, evi- dence that existing taxicabs "are not, under efficient management, earning a fair and reasonable return on their capital devoted to such ser- vice...", that existing taxicabs "... are or are not, under normal condi- tions, adequately serving the public . . .", and "... whether existing services are meeting the need or demand.":4 The Los Angeles ordinance includes the typical requirements of in- surance,2s an approved identification system of color and signage?6 me- ters,27 rate regulation,28 a requirement that the driver take the most direct route29 and not charge more than the prescribed fare,3° and de- scribes the circumstances under which a driver or vehicle permit may be temporarily or permanently suspended or revoked.3~ The rules adopted by the Board of Transportation Commissioners include precise safety reg- ulations (including maximum age of vehicles, inspection, maintenance, re- pair, seat belt and other requirements), cleanliness of vehicle, courtesy and honesty of driver, and common carrier service obligations.32 C. HOUSTON The licensing of new entrants under the Houston municipal Code requires a hearing by the city Department of Finance and Administration vehicles for carr)nng not more than eight persons. excluding the driver. which is oper- ated within the jurisdiction of the city or county .... " CAl.- Gov'x CoD£ § 53075.5 (West Supp. 1996), The California Public Utilities Commission may not regulate the 1ool taxi industry, if it is already licensed and regulated by the city. People v. San Francisco. 155 Cal. Rptr. 319 (1979). Texas requires the municipality to regulate not only the area within its jurisdiction. but also jointly owned municipal property and property "in which the municipality possesses an ownership interest." Tr.x. Loc,xt, GOV'T. § 215.004 (West 1995) 22. Tr-x, LOCA~ GOV'T COD£ ANs. § 215.004 (West 1995). 23. Los AnG£LeS MC~. CODa, ch. VII, a~. I, §§ 71.00, 71.12. 24. ld. § 71.13. 25. ld. § 71.14. 26. Id. §§ 71.16, 71.19, 71.20. 71.21. 27. ld. §71.22. 28. Id. § 71.25. 29. ld. § 71.23. 30. ld. § 71.24. 31. ld. §§ 71.01 - 71.10. 32. Dr-pT, OF TRANSP.. CITY OF LOS ANGEl_ES. TAXICAB RUL 'ES AND Rr.GULATIONS OF 'VILE BOARD OF TRANSP. COMM'N (1991). 80 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 under a "public convenience and necessity" standard, in which applica- tions are denied unless the applicants are able to prove, by clear and con- vincirig evidence, that the standard is met.33 In assessing the PC&N standard, the director of the Department must evaluate the number of vehicles to be operated,' the effect of new entry on traffic congestion (ve- hicularstud pedestrian), the number of permits in operation, the impact on existing permit holders, and "any other facts the director may deem relevant. 33. HOtSSTON, T~.x.. CODE OF ORDn~AnC~S § 46-66 (1968). The Houston Code requires all applications for the $400 taracab pernuts to be filed in January of even-numbered years for a hearing the following month. Ordinance 93-155 of the City of Houston amended § 46-64 of the Houston Code, requiring taxicab permit heatings to be held in even-numbered calendar years, where previous hearing were conducted annually. The director of the department of finance and administration conducts the hearings under a "public convenience and necessity standard" in wltich all applicants are denied unless they are able to provide clear and convincing evidence that the standard is met. Hot~s-roN, Tr-x., CODE OF O~tD~^nC£S § 46-66 (1968). However, the director retains absolute discretion in determining whether public convenience and necessity requires the issuance of additional pernuts, since Houston ordinances require the director to consider not only enumerated factors such as effects on traffic congestion. the number of existing permits in operation, and potential economic tmpact on existing permit holders, but also "any other facts the director may deem relevant." The Houston Code § 46-66 provides in part: In determining whether public convenience and necessity require the issuance of the taxicab permit to. the application, the director shall take into consideration: (3) Number of vehicles to be operated. (6) The effect of additional vehicles upon the traffic congestion, vehicular and pedes- trian alike. (10) The total number of taxicab permits in operation. (11) Whether the requirements of public convenience and necessity can be met and complied with only by the i~uance of additional permits. (12) The resulting effect upon the business of existing permit holder~ and upon existing agencies of mass transportation in the city. (13) Any other facts the director may deem relevant. 34. The taxicab business in Houston. Texas, has traditionally been controlled by Yellow Cab company, which prior to 1993 held almost 70% of the 2.098 annual perrmts issued by the City of Houston. Cab Deregulation Draws Praise. Criticism, HousTon POST, Sept. 13. 1993. in Sep- tember. 1993, The Houston City Council voted to award 49 new taxicab permits, predominantly to smaller cab compames. in an effort to respond to a rosier economic outlook and a perceived need for more competition in the industry.. The partial deregulation by the City Council signaled a new approach by the Regulatory Affairs Office of the City of Houston in allowing an increase in the number of pernuts. an action which was vigorously opposed by YeLlow Cab. In addition to the increase in the number of tamcab permits in Houston. the city increased the tam fares slightly from $1.50 for the first 2/11 mile and $0.30 for each additional 11/45 mile to $1.50 for the first 1/9 mile and $0.30 for each additional 2/9 rmle. while clirmnating a provision providing a mayamum per-cab fare for trips within the downtown area. Horns'toN. T£x., O~o~),,An¢£ § 93-9 (1993). Flat rates to Houston Intercontinental Ail'g)orI (IAH) and maximum waiting time charges also increased under the amended ordinance. so while Houston has increased the level of taracab competition by allowing easier onto. it appears that pricing controls will rematn m effect to prevent fare wars among the larger taxi fleet. Despite Houston's relaxation of entry,, the c~ty retains firm control of the taxicab routes 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 81 D. CHICAGO The Municipal Code of Chicago provides a system of strict regula- tion of license acquisition and fare setting.35 The code is typical of the entry criteria imposed by most cities on the taxi industry. It re.quires that new entry be permitted only where consistent with the "public conven- ience and necessity", which is to be determined with an evaluation of public demand, safety, the economic impact on competitors, and the wages, hours and conditions of drivers? between the city and its two major airports, IAH and William P. Hobby Airport (HOU). Any taxicab departing either airport with passengers is required to pay a flat fee to cover the city's administrative and related expenses, and pricing to and from IAH is controlled by a flat rate scheme based on the division of the city of Houston into seven zones. Taxicab standing queues have been established at IAH, lirmting passenger pick up to only those cabs that are operating under a valid city permit, and eligible cabs may receive a priority reassignment (thereby moving to the front of the queue) if the taxicab returns to the departure zone within forty-five minutes of its previous departure. HOUSTON, Tr~x., Cone or O~,DIN^NC£S § 46-26 (1968). Although the city of Houston continues to regulate the lucrative airport routes. and general meter pricing. it remmns to be seen what effect relaxed entry. standards will have on Houston's tamcab business. One Houston City Councilman has suggested that relaxed entry. has signaled the death knell of regulation. Cab Deregulation Draws Praise. Cr~tict~m. HOUSTON POST. Sept. 13, 1993. City Councilman Frank Mancuso is quoted as saying: "In my opinion, we no longer regulate cabs. it's that simple. Everybody and anybody is going to be out there now. It doesn't bode well to lose complete control like that:" 35. Cmc^Go, ha_, MuN. CODE, ch. 4-348-040 (1956): In determining whether public convenience and necessity require additional taxicab service, due consideration shall be g~ven to the foliovarig: 1. The public demand for tamcab service; 2. The effect of an increase in the number of taxicabs on the safety of existing vehicu- lar and pedestrian traffic; 3. The effect of increased competition: a. On revenues of taxicab operators; b. On the cost of rendering taxicab service. including provisions for proper reserves and a fait' return on investment in property devoted to such service; c. On the wages or compensation, hours and conditions of service of tamcab chauffeurs; 4. The effect of a reduction. if any. in the level of net revenues to taxicab operators on reasonable rates of fare for taxicab service; 5. Any other facts which the commissioner may deem relevant. If the comrmssioner shall report that public convenience and necessity require additional taxicab service, the council, by ordinance. may fix the maximum number of tamcab licenses to be issued, not to exceed the number recommended by the commissioner. 36. CmCAGO, Ir~,.. MUN. CONE. ch. 4-348 (1956). In 1960. the public vehicle license com- missioner of Chicago was granted authority to issue additional taxicab licenses up to a maximum of 4.600, increasing the prior limitation of 3.761 medallions. Under the municipal code. the com- missioner was required to report a finding of "public convenience and necessity" based on public demand, traffic safety considerations. industry. competition effects, and commissioner discretion. before licenses could be increased up to the 4.600 ceiling. Over the last twenty-five years, taxi- cab medallions were predormnantly in the hands of the two largest cab companies. Checker Taxi Company and Yellow Cab Company. These two companies controlled 80% of the Chicago licenses, prompting the Chicago City Council to propose the issuance of 1,500 additional licenses in 1988, to be distributed over a three year period. w~th open emrv slated for 1991. Faced w~th 82 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 E. Sy. Locus The St. Louis city ordinance is also typical of those governing the taxi industry. It establishes a Board of PubLic Service to issue certificates of PC~N, determined on the basis of: [W]hether the demands of the public require the proposed or additional tax- icab service within the City; that existing taxicab service is not sufficient to properly meet the needs of the public; the financial responsibility of the ap- plicant; the number, kind, type of equipment and color scheme proposed to be used; the increased traffic congestion and demand for increased parking space upon the streets of the city which may result, and whether the safe use of the streets by the public, both vehicular and pedestrian, will be preserved by the granting of the additional license; and other relevant facts as the Board may deem advisable or necessary? ' Vehicles must be painted in distinctive colors38 and must be "in a thoroughly safe condition for the transportation of passengers, clean, fit, of good appearance and well painted."3~ Taxis must be equipped with posted fares and taximeters, with fare schedules filed with and approved the prospect of rapid deregulation, Checker and Yellow Cab forged an agreement with the City of Chicago, providing an increase in medallions of 1,100, coupled wath the relinquishing of 1300 medallions by Checker and Yellow Cab for reassignment, over a ten year period. Ann Marie Lipinshki & Jane Tanner, Taxi Deal Gets Councd's O.K After a Battle Royal, Cm. Tma., Jan. 28. 1988, at C1, C'2. The new and relinquished licenses are awarded to independent drivers by lot- tery, whose market share will increase to 59% by 1998. Chicago's movement toward liberalized entry will particularly impact medallion owners, who received $20,000 on the open market for a medallion in 1988. With each issuance of a medallion through the lottery, the medallion value drops. as lottery. winners are able to litrut their taxicab license investment to $250. The Chicago agreement may also affect taxicab fare regulation, in which the Chicago City Council has been traditionally hesitant to increase fares. Despite rate increases of roughly 30% in March, 1990, Chicago's rates were significantly lower than those of. other major U.S cities. See James Strong, Time to Dig Deeper for Taxi Rides. Cm. TRm.. Mar. 9, 1990, at C4. C5. Rate increases made by the City of Chicago in 1991 were the first since 1981. Jerry. Feldman, the president of Checker Taxi Company, Inc.. testified before a City Council hearing in 1991 that a three-mile taxi ride in Chicago which costs $3.60 would be at least $6.50 in Los Angeles. $5.50 in Philadelphia, and $4.60 in New York City. Within three years. the City of Chicago survived a challenge to its deregulation scheme when Checker and Yellow Cab were determaned to have violated the 1988 ordinance by setting up "sham companies" which financed the purchase of licenses for drivers in return for the driver putting the medallion up for collateral. P. Davis S .zymaczak. Ctty Gets Rare Victo~ Over Cab Compames, Cm. Tma., May 24. 199t, at C2. If the driver defaulted on the finan~ng. the medal- lion passed to the cab company. effectively circumventing the city's goal of limating the market share of Checker and Yellow Cab. Although the City of Chicago was able to keep the move to liberalized entry .alive, given the resistance by the large taxicab companies in Chicago. it is un- clear whether the market will be open in 1988, or whether the City will forge another litrated regulation agreement. 37. ST. Louis, Mo., ORDIS,x~cns 58795, § 8.98.023. 38. /d. § 8.98.113. 39. ld. § 8.98.101. 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 83 by the Board of Public Service.4° To ensure compliance, vehicles shall be inspected annually? Liability insurance must be maintained.42 To elimi- nate conflict between drivers, specific rules of conduct apply at taxi stands: Taxicab drivers entering a taxicab stand shall do so from the rear, and shall progress toward the front thereof whenever the opportunity to do so is pres- ent. The driver in the foremost position shall be entitled to serve the first customer arriving at that location, provided, however, that should the cus- tomer elect to employ any other taxicab, he shall have a free choice thereof at all times.n3 A common carrier obligation is imposed on drivers to accept all po- tential patrons, except service "to anyone who is intoxicated or may pres- ent a personal safety hazard, and... any person in furtherance of any unlawful purpose."44 BOSTON Legislation promulgated by the Massachusetts legislature in the 1930s gave the police commissioner of Boston the power to authorize not more than 1,525 taxis to "suitable persons, firms and corporations who are owners of vehicles known as hackney carriages...,,4.~ Regulations promulgated by tho Boston Police Commissioner call for a $10 fee for a hackney carriage license, and a $2 fee for a hackney driver's license, probably the lowest such fees in the nation? Nonetheless, because of the limited number of medallions issued, the market price for an existing medallion has approached $90,000 in recent years.47 In 1989, metered fares were increased 19%, raising the fare for a two-mile trip from $3.50 to $4.30.48 Boston Police regulations also call for annual vehicle inspections,49 a card displaying rates in the rear compart- ment of the taxicab?° etiquette in taxi stands,5~ appropriate driver ap- 40. ld. §9 8.98.107, 305. 41. !d. 99 8.98.155-167. 42. Id. 99 8.98.172-173. 185-186. 43. ld. § 8.98.425. 44. ld. 9 8.98.449. 45. Acts of 1930. ch. 392, 9 4. 46. See Crr~ oF BOSTON. RUUZS AND REGULATIONS ESTABLISIIED BY TIlE POLICE ~M- MISSlONER FOR ~IE C~ OF BOSTON FOR HACKNEY CARRIAGES AND HACKNEY ~TANDS IN AC~AN~ ~ CHA~ 392 Oe Z~m A~S O~ 1930. ~ amended, ~ 2.4. See a~o, C~ ov BOSTON, HAC~EY C~R:IAGE TRAINING MANUAL. 47. S~uki, supra note 20, at 130. 48. Mark Muro. Roache to Boston Cab Drivers: Take a Hike. BOSTON GLOaE. July 29. 1989. at 18. 49. Ct~Y OF BOSTON, supra note 46. ~ 7. 50. ld. ~ 8, 17. 51. Id. ~12. 84 Transportation Law Journal [VoL 24:73 pearance52 and behavior,s3 including a prohibition against transporting dead bodies.s4 G. MINNEAPOLIS -The Minneapolis Taxicab Ordinance has three purposes: (1) to achieve "... a better cab service for the riding public..."; (2) provide "greater safety and protection to the public..."; and (3) establish "better operating conditions for cab owners and drivers."ss In determining whether the public convenience and necessity warrant new entry, the city council rnust conduct a hearing, at which the following criteria shall be considered: IT]he level and quality of service being provided by existing taxicab opera- tors: whether additional competition would improve the level and quality of service or the degree of innovation in delivery of services; the impact upon the safety of vehicular and pedestrian traffic; the impact upon traffic conges- tion and pollution; the available taxicab stand capacity; the public need and demand for service; the impact on existing taxicab operators; and such other factors as the city council may deem relevant.s6 The Minneapolis ordinance also specifies requirements regarding the qualifications of new entrants, requiring the city council consider: IT]he financial capability and responsibility of the applicant; the applicant's prior experience in the taxicab business; the level and quality of taxicab ser- vice provided by the applicant in the past in areas in which it has operated; the experience and competence of the applicant's drivers; the applicant's prior record of compliance with the taxicab. ordinance including complaints and disciplinary actions against drivers and vehicle owners; the applicant's prior record of service complaints; the age and condition of the vehicles pro- posed to be licensed by the applicant: and such other factors as the city cotm- cil may deem relevant.'s7 Drivers must be courteous,-$8 assist passengers? accept all paying passengersri° give them receipts upon request,6~ not smoke without their permissionfi2 not overcharge thernP3 drive safely,~ carry liability insur- 52. 53. 54. transit. 55. MINNEAPOLIS. Mtso.. TAXICAB ORDINANC"IZS ch. 341 (1993). 56. ld. § 341.270(a). 57. ld. § 341.270(b). 58. Id. § 341.100. 59. ld. § 341.110. 60. Id. § 341.170. 61. ld. § 341.200. 62. Id. § 341.250(d}. ld. § 18. ld. §§ 15. 2O. ld. § 28. it is unclear whether the taxi driver must jetttson a passenger who dies in 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 85 allce,65 and pass a driver training course.66 The ordinance goes so far as to prescribe the clothing drivers shall wear, prohibiting as outergarmets: "T-shirts, underwear, tank tops, swimwear, jogging suits, body shirts, shorts, cut:offs, thinks, or similar attire .... ,,67 Licenses may be revoked or suspended for good cause after notice and hearing.os H. DENVER While most city' governments regulate their own taxi companies, Col- orado is something of an anomaly in that the state Public Utilities Com- mission [PUC] regulates the taxi industry of Colorado's major cities? Until 1994, entry licensing in the Colorado taxi ind~ ustry was governed by the standard of "regulated monopoly";7° beginning in 1994, it was gov- erned by the standard of "regulated competition."Tt Under the prior "regulated monopoly" regime, no finding of public convenience and necessity for additional common carrier authority was justified unless the applicant could demonstrate that the existing opera- tions were substantially inadequate,72 for "the existence of an adequate 63. ld. § 341.250(n). Rates are dealt with in §§ 341.710-810. 64. ld. § 341.120. 65. id. § 341.500. 66. ld. § 341.380. 67. ld. § 341.130. 68. ld. § 341.980. 69. The Colorado legislature authorized its PUC to issue cenificates to motor vehicle cam- ers in 1917. 1917 Colo. Seas. Laws, ch. 110, § 35. In 1969, it declared common carriers to be public utilities. 1963 C.R.S, § 115-1-2(5) (Petra. Supp. 1969) and 1963 C.R.S. § 115-9-2 cited in Miller Bros., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Corem'n, 185 Colo. 414,421,525 P.2d 433, 445 (1974); Section 40- 10-105(2). C.R.S. 1973. 70. Prior to 1967, motor common carners of property, were governed by a statutory provi- sion restricting new entry under a standard of "regulated monopoly." in 1967, the Colorado legislature changed the standard to one of "regulated competition." See Denver Cleanup Serv., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Corem'n, 192 Colo. 537. 541. 561 P.2d 1252. 1254 (1977) (by changing the law, "without question [the General Assembly] intended to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare by providing a framework for the better transportation of persons or property." 71. Judicial and agency precedent interpreting the import of the parallel 1967 statutory. change is instructive as to the standards to be emplo,ved in considering the parallel legislative change in 1994 by the Colorado legislature of entry standards governing taxi companies. 72. The Colorado Supreme Court observed that: [U ]nder the policy, of regulated monopoly, additional common carrier authority was not granted where adequate service was already being rendered .... in accordance with this theory of regulated monopoly, we have held that a common canner serving a par- ticular area is entitled to protection against competition so long as the offered senace is adequate to satisfy the needs of the area, and no finding of public convenience and necessity for common career service is justified unless present senace offered in the area is inadequate. Miller Bros., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Corem'n, 185 Colo. 414, 422, 525 P.2d 433. 446 (1974). "Under [the concept of regulated monopoly] an applicant for a competing certificate was obliged to show 'substantial' inadequacy. in erasting services." 185 Colo. at 430. 525 P.2d at 451. 86 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 and satisfactory. service by motor carriers already in the area is a negation of public need and demand for added service by another carrier."73 The Colorado Supreme Court held that while inadequacy of existing services may be considered by the PUC in a "regulated competition" en- vironment. it is no longer the controlling criterion that it had been in a "regulated monopoly" regime.7a Under the "regulated competition" standard. the controlling criterion is the "public interest" or the "public need."?5 In its seminal decision of C.M. Morey v. Public Utilities Corerhis- sionTM [Morey II], the Colorado Supreme Court observed that the consid- eration of the public need for safe, adequate, dependable, efficient and reasonably priced transportation services warrants an evaluation of the impact that potential new entry may have in creating excessive or de- structive competition? In assessing new entry proposals for taxi service in Colorado, the issue of destructive competition is at the heart of an assessment of the public's-interest in avoiding impaired transportation services or higher rates. Neither can "regulated competition" reasonably be interpreted as supporting unlimited entry.TM 73. Ephnam Freightways, Inc. v. Pub. Util. Corem'n, 151 Colo. 596, 380 P.2d 228 (Colo. 1963); Colo. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Util. Corem'n, 158 Colo. 136, 143.405 P.2d 682, 686 (1965) (taxi company seeking to provide bus service failed to prove inadequacy. m existing services). 74. Miller Bros., Inc. v. Pub. Util. Corem'n, 185 Colo. 414. 431-32, 525 P.2d 433, 451 (1974); C.M. Morey v. Pub. Util. Corem'n, 196 Colo. 153, 156, 582 P2d 685. 687 (1978). 75, C.M. Morey. 196 Colo. at 157-58, 582 P.2d at 68& C,M. Morey v. Pub. Util. Corem'n, 629 P.2d 1061, 1065 (Colo. 1981) (hereinafter Morey ii). In assessing the evidence, the public need is broader than the individual needs or preferences of an applicant's customers. In deter- rmning whether a public need exists. the PUC may consider lhe needs and preferences of the witnesses who testify. in favor of the applicant, although they are not determinative. Morey I!, 629 P.2d 1061, I066 (Colo. 1981). The public need consists of the needs of the public as a whole. ld. at 1067. 76. Morey IL 629 P.2d 1061, (Colo. 1981). 77. The court held: As a corollary. of our holding that the "public need" is broader th~n the individual needs and preferences of an applicant's customers. we agree than the Commission may consider the impact additional competition may have. not only on the conflicting eco- nomic interests of competing carr/ers. but also on the ability of existing carners to pro- vide fficir customers and the public generally w~th safe. efficient and economical transportation sermces. The obligation to safeguard the general public against the im- paired setraces and/or higher rates accompanying destructive or excessive competition is at the heart of the policy, of regulated competition. ld. at 1066 [c~tations omitted], "Because of this obligation. the PUC can require a earner to serve unprofitable routes that are important to certain segments of the population as a condition of granting it authority to operate more lucrative routes." Durango Transp.. Inc. v. Durango, 786 P.2d 428. 431 (Colo. Ct, App. 1989). 78. In ,%toter H. the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the PL'C. which denied a new appli- cation on the basis of evidence which established that: · The market for transportation setraces in the affected areas was relatively inelastic: · The ol~erating capacities of existing common careers were underutilized: · The operating revenues of existing careers were low: and 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 87 IV. THE ECONOMIC CHAR. AL:YER/STICS OF THE TAXI INDUSTRY A. INDUSTRY SIZE & STRUCTURE Taxicab companies comprise a $6.5 billion industry employing nearly 300,000 people,79 of whom 225,000 are drivers.so It has been estimated that the taxicab industry transports more passengers than all U.S. mass transportation systems combined.s~ The taxi industry is a common carrier form of urban transportation, differing from its mass transit rivals in that it is privately owned, operates over public streets on no fixed routes, and provides door-to-door (or point-to-point) service in small vehicles on behalf of, and at the direction of, individual or very small numbers of patrons.s2 Typically, the contract between the driver and passenger is informal and ad hoc. Where regu- lated, the price is usually based on the distance (and sometimes the dura- · Additional competition for present and prospective business would seriously impair the ability of existing careers to continue to provide efficient and economical service to the public. Morey H. 629 P.2d at 1066. The Colorado Supreme Court subsequently reaffirmed each of these principles. In Trans- Western Express, Ltd. v. Pub. Util. ComA'n, 877 P.2d 350' (Colo. 1994), the Supreme Court concluded that the entry standard of "regulated competition" is to be applied as follows: 1. Under the doctrine of regulated competition, the controlling consideration is the "public need" or the "public interest." Id. at 353; 2. The burden of proof in establishing public need is on the applicant. ld.; 3. The public need is broader than the individual needs and preferences of an appli- cant's customers, and consists of the needs of the public as a whole. ld. at 354; 4. The public need is advanced by "safe. efficient, and economical transportation serv- ices." l~t; 5. The PUC may consider the adequacy, or inadequacy of existing services in deter- mining the public need. ld.; 6. The Commission may consider the impact of additional competition on the eco- nomic health of existing carners. as well as their ability to provide the public with ~afe, efficient and econofAtal service. ld.; 7. "Providing for the public need and regulating competition demands that some re- straints be placed upon inter-carrier competition therefore avoiding destructive compe- tition." ld. at 353. n.7 citing Morev I1, 629 P.2d 1061. 1066: 8. "The doctrine of regulated competition requires the PUC to deny an application for common-carnet authority if granting the application would create 'excessive' or 'destructive' competition," ld. at 353; and 9. "Regulated competition is not synonymous with deregulation," ld. at 354 citing Morey 11 629 P2d at 1066-67. 79. See RoY SAMPSON. E'l AL., DOM-E~TIC TRANSPORTATION: PRACTICE, TIIEORY. AND Pot.icy 150 (6th ed. 1990). 80. E~o TRAt'~SPO~T/~,nON FOUNOATION. T~tm~spoa'r^'rlo~ m Ann~mlCA 62 (12th ed. 8l. Rosenbloom, supra note 13. 82. Roger Teal. Tarts As Pubhc Transit. PROCr-EmNGS Or TUE CONFEar-NC~ ON TAXIS AS PUB-IC TRANSrr 3 (Univ. of California. 1978): County of San Diego Dep't of Transp.. TAX~CAI~ STur)v 6 (1978). See RoY SAMPSON, MARTIN FARRIS & DAVID SClIROCK. DOMF..STIC TRANS- PORTAT~ON: PRAC'rlc£. Tt~£O~¥, AND POLICY 150 (6th ed. 1990). 88 Transportation Law Journal [VoL 24:73 tion) of the ride.83 Airport vans and Limousines differ in that they typically operate over fixed routes while taxicabs proceed directly to the destination designated by the patron.s4 The taxi industry may be divided into several distinct segments: 1. ~adio.Dispatched Cabs The radio dispatched portion of the taxicab industry involves a cen- tral dispatching system whereby patrons call by telephone and cabs are summoned by radio.s5 Taxis are equipped with two-way radios, and fleets are typically larger and have. centralized maintenance and repair facili- ties? Economies of scale have been acknowledged to exist in this seg- ment of the industry due to indivisibilities of the inputs employed in marketing, dispatching, and management, as well as the need for a suffi- ciently large fleet to provide adequate service within reasonable time within a designated service territory.87 Thus, this segment of the industry is likely to be relatively concentrated? In most cities, the telephone or- der market accounts for 70%-80% of the overall demand for taxi service.89 2. The Cabstand Business. Cabstands exist with queues for both taxis and passengers at concen- trated locations such as airports and hotels. 3. Cruising Cabs. The cruising cab business consists of taxis driving along streets on which pedestrians congregate, searching for a random patron to hail them. It is profitable only in downtown urban areas of large cities where a high density of potential riders exists at random locations; the cruising cab business does not work well in cities with low density populations.9° 83. Kemp, supra note 4. at 57. !d. 85. F~oxnK£sn & P^L'rLER, supra note 9, at 11-12. 86. Kemp, supra note 4. 87. FR. ANKENA & PAU~rLER. supra note 9. at 54-55; GILBERT & SAMU 'F,,I.~, supra note 10, at 150 ("When revenue. and hence profit, is considered . . . it appeaes that larger firms do have access to significant econormes of scale. Fiest, they are more likely to be able to respond quickly to trip requesta than are many small firms serving the same area independent of each other."). See also Teal & Berglund. supra note 4. at 49 ("Costs for a new entrant include radio equipment, facilities, personnel and a fleet barge enough to provide responsive city-w~de service where there are thought be 'economies of scope'."). 88. Teal & Berglund, supra note 4, at 38. 89. ld. at 39. 90. Chanoch Shreiber. The Economic Reasons for Price and Entry Regulation Of Taxscabs: · A Rejoinder. 15 J. TR^~se. EcoN.& Pot,'Y 81.82 (1981). 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 89 4. Public Contract Services. Sometimes a public agency contracts with a taxi company to provide one of more of the following services: (A) traditional fixed route transit or demand-responsive services in low- density areas, or late at night, often in lieu of existing fixed-route services; (B) feeder setraces to fixed routes; (C) paratransit services for special target groups such as the poor, the eld- erly, and the handicapped: (D) involvement in user-side subsidy program; and (E) brokerage services matching travelers to the most cost-effective pro- rider for each service? B. INDUSTRY COSTS The costs of entry into the cabstand or cruising segments of the taxi industry are exceptionally modest, consisting principally of a chauffeur's license, a down payment on a car, four re-tread tires. a few gallons of gasoline, and a couple of quarts of oil. In the radio dispatch segment of the industry, fixed costs include the purchase price of a fleet of automobiles, depreciation, regular mainte- nance, the radio dispatching equipment and personnel to run it, market- ing and advertising costs, insurance, driver training, and license and permit fees. Variable costs in the industry are generally a function of distance. duration and destination which consume variable rates of fuel, oil and labor? Labor expenses have been estimated to constitute 50% of the cost of taxi service? Many costs are joint costs, spread over the outbound and inbound segments of the journey. A trip without dead heading enjoys two seg- ments of revenue over which to spread both fixed and variable costs. For example, a thrity-mile passenger trip to a commercial airport enjoys a high probability of returning with a paying passenger, while a thirty-mile passenger trip to a remote suburban community has a high probability the taxi will return empty? The relationship between cost and revenue of these two equivalent trips will differ significantly because of the exist- ence or non-existence of a paying patron on the return leg of the jour- ney.9-~ In the absence of regulation, a taxi driver has a strong incentive either to refuse service to a patron seeking transportation to a remote community from which there is unlikely to be a return trip (or to charge a 91. Rosenbloom. note 13. 92. See Gallick & Sisk. supra note 9. at 117-8. 93. Teal & BerglumL supra note 4. at 49. 94. Gellick & Sisk. supra note 9 95. ld 90 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 price much higher, on a per-mile basis, than is charged elsewhere), and to queue for profitable trips at cabstands? Where profits are inadequate (as results for example, where entry is deregulated) the principal costs which can be trimmed are drivers' wages, vehicle maintenance, and the purchase of new equipment. However, taxi d~er wage rates are already among the lowest in the labor force.97 C. THE PASSENGER MARKET The market for taxicab services can be divided into several distinct segments, each with its own demand characteristics: 1. The Transportation Disadvantaged. The "transportation disadvantaged" include the elderly, unem- ployed, handicapped, children and low-income persons. In. fact, a large proportion (perhaps most) of the users of taxicab service are persons of low income? For example, a 1970 study of taxi use in Pittsburgh re- vealed that 58% of those who used taxis regularly did not own an auto- mobile; 60% of the trips were made by housewives, students, or unemployed, retired or incapacitated individuals.9'~ The 1975 National Personal Transportation Study revealed that 60% of all taxi services are provided to the transportation disadvantaged. A Federal Trade Commis- sion study concluded that, "the low-income population spends higher shares of their income, and often simply more dollars, on taxis than does the high-income population."t°° Hence taxis play an essential role in transporting the disadvantaged, low mobility, and lower income segments of the population.~°~ The poor are particularly reliant on the radio dispatched segment of the market.~°2 2. Non-Residents. In large cities. the market also consists of a substantial number of out-of-town business. convention or vacation visitors.~o3 These travelers do have a competitive alternative in the form of rental cars. although usu- ally at a much higher price than taxicabs.~t~ Business travelers also may not be as highly sensitive to the price of taxicab service since many are on 96. ld. at 120. 97. Teal & Berglurid. supra note 4, at 49. 98. See supra note 13.. 99. Teal. supra note 82. 100. FRANK£NA & Ia,',U~'LER. supra note 9, at 3. I01. See GIt.~ERI' & $^MUE~-S, supra note 10, at 112. 102. FRANKi:~^ & P^u'rLER. supra note 9. at 12. 103. See Teal. supra note 82, at 14. 104. BARKER & BEARD. supra note 8, at 44. 1_996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation' their company's expense accounts.1°5 91 3. Affluent Residents. The _wealthy are not financially burdened by the regular use of taxi- cabs, and enjoy the' personalized nature of the service and its conven- ience.~°~ In certain densely populated cities, particularly those in the Eastern United States, with their congested streets and limited and ex- pensive parking, a large number of residents find a private automobile an inconvenient way to travel. V. MARKET IMPERFECTIONS A. THE ABSENCE OF A COMPETITIVE MARKET. In the cabstand market, the "first in, first out" rule severely restricts comparative shopping by consumers.~°~ In both the cabstand, and the cruising cab market, competitive shopping is impractical, and the transac- tion costs to prospective passengers of finding the taxi with the lowest price can be problematic.t°8 One source summarized the practical problems with competitive shopping at cabstands: First, space on airport or hotel stands is usually severely limited and cabs not at the head of tke line often do not have a safe manner in which to pull out from the queue when hired. Second, there is no way in which one cab can be made to wait while a prospective passenger goes shoppingfi°~ Another observed: [The cab stand market] is a system that impedes price competition, because it puts drivers in a stronger position than customers .... Moreover. airport customers are unlikely to dicker with or refuse a cab that seems to be as- signed to them. especially when they do not know local fares or know that legal fares may vary.. or when they are on expense accounts and not much concerned about costs .... In cab lines... the deterioration in quality also occurs because there can be little competition on the basis of either quality or price.1 lo Given these practical difficulties, it is not at all clear that a competi- tive market for taxi services either exists or can be created.TM As one 105. FR^n~c~,n^ & P^t.r'm.~R, supra note 9, at 129. 106. See Bnmc£R & Br. nRr~. supra note 8 at 44: Gttmr.~'r & S^MUn~S, supra note I0, at I 11: SAMPSOn. ~ZT ^~,.. supra .lote 79. at 150. 107. FR^NKE~^ & P^trrt, rm. supra note 9. at 142. 108. Gmnr-R'r & SAMtJr'LS, supra note I0. at 151: FR^~CE~^ & P^t~'r~rm. supra note 9. a~ 51. 109. G~t.n£R'r & SnMtJr:t_s. supra note 10, at 152. 110. Richard Zerl~, Jr.. Seattle Taxis: Deregutatton Hits a Pothole. Rtza. (Nov.-Dec. 1983), at 43.46. 111. "Supply and demand analysis is inapplicable to the cruising tar^cab market. The condi- 92 Transportation Law Journal [VoL 24:73 source observed, "It is not certain... that a 'market' in the pure eco- nomic sense even exists."~2 Moreover, visitors from other cities may be unaware of the prevailing price for taxicab services, or whether the pas- senger is protected from exorbitant pricing by a regulatory authority.~3 Absence of a competitive market-exists not only at cabstands, but in th-~ cruising market as well. Competition in the cruising market is un- likely unless a number of taxis congregate in a single location at the same time the patron is present.TM One commentator lamented the absence of a traditional competitive market in the taxi business, noting that time is of the essence in the procurement of taxi services: Commuters almost always grab the first cab that drives by, as opposed to shopping for a taxi like, say, a restaurant, where the choices are arrayed and where the business with the best or m, ost efficient service wins. All of which means that the fruits of a free market--namely that competition al- lows the best to thrive and prompts the worst to go broke--are lost. Ulti- mately, deregulation in the cab industry provides an incentive for all involved to offer the cheapest service allowable.l~s The spatial nature of the industry inhibits price shopping, thereby creating somewhat inelastic demand.~' Professor Chanoch Shreiber put it best: Unfike other atomistic markets, a taxicab market in which cruising is the main method of operation will seldom give rise to pricing competition. In most industries sellers are at a fixed location, and customers have the ability to shop around for price and return to the seller offering the best terms. A seller can thus, by reducing his price expect to gain more business, since some customers shopping for price will switch to him from his competi- tors. Not so in the case of taxicabs. An individual cab operator, acting inde- pendently, cannot gain more passengers if he alone reduces his price below the going market rate.: 17 Professor Shreiber goes on to point out that because a prospective tions for reaching equilibnum. specified in supply and demand analysis, cannot exist in the case of tamcabs, and the point of interaction between the supply and demand for tamcab rides ts not an equilibrium position." Shreiber. supra note 90, at 298. 112. G~LaERT & Sn~U£LS. supra note I0. at 151. 113. FRANK£NA & PAtrt'LER, supra note 9, at 50. 114. James Foelater & Gorman Gilbert Taxicab Deregulation: Economic Consequences and Regulato.ry Choice. 8 TR^NSP. 371, 383 (1979). 115. Christopher Georges. D.C. 's Checkered Cabs: Why Washtngton's Taxts A re America's Worst, WASHINGTON POST. Mar. 21. 1993. at Cl. C2. 116. Richard Coffman. The Economic Reazons for Price and Entr~ Re,eulatton of Taxtcabs: A Comment, 9 J. TR^NSP. ECON. & PoL'¥ 288 (1975); David Williams. In.t'ormatton and Prtce De- termination in Taxi Markets. 20 O. REv. ECON. & Bus. 36, 37 (1981). 117. Chanoch Shreiber. The Economic Reasons for Prtce and Entry Re,eulatton Of Taxtcabs, 9 J. TR^r~sP. Ecos. & PoL'¥ 268, 270 (1975). 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 93 passenger who values his or her time will not likely turn down the first available cab on the basis of price, this will have an "upward pressure on the price."~8 A consumer hailing a cab from a sidewalk has an incentive to take the first taxi encountered, because both the waiting time for the next cab ~nd its price are unknown.~9 Paradoxically, in an open entry regime, prices tend to rise while vehicular utilization rates tend to fall.~2° Potential patrons for whom price is a determinative factor, but time is not, may take the bus, subway, or some other form of public transport, where and when it is available. However, little cross-elasticity of demand appears to exist between the taxicab and mass transit industries, for most taxi demand is time sensitive.~2~ B. IMPERFECT INFORMATION ~; TRANSACTIONS COSTS. The free market competitive model assumes consumers have "per- fect information." Yet consumers buying taxi service in a deregulated market often have little comparative pricing or service information, for the opportunity costs of acquiring it are high. As one source observed, "there is little incentive for price comparison for the occasional taxi user, as transaction costs (in time and effort) are high in relation to the poten- tial savings (less than $1 for a $5 to $6 trip)."~22 It is, quite simply, difficult for a consumer to assess. the quality of transportation service at the time it is ordered, for transportation is in the nature of a "credence good"--one that cannot be examined prior to con- sumption)23 A prospective patron can tell something about a taxi visu- ally by the make and model of the automobile, as well as its dents, scrapes and paint job. But not until s/he enters the taxi will s/he know how long the trip will take or how circuitous the trip will be, how smooth and comfortable the ride will be. how knowledgeable and courteous the driver may be, and whether the price will be a fair one. The efficient acquisition by consumers of useful information on pric- ing is problematic in the cab stand and cruising markets. for reasons ex- plained above. Comparative shopping on the basis of price is difficult even if fares are posted because of the number of variables which com- prise the total price---drop, mileage. wait time, baggage, and additional passenger charges. Economist Alfred Kahn has observed several problems emerging from destructive competition, including consumers having a "limited abil- 118. ld. at 271. 119. Teal & Berglund, supra note 4. at 38. 120. Foetatcr & Gillsft. supra note 114, at 378. 121. Shreiber, supra note 90, at 82. 122. Teal & Berglund. supra note 4, at 50. 123. D£M~S~:¥ & Go~z'rz, supra note 2. at 276. 94 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 ity to judge the quality of products and hence to keep it at acceptable levels even when they have a wide range of competitive suppliers to choose from.'q24 Given that comparative shopping by patrons for the best price/service combination is severely circumscribed by the absence of a true competitive market, regulation of prices and services can signifi- cantly reduce consumer transactions costs, thereby increasing the number and variety of taxi trips.~25 C. EXTERNALITIES. An external effect of a transaction is the positive or negative impact upon a person not a party to it.t26 The negative externalities of taxicab service are felt by other users of finite road and highway resources, and the environment. Again, Professor Shreiber observes that "[t]axicabs im- pose various external costs. Mainly, they increase traffic congestion and raise the level of air pollution .... The price of a ride in a system of free entry will cover only the private cost. The social cost per ride, which includes the externalities, will necessarily exceed the price."t27 It has been argued that restrictions on entry increase efficiency by reducing the street congestion m3. d air pollution caused by an excessive number of vehicles.~28 Garrett Hardin, in his powerful essay, "The Trag- edy of the Commons," provides insight as to the economic forces leading a rational wealth maximizer to advance his own economic interests by externalizing his costs: Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an ar- rangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however. comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability be- comes a reality. At this point. the inherent logic of the commons remorse- lessly generates tragedy. As a rational being. each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously. he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more aremat to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component. (i) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. 124. ALFRED K^~m. [i ECONOMICS OF REGULATION 176 (1971). 125. Gallick & Sisk. supra note 9. at 117. 119. 127. 126. Dempsey. supra note 3. at 17. 127. Shreiber. supra note 117. at 274 128. See FR^NK£N^ & PAUTLER. supra note 9. at 38. 42 ("IT]he operation of taxicabs on congested streets slows down other road users. increasing their nrne and money costs of travel."). ld at 38. 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 95 Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1. (2) The negative component is a function of the additional over-grazing cre- ated by one more animal, Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared ~y all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision- making herdsman is only a fraction of 1. Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman con- cludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another .... [b]ut that is the conclusion reache~l by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons, Therein lies the trag- edy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit -- ha a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedoms of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings rum to all.t29 In an environment of excessive competition created by excessively liberalized entry, the city streets are commons, the taxi .companies are herdsmen, and the taxis themselves are cattle. Every additional taxi on the street brings the taxi company additional revenue (particularly where driver leasing creates an intermediate market between the taxi firm and its customers),13° although average taxi revenue will fall for all taxis as the streets become congested with more vehicles than necessary to meet aggregate passenger' demand. Since each individual taxi company has an incentive to increase the size of its fleet beyond the collectively rational level, according to Hardin. "[r]uin is the destination toward which all men rush. each pursuing his own best interest in a freedom that believes in the freedoms of the commons."t3~ As we shall see in greater detail below, excessive taxicab entry has a negative impact in terms of industry productivity and profitability. But Hardin's main thesis is not about the economic decline of herdsmen, but of the negative externalitv of another sort m pollution. He says: In a reverse way~ the tragedy of the commons reappears in problems of pol- lution. Here it is not a question of taking something out of the commons, but of putting something in .... The calculations of utility are much the same as before .... Since this is true for everyone, we are locked into a system of 'fouling our oana nests,' so long as we behave only as independent, rational. free-enterprisers. t:z The pollution impact of allowing an excessive number of underutil- ted automobiles on the streets for any environmentally conscious com- 129. Garrett Hardin. The Trace.:. o£the Commons. Sct£.'qcr-, Dec. 13. 1968. at 1243. 130. See Teal & Berglund. supra note 4. at 54. 131. See Hardin. supra note 132. ld. 96 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 munity is manifest. Hardin further points out that one means of avoiding the tragedy is by ascribing private property rights, or in effect, "de-com- monizing" the commons. Licensing is one mechanism for creating such property rights, for no rational herdsman will overgraze land which is his, n_or will a taxi co. mpany flood the streets within his certificated service territory with an excessive number of vehicles.~z3 Still another externality involves the impact taxi service has upon a city's image, for the economy of a city as a whole may be adversely af- fected by poor or highly priced transportation services. The tax/ is the first and last impression a city will make on visiting tourists, convention- eers, and businessmen. A city's hotels, restaurants, airport, convention and business traffic, are dependent upon ubiquitous, reasonably priced, and efficient on-demand taxi service.TM Further, non-discriminatory pricing based on average costs can serve a significant social objective of assuring reasonably priced service to less affluent passengers or more remote communities, in effect requiring cross-subsidization by more affluent patrons or dense markets. In re- viewing taxi regulatory issues, the U.S. Department of Transportation has observed, "[c]ross-subsidization, per se, is not automatically frowned upon if designed to meet some public policy objectives."~5 D. CROSS-SUBSIDIES AND CREAM SKIMMING. Most governmental authorities insist, by regulation or local ordi- nance, that licensed taxis operate as "common carriers." That is, taxis are required to provide service to low-density areas or at nonpeak times with- out pricing discrimination (i.e., the same distance-based fare be charged to all on an "average cost" basis).~3~ Thus, dense markets cross-subsidize low-density and impoverished areas; peak traffic cross-subsidizes off-peak service. Unlimited or excessive entry causes owner-operators to gravitate to high-peak high-density traffic. predominantly at the airport and hotel cabstands. As one source noted: When gypsy, or tinlicensed, taxis siphon business and profits they se- verely limit the profits that licensed careers need to sustain other required services. The possibility of opening entry. to a taxi market also raises fears that newcomers would focus on these more lucrative areas, and experience in some cities has validated these fears.137 133. See generally, Dempsey. supra note 3. at 17-21. 134. G~ca~,~ta & S^MUEt..S. supra note I0, at 153-4. 135. U.S. DE?'T OF TR^NS?.. supra note 4. 136. See Gallick & Sisk, supra note 9. at 117. 137. GmaEwr & $^MUELS. supra note 10. at 153: See generally St~uki, supra note 20. at 129 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 97 Deregulation results in some trips becoming very expensive while others decrease m price, with the cost of service no longer averaged over space and time. Professor James Foerster and Gorman Gilbert observed: Persons with a low ability to pay, but a high need for transportation, may n~ longer be able to use taxi service. These results might occur because there will no longer be any geographic or inter-temporal cross-subsidization .... The elimination of whatever cross- subsidies now exist without income transfers could lead to socially undesir- able results.138 And, as noted above, given that demand for taxi services is often time sensitive, economic regulation can reduce the transaction costs of comparative shopping.~39 E., ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND SCOPE Given the minuscule economic barriers to entry, one intuitively would not expect there to be economies of scale in the taxicab industry. Yet the per passenger overhead costs of marketing, advertising, dispatch- ing, accounting, and cab maintenance generally decline as the size of the company's fleet grows. An ability to provide ubiquitous service also sig- rLifiCantly enhances.the marketability of the firm's product in the radio- dispatch market, for passengers thereby enjoy shorter waits, better ser- vice, and one-stop shopping, reducing customers' transaction and oppor- tunity costs. Economies of scope are also present in the taxicab industry. A com- pany which dedicates its primary business to the radio-dispatch market can easily park temporarily idle cabs in hotel and airport queues. A taxi company can easily dedicate capacity to the express document delivery business. F. THE ABSENCE OF SOUND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS. Absent regulation. few economic barriers impede entry in the owner-operator cruising and cabstand markets -- all one needs is a chauffeur's license and a down payment on car. An open entry regime tends to put too many taxis on the roads when they are least needed, thereby injuring the economic health of existing firms and their drivers. Professor Shreiber observed: 138. Foerster & Gilbert. supra note 114, at 385. 139. "Given that the ctemand bv riders ~s generally for immediate service. the aggregate search performed by riders and drivers would tend to be extremely costly." Gellick & Sisk. supra note 9, at 118: "{R]egulation can increase the number and variety of taxi trips by reducing search costs." ld. at 119. 98 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 In the absence of legal restrictions, the number of cabs most probably will vary, in the opposite direction to general business conditions. Very. little sk~ll is reqtured to be a cab driver, and not much money is needed to buy or rent a car that can be used as a cab. The absence of barriers to entry makes cab operation the natural occupation to turn to for those that are unemployed. The dLsadvantage of such fluctuations is that they will bring about a larger supply of cabs when there is less demand for them (i.e., in tmaes of recession) and a smaller supply of cabs when the demand for them rises (in tu~es of prosperity). Moreover, cyclical fluctuations will tend to hurt those who make cab driviag their permanent job -- their income will necessarily de- cline sharply in trines of recession. Restrictions are needed to provide some income stability for these drivers. who will anyway suffer in tunes of reces- sion because of the decrease in demand.~4° Thus, the supply of labor and equipment by the industry. appears to have an inverse relationship with the level of economic activity.TM Professor Shreiber wrote his pragmatic assessment of the economic characteristics of the taxicab industry in 1975. He was criticized at the time because the competitive model was not rejected on th~ basis of em- pirical testing?2 Yet, as we shall see, the empirical results of deregula- tion confirm, rather than reject, Professor Shreiber's analysis. Professors Lester Telser of the University of Chicago and William Sjostrom of. the University College Cork have argued that various modes of transport are subject to core theory, which "really amounts to saying that competition just isn't possible in some industries .... ,,t43 Core the- ory emerged from game theory, and as we shall see, offers a fascinating insight into the question of why the taxicab market fails to perform the way one would expect under neo-classical economic theory. Game theory is broken down into two general types of "games", or market environments -- cooperative, and non-cooperative. The former are those in which the players (buyers and sellers in a market environ- ment) can communicate and form coalitions so as to best meet their indi- vidual needs. Players make decisions as to which coalition they should enter based on individual needs: any large-scale benefit which arises for the players is simply a by-product. In non-cooperative "games," (such as the infamous "prisoner's dilemma") players are unable to communicate, and therefore any decisions made are not based on mutuality?4 140. Shreiber, supra note 117, at 275-76. 141. Williams. supra note 5. at 36. 142. Richard Coffman. supra note 116. at 290. 143. 'I'irnothv Smith. Why Air Travel Doesn't Work. Foa'rt;~tz, Apr~ 3. 1995. at al. 46: See William Siostrom. Antttrust Immuntty .for Shipping Conferences: An Empty Core Approach, 8 A~rrrr~us'r B~.~.g. 19 (1993): William Sjostrom. Prtce Dt~cnm~nauon bv Shtpptng Con.ferences, LoGgs-r~cs & 'I'~,~s~,. R~.v. 207 (1992). 1,~. See ROBERT AXELROD. T~t~: EvOLUTIOS OF COO~'£1~^TlO~ (19tM). 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 99 Core theory is a subset of cooperative game Theory; a core is formed when the coalitions are aligned in such a way that no player can advance his needs by defecting to another coalition or operate on his own. By contrast, an empty core arises when players can continuously form new coalitions'which bring better players. Whether a core exists or not de- pends on the number of players in the game, and the market environ- ment, or rules of the game. Several economists have described various alternatives for which a taxi trip reflects an empty core.~4~ Professor John Shepard Wiley, Jr., proffers an illustration of a market with an empty core: For example, say that three strangers are willing to pay up to $7 each for a cab to the airport. Two cabs stop nearby. Each cab can carry one or two passengers, and each driver is willing to make the trip (with either one or two passengers) for a minimum of $6. Given these demands and costs, the worst-off or excluded player can block any arrangement by tempting some players to abandon others for a more attractive arrangement. Suppose, for instance passengers A and B force driver X down to her minimum $6 total fare, thus yielding for A and B a fare of $3 each. As a result. passenger C is stuck paying at ~east $6 to travel alone with driver Y. But driver X could gain an added $2 by dumping B and offering C a ride for $5--which C should accept because a $5 fare is cheaper than a $6 fare. This new coalition between X, A and C however, is vulnerable in turn to raiding by the ex- cluded players, Y and B. Now passenger B faces amp alone with driver Y at a fare of at least $6, and both will improve their lots if they attract passen- ger C with a $4 fare offer, which Y and B split between themselves and which C will prefer to the $5 that C pays as a member of the existing X-A-C coalition. This coalition instability occurs for every possible combination of players?~ As Professor Abagail McWilliams points out, an empty core exists when each and every coalition can be outbid by a rival coalition, so that the market cannot achieve stability; quantity and price fluctuate con- stantly.~47 With an empty core, the market finds itself mired in unsatis- factory results, unable to achieve competitive equilibrium. Nnother source summarized this illustration of dysfunctional economics more succinctly: Imagine, for instance, a market in which a taxi holds two people. and only two. Three people are waiting at a taxi stand, bound for the same destma- tion~ and two taxis show up. How much does it costs a taxi to make the trip 145. See e.g., George Bittlingmayer. Decreasing Average Cost and Competttton: A New Look at the Addyston Pipe Case. 25 J.L. & Ecoa,. 57.81-82 (1983). 146. John Shepard WiLey. Jr.. Antttru,vt and Core Theory, 54 U. C~H. L. REv. 556. 560-61 (~987). 147. See Abagail McWilliams. Rethtnktng Horizontal Market Restricttons: In Defense o.£ Co- operation in Empty Core Markets, Q. REv. Ecoa. & Bus. 3 (1990). 100 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 doesn't depend on the number of passengers. One taxi driver can try to make the same amount of revenue by offering the thixd passenger a fare of $20, but that passenger will Likely take a bus or not travel at all, rather than pay that much. So the second driver tries to upset the first driver's arrange- ment,.undercuttiag his fare for two passengers. You can see what happens: Any price agreement struck by a coalition of two passengers and one taxi can be upset by a slightly better offer from the other taxi (or the other pas- senger), cascading until it is no longer profitable to operate one of the taxis. las Professor Telser found six prerequisites for an empty core: (1) de- mand is uncertain or periodic; (2) plant capacities are large relative to demand; (3) plants exhibit increasing returns to scale; (4) plants have fixed capacities; (5) there are avoidable fixed costs; and (6) it is costly to store the product.t49 Several modes of transport exhibit these character- istics including, as noted from the hypotheticals, unregulated taxicabs. The remedy advanced by Telser is that some measure of cooperation be allowed to producers in these markets, although such intra-industry collu- sion would be antithetical to contemporary antitrust notions. Of course, a long-recognized alternative remedy to destructive com- petition has been economic regulation, which allows the market to stabi- lize along a more satisfactory axis. VI. BIPOLAR VIEWS ON REGULATION AND DEREGULATION Unfortunately, much of the political debate over whether taxicabs (and, indeed, any other mode of transportation) should be regulated or aleregulated has become highly ideological and polarized. The propo- nents and opponents of aleregulated entry have two vastly different views of what such a change in regulatory policy would produce.~° 148. Smith. supra note 143, at 45-~6. 149. LEs'r£a Tr-t.~UR, ECONOMIC THEORY AND THE CORE (University of Chicago Press 1978): COMPETITION. COLLUSION AND GAME TIrEOR¥ (Aldine and Atherlon. 1972): Coopera- tion. Cornpetttton. and Efficiency. 28 J.L. & ECON. 271 (1985); 150. Some proponents of regulation of have urged that entry controls are necessary to: Ensure taxicab owners a satisfactory income: Ensure the financial responsibility of taxicab owners; Prevent traffic congestion: Protect mass transit systems: and Avoid destructive competition among taxi owners and operators; Edmund Kitch, et al.. The Regulation of Taxicabs m Chicago. 14 J.L. &EcoN. 285. 321-25 (1971 }, U.S. DOT URa^N MASS TRANSP. ADMIN.. TIIE APPLICATION OF TIlE FEDERAL ANTI'rRUS3 LAws TO MU~CIPAL TAXICAB REGULATION 32 (1983). Opponents of regulation have argued that these litrotations: Increase taxicab fares: Unfairly limit competition; and Raise regulatory. costs, U,S, DOT URBAN MASS TRANSP. ADMIN., supra. at 32. 1996] Taxi Industry. Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 101 Proponents of deregulation argued that eliminating pricing and entry regulation of the taxicab industry would lower prices, improve service, and provide a wider variety of price and service options dictated by con- sumer demand, thereby fostering efficient resource allocation.TM As one source observed, "the argument is often made solely on ideological grounds: the competitive free market in search of profit will always pro- vide better and more efficient services?52 More specifically, it has been alleged that deregulation would: Produce more taxa service and faster response times; Create service i3movations and service expansion to poorly served neighborhoods; Lower fares; and Reduce government costs by eliminating oversight of pricing. service and entry.153 Most of these predictions have been based on free market economic theory which has dr~:ven much of deregulation in transportation since the late-1970s, insisting that government creates distortions which thwart market incentives for productivity, efficiency, and lower consumer prices.~54 Unfortunately, as we have seen, the taxi industry fails to reflect the perfect competition model described in micro-economic textbooks. Professor Roger Teal, who has written extensively on the subject of taxi- cab deregulation, offered an explanation for the wide divergence between free market predictions of what deregulation should produce, and the · empirical reality of what it actually has produced: The emphasis placed bv industrial organization principles on actual condi- tions in markets (and on the distortions which monopoly power creates in real-world markets) proves more useful than simple micro-economic theory 151. "Students of economics and urban transportation frequently cite the lirmtation on the number of taxicabs in most American cities as a clear case of unwise government policy. They argue that a litrotation on the number of cabs can only operate to rinse the price and decrease the supply of taxicab serv;ce as compared to that which would otherwise be provided." Krrcil, ET AL., supra note 150. at 285. ("The authors of this article share the acaderruc vie~'.") ld. See also ROGER TI2AL tPa MARY BERGLUND. EXPLAINING TIlE IMPACTS OF TAXICAB DEREGULATION IN TIlE USA 2 (1986); ROGER TE,~a-, ET AL., URBAN TRANSPORTATION DE1KEGULATION IN ARE- ZONA 26 (1983); GILaERT & SAMUELS. supra note 10. at 146. 152. Rosenbloom, supra note 13. 153. FRANKr:-NA & PAUTL£R, supra note 9, at 75: PRICE WATERIIOUSE, ANALYSIS OF TAXI. C^a DERr-C3UL^TION AND R,E-RnC;ULATIOS l, 6 (1993); Teal & Berglurid, supra note 4. at 39. In contrast, opponents of deregulation contend that deregulation will: Result in poorer service: Reduce safety: Produce less accountability: and Produce less reliability, PRICE WATERIIOUSE. supra at I. 154. See, e.g.. PaUL DEMPSEY, TIrE SOCIAL & ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF DEREGULA r~oN (1989): DEMPSEY ~ GOETZ. supra note 2: PAUL DEMPSEY. ET AL.. supra note l. 102 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 for analyzing the impacts of taxicab deregulation. Simple models of compet- itive behavior involving atomistic producers selling to completely-informed consumers are often used, but these theoretical generali?ations of ideal types provide no useful or interesting explanations for the results observed in the domat taxa markets -- telephone orders and cabstands.155 Similarly, Sandra Rosenbloom, a scholar whose earlier literature em- braced the unregulated free market position on this subject, concludes: Unfortunately, an examination of empirical data on regulatory reform of the taxi industry to date shows few of the benefits claimed by proponents .... [M]ost anticipated economic outcomes did not materialize. The irony is that free-market private taxis simply don't act like entrepreneurs in a free market. VII. EMPIRICAL RESULTS OF OPEN ENTRY IN. THE TAXICAB INDUSTRY Yet we need not rely on the theoretical assumptions of what unlim- ited entry will produce. We have empirical results which we can assess to determine what deregulation of the taxicab industry has produced. Before 1983, some twenty-one cities deregulated-taxicabs in whole or part.157 The experiences of these cities reveal that taxicab deregulation re- sulted in: 1. A significant increase in new entry; 2. A decline in operational efficiency. and productivity; 3. An increase in highway congestion. energy consumption and environmen- tal pollution; 4. An increase in rates; 5. A decline in driver income; 6. A deterioration in service; and 7. Little or no improvement in administrative costs. Let us examine each of these results. A. ENTRY Deregulation proponents were correct in their predictions that re- moving entry restrictions would result in increased entry into the indus- try. Because of the low cost of entry. into the taxicab business (i.e., a driver's license, and a down payment on an automobile)?~ deregulation 155. Teal & Bergtund. supra not,* 4. at ,~7 [citation ormtted. and the King's English spelling employed in the original]. 156. Rosenbloom. supra note 13. 157. U.S. DE~,"r o~: TR^~SP., supra note 6, at Ill. 158. Shreiber, supra note 117. at 275. 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 103 produced a sharp increase in the number of new taxis on the road, rising an average of 23% in the deregulated cities.t59 In Phoenix, the number of taxis in active service increased by more than 50% in the first year of deregulation.1~ In Atlanta, which aleregulated in 1965, the number of vehicles more than doubled, from approximately 700 before deregulation, to 1,900 in 1970.~6~ Most new entrants were independent owner/operators or small firms, who concentrated their taxis at cab stands at hotels and airports. venues which already were well served prior to deregulation.~62 Hotels and air- ports guarantee a patron if the driver is willing to wait at the increasingly lengthy queues.~63 A driver need not invest in a radio dispatch system to serve hotels and airports. The cabstand market quickly became saturated, forcing the estab- lished companies to focus on the radio dispatch telephone order market, which has relatively higher entry costs in terms of dispatching equipment, facilities and persormel, and requires a sufficiently large fleet to pro¥ide city-wide service.~ Thus, the aleregulated taxi industry divided into two sub-industries--a large number of independent owner-operators serving the cab stands, and a small number of larger companies focusing on the 159. PRICE WATI~KHOUSE, supra note 153, at 11. See also PARATtZANSrr SERVICES, INC.. TIlE EXPERIENCES OF U.S. CITIES WITll T~xIc~ OPEN ENTRY 29 (1983); U.S. DEP'T OF TR^NSP., TAXI REGULATORY REVISION IN OAKLAND AND BERKELEY, CA,LIFOR/~IA 49 (1983) ("[Ulnchecked growth could eventually lead to increased financial difficulties for the companies."). 160. U.S. DEP'T OF TRANSP., URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEREGULATION IN ARIZONA VII (1984); RO~ER TEAm ET AL.. URBAN TRANSPORTATION D£Rr-GULATION IN ARIZONA 8 (1983). 161. FRANK£NA & PAUTL.ER, supra note 9, at 14,~: MULTIP~CATIONS, INC., DECONTROL AND REco~rROL: A~LA~rrA'S EX~'ERIr-Ncr- Wrrtl TAXI REGULATION I (1982) (Prepared for the In- ternational Taxicab Assocaation). The following chart provides data on the number of taxi per- mits in selected cities before and after entry. deregulation: TAXICAB PERMITS BEFORE AND AF'-rER OPEN ENTRY Cit.y Before After Atlanta 700 ( 1965 ) 1.538 ( 1983 ) Fresno 70 (1979) 45 ( 1983 ) Indianapolis 502 (1972) 466 (1974) Milwaukee 308 (1979) 351 (1983) Phoenix 300 ( 1981 ) 425 ( 1983 ) Sacramento 1 l 0 ( 1982 ) 168 (1983) San Diego 409 (1978) 915 (1983) Seattle 129 (1979) 230 (1983) Spokane 100 (1980) 80 (1983) FRANKENA ,~' PAUTLF. R, supra note 9. at 1,:4. 162. at 43. 163. 164. TEAL & BERGLUND. supra note 151. at 8: PARATRANSIT SERVICES. INC.. supra note 159. See Teal & Berglund. supra note ,~. at 40. TEAL & BERGLUND. supra note 151. at 28 104 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 telephone order market.~6s Because the oversaturation of the market caused inadequate profit- ability (resulting from more taxis serving the same, or a declining, number of patrons), taxi companies have suffered a very high turnover raLe.~6' For example, 40% of the new taxi companies serving the Phoenix airport failed during the first fifteen months of deregulation.~67 Within eighteen months of an entry moratorium in San Diego, a third of taxi firms not affiliated with the two largest companies left the industry.~68 Nonetheless, a large number of potential entrants are ignorant of marketing conditions, and/or willing to accept subsistence earnings in or- der to be self-employed.~'9 Entering the taxi business is one of the few opportumties for self-employment by individuals with minimum skills and little capital.~7° Inadequate profitability has also dissuaded invest- ment in large taxi firms, so that most of the new entry has been at the owner-operator level, again, satiating an oversaturated cabstand market. Except in Phoenix, in the fully deregulated cities, no new taxi companies have emerged with more than twenty-five cabs.t7t Deregulation produced relatively small structural changes in the ra- dio dispatch segment of the industry, reflecting the relatively higher entry costs associated with the purchase of radio equipment, dispatch person- 165. ld. at 30. 166. ld. at 28-29. 167. ld. at 9; TEAL & B£RGLUND, supra note 151, at 41. 168. TEAL & BF. RGLUND, $stpra note 151, at 41. 169. Teat & Berglurid, supra note 4, at 29; Gt~_nr. vt'~ & S^MUELS. supra note 10. at 149. 170. The tamcab business, however, does have its risks. According to a report by the Na- tional Institute: for Occupational Safety and Health. cab drivers have the highest homicide victim rate among several professions. As the below chart shows, the rate is almost four times that of police officers and almost twenty times the rate for firefighters. Occupation Number of Homicides Rate per I00.00(1 workers Taxicab driver-chaffeur 140 22.7 Sheriff-bailiff 36 10.7 Police and detective 86 6.1 Gas station. garage worker 37 5.9 Security guard 115 5.5 Stock handler, bagger 95 3.5 Supervisor. proprietor-sales 372 3.3 Sales counter clerk 183 0.1 Bartender 20 2.3 Logging 6 2.3 Hotel Clerk 6 2.0 Salesperson. vehicles 17 2.0 Salesperson, other 73 1.7 Butcher. meatcutter 12 1.5 Firefighter 8 1.3 Laura Meckler, Job Risks Htgh for Cabbtes, Roc:<Y MT:,,. NEws, July 9. 1990. at 20A. 171. TE~XL & BERGLt;ND. supra note 151, at 8 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 105 nel, marketing, and a fleet sufficiently large to provide ubiquitous city- wide service where there may be "economies of scope."t72 Thus, in most cities in which entry has been deregulated, the large incumbent firms still dominate the industry, although their market share has declined as the new er~rants have swarmed to dominate the cabstand markets.~73 The robust entry of new firms and entrepreneurs into the taxi indus- try, accurately predicted by deregulation proponents, has been among the most significant impediments to the achievement of consumer benefits predicted to result from deregulation: Low entry costs, an inherent characteristic of a totally deregulated taxi industry, represent the factor which is probably of greatest signifi- cance in preventing a more successful outcome to taxi deregulation. Be- cause capital requirements to enter the aleregulated industry are minimal, virtually any self-motivated individual can become a taxi operator. Indi- vidual operators cannot effectively compete in the telephone order mar- ket, however, so they quickly oversubscribe the airport and cabstand markets, causing full-service companies to abandon these markets except for passenger drop-offs. This results in a reduction in economies of scope for the full-service operators. With demand for taxi service stagnant or even declining, operator productivity inevitably declines with many more operators in the market?4 B. OPERATING EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY. Putting more taxis on the streets rarely produces more patrons. In fact, most deregulated cities have faced stable or declining demand as measured by the number of daily trips per cab or the trips per shift.~75 Passenger demand declined significantly in the deregulated cities, falling for example, 34% in Phoenix, 37% in San Diego, and 48% in Seattle?6 This is not at all surprising, given the higher prices and deteriorating 172. Teal & Berglurid, supra note 4. at 49. 173. 'ld. at 40. 47. 174. ROGIZR T£/u.. AN OVERVIEW OF TIlE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE WITII TAXI DEREGULA- ~rlo~ 14 (1989). 175. P^R^?~NSi'r SERVlC2~S. INC., supra note 159. at 29. 33; Tv.^~_ & BERGLUNt~. supra note 151, at 16, 27: T-nax~.. ~x ^t,., supra note 151. at 13. 176. IN'r'i_ TnxIc^n ASS'N, DOES TAXICAB DEREGt:t,n'rIor~ MAKE SENSE? 6 (1984). "By any measure. the productivity of the Phoenix taxi industry. has declined significantly since dereg- ulation .... IT]he number of passenger trips per active taJo per day has declined by about one- third for the entire industry., while the number of trips per shift has decreased by one-quarter (the difference reflects lower utilization of taxis by operators after deregulation." T[A~-, E'r ^~_.. supra note 151, at 13..14. In San Diego. the number of vehicles increased by 30%. while each vehicle provided only 85% as much setrace per day. in Seattle, deregulation produced more than a 50% increase m the number of taxis. but each vehicle was providing only 76% as much service. Stallans. supra note 7, at 5 106 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 levels of service deregulation producedfi77 After deregulation, taxi productivity, measured by the number of revenue trips per day or trips per shift, fell by at least one-third?8 As Professor Teal observed, "The decImp in taxi productivity after deregula- tion is a natural consequence of an increase in the number of vehicles in tl~e industry, stable or declinmg taxi demand, and the lack of productiv- ity-enhancing service innovations such as shared-ride taxi services."179 Putting more taxis on the roads merely increases the number of empty taxis and the length of the queues at the taxi stands.~8° As noted above, new entrants tend not to have radio dispatch equipment and gravi- tate toward the already well served hotel and airport cabstands, compet- ing for a constant or decreasing number of passengers.TM As one source observed, "When transportation demand is stable or declining and attrac- tive substitutes to the deregulated modes exist, the impacts of deregula- tion may be largely confined to increased competition within existing industries with few or no corollary benefits to consumers and providers."'~82 That source went on to point out that, "Opportunities for productiv- ity improvements in urban common carriage transportation are highly limited by the basic economics of the industries inasmuch as costs for most factor inputs can hardly be reduced.'qs3 The one variable cost in which there is some play is driver wages, which, as we shall see. have plummeted (although not enough to offset the steep drop in driver pro- ductivity caused by unlimited entry). C. HIGHWAY CONGESTION, ENERGY CONSUMFTION ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION Putting more, and emptier, cabs on the streets not only increases highway congestion and wear and tear on the asphalt, it bums more gaso- line and produces more carbon monoxide, ozone, and other pollutants. For example. after Atlanta deregulated, 300400 taxis hned up at airport queues: waits of three to four hours were not uncommon. and waits of up to six hours were reported.~ Given the Damocles Sword contained in federal Clean Air Act 177. GOg. SnAN GILBERT. Emroerr oF OPEN E.,,rm¥ AND VARIABLE FARES ON TIIE COST OF TAmCAB SERmCE TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS 2 (1984). 178. Teal & Berglurid. supra note 4. at 46. 179. ld. at 52. 180. See FR^S~CENA & PAUTLER. supra note 9. at 8. 181. GILBERt, supra note 177, at 2. 182. TEAL. ET ^L.. supra note 151. at 27. 183. ld. at 13-14. 184. ML'LrIPLIC^TIO~S, INC., supra note 16t, at 32. 37 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 107 Amendments of 1990, threatening draconian cuts in federal money for states and communities which fail to meet the carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate and other pollutant standards, the problems of adding more, but emptier, vehicles to city streets should be manifest. Thirty-two of the thirty-flee busiest airports in the United States are located in metropoli- tan areas which have been designated no^attainment for ozone and car- bon monoxide.m~ The two means of transport responsible for the most vehicle miles traveled to airports, automobiles and taxis, are also the most significant sources of pollution.~s~ D. PmcE One would expect that excess capacity would drive prices down, as it allegedly has, for example, in the deregulated airline industry.~87 Para- doxically, precisely the opposite has occurred in the deregulated taxi in- dustry. As Price Waterhouse observed, "prices rose following taxi deregulation in every documented case.'q8~ Professor Roger Teal of the University of Caldor^is studied pricing at nine cities which deregulated (i.e., Fresno, Kansas City, Oakland, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Diego, Seattle, Tacoma, and Tucson). He con- cluded, "In every city in this study taxi rates are now higher in real terms than before deregulation, often by a substantial amount.mS° Before de- regulation, in none of these cities did rates rise as rapidly as the Con- sumer Price Index [CPI]; after deregulation, price increases exceeded the CPI in each of these cities.~° Professor Teal concludes, "taxi rates may have increased as much as 10 per cent more in the deregulated cities than they would have done ander continued regulation."~9~ At San Diego, Seattle and Portland, prices increased 35% during the first 18-24 months of deregulation?2 One source summarized the results 185. Annalynn Lacombe, Ground Access to Airports: Prospects for lntermodali~rn. 48 TRANSP. Q. 381. 383 (1994}. 186. See id. at 383-84. 187. DEMPSE¥ & GO£TZ. supra note 3. Actually. estimates of consumer savings resulting from airline deregulation have b~en gro~ly overtareal. Id. at 243-63. 281-95. 188. PRICE WATERHOUSE. supra note 153, at 8, 189. Teal & Berglurid. supra note 4. at 37.42. This confirms his earlier research on the expe- hence of deregulation in seven U.S. cities. TEAL & BERG~.UND. supra note 151. at 11. "The important policy. lesson to b~ learned from the Arizona experience is that favorable impacts do not necessarily follow the removal of institutional barriers to competition in the transportation industries." T£^L. ET ^t... supra note 160. at 27. 190. Teal & Berglund. supra note 4. at 37.42: TEAL & BERGLUND. supra note 151. at 14-15 191. Teal & Berglurid, supra note 4. at 37.44. 192. PAT GELB, EARLY RESPONSES ro TAXI REGULATORY CIIANGE$ 16 (1981): S.B. COL MAN. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TIlE REVISION OF TAXI REGULATIONS IN SEATTLE AND SAN DIEGO, TRANSP. RES. REC. 20 (1980): See Paratransit Services. Inc.. supra note 159. at 34, Prices rose 60% in San Diego. Stalians. supra note 7. at l. Address before the 50th Annual Convention 108 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 of higher taxi fares in Seattle: "It]he high fares led to a large number of cabs, long cab lines, refusals to serve short trips, and quarrels among driv- ers concermng positions in the taxi queue, but did not lead to an above- normal profit because of free entry.m93 Cabstand rate increases were even more pronounced?n This is be- cause there is, and can be, httle comparative shopping at the cabstand because of the formal and informal pressure patrons feel to take the next taxi in the queue under the "first in, first out" rule?5 Because of the overcapacity created by unlimited entry, queues lengthen, discouraging drivers from competing on the basis of price?6 Therefore, there is little effective competition. In an economic environment of declining produc- tivity created by excessive entry and stable or declining demand. taxi op- erators can survive only ff they can increase the revenue derived from each trip, which places upward pressure on taxi fares?* Moreover, airport travelers and hotel patrons are frequently tourists or out-of-town businessmen with little information about local taxicab regulatory practices or rates, and whose travel expenses are often paid by a third party with pre-tax dollars?~ Further, some of /he economics literature reveals that much of passenger demand for taxi service is rela- tively inelastic with respect to fare changes.~4 Thus, most passengers who need a taxi pay the rate, even if inflated. One source described the impact of price increases on low-income individuals: The increase in taxicab fares in residential areas produces a particularly bitter impact on low-income persons. A major and increasing proportion of residential taxicab business originates in low-income or minority neighbor- hoods .... It]his is not surprising since residents in these areas are often de- pendent on taxicab service for mobility. These trips are for essential purposes, such as trips to grocery, stores and medical facilities. In contrast, the trips from airports and downtown hotel stands are made by persons who are clearly more affluent businesspersons. vacationers. and conventioneers. of the New Zealand Taxi Proprietors' Federation. Wellington. New Zealand. Aug. 30. 1988. An- other study found that partial deregulation produced no price or setrace innovations of signifi- cance in Portland. while administrative costs incrental. See U.S. DOT URBAN Mass 'I'R^NS~'. ADMIN.. TAXI REGULATORY REVISION IN PORTLAND. OREGON: A CASE STUDY (1982). 193. FR^~Kr--NA & PAUTt,ER. supra note 9, at 129. 194. TEAC & BERGLUNr~. supra note 151, at 16. 195. Gelb. supra note 192, at 17: TEAL & BERG~-U~r~, supra note 151, at 5, 23-4 {1986): TEAL. r.T AL.. supra note 160. at 8. 196. PRICE W^T£R,OUSE. supra note 153. at 8: TEAL. E~ AL, supra note 160. at 24. 197. IN'r'L 'TAXICAB ASS'S. supra note 176, at 5. 198. See U.S. DEP'r OF TRANSP.. TAXl REGULATORY REVISION IN SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 102 (1981). 199. FREDERIC FRAVEL & GORMAN GILBERT. FARE ELASTICITIES FOR EXCLUSIvE-RIDE TAX1 SEavlcE:; (U.S. DOT. 1978}; Teal & Berglund, supra note 4. at 50 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 109 Increasing fares to residential areas means that the impact of more taxicabs is borne disproportionately by low-income persons. In other words, those who can least afford to pay would be charged the most.... Those who follow the academic argument of "letting the market decide" tax- icab fares are really "letting the poor pay more."2°° Neither did deregulation result in lower fares in the telephone dis- patch markets, and it appears to be correlated with somewhat higher prices..z°~ This occurred because of the loss of cabstand business to new entrants, and the resultant loss of economies of scope associated therewith. Even the local patron may refrain from price shopping. Forty per- cent of all resident users take a taxi trip one or fewer times a month.2°~ Patrons employing taxi services so infrequently have little incentive to take the time to engage in comparative price shopping.2°-~ Of course, higher prices may force some low-income riders either to reduce the number of their taxi trips, or decline spending their limited money purchasing other necessities, as much taxi demand appears to be price inelastic.2°~ Deregulated cities experienced growing complaints of price gouging and overcharging, particularly at the cabstands.2°s A study of pricing in Washington, D.C., in June, 1985, which then had open entry and more taxi cabs per capita than any other city in the nation?~ revealed that taxi drivers overcharge their patrons 36% of the time, and the average over- charge was 22%.2°~ In Seattle, overcharging of up to 50% above the av- erage fare was reported.2°s Firms which have lowered prices generally have not stimulated lower price responses by competitors, nor have their market shares appreciably 200. GORMAN GILIIERT, EFF'ECI' OF Olin ENTRY AND VARIAI~LI~ FArm ON mm COST or TAXICAB SERVICE TO RI~IDENTIAL AREAS 6-7 (1984) [emphasis in original]. 201. Teal & Berglund. supra note 4, at 44: TEAL & B£Rot,tmO. supra note 151. at 15. 202. ld. at 23. 203. Teal & Berglurid, supra note 4. at 50. 20~. ld. 205. See PARAT~A~SIT Sr-~VlC£S. INC,. supra note 159, at 10. 206. One study performed in 1970 reviewed taxi ent~ regulation by 30 cities with a popula- tion of 325.000 or more. It revealed that the number of licenses varied from 0.2 in Phoenix to 11.3 in Washington. D.C. (which had no entry. restrictions). and that the number of licenses per square nule ranged from 0.4 in Phoenix to 139.3 in Washington. D.C.: Utterback. A Summa,ry o.£ Recent Taxicab Studies 12 (City of Milwaukee, Legislative Reference Bureau, 1975) in U.S. DOT URBAN MASS TRANSP. ADMIN.. TIlE APPLICATION OF TIlE FEDI~RAL ANTITRUS'I LAws TO MU- nlCX~'AL TAXXCAa R£GULA'rIOn 31. n.31 (1983) . 207. Sheldon Shane, Calling All Cabs, TRAVEL-HOLIDAY MAGAZINE 46 (Feb. 1985): PARA- FRANSIT SI~RVIC ~.S, INC., THE ~)UALIT¥ OF RESIDENTIAL TAXICAB SERVICE In WASIIINGTON, D.C. 19 (1985). 208. GELa, supra note 192. at 18. 110 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 increased.2o9 We have explored several reasons why excessive capacity in the taxi- cab industry has not resulted in lower fares, as we would intuitively ex- pect. Professor Roger Teal has succinctly summarized three supply factors and four demand factors which militate against lower fares. The supply factors are: "Monopoly" profits earned under regulation were significantly less than estimated; Deregulation did not create a competitive industry structure in the tele- phone order market; and There is no apparent cost basis with on which to predicate price reductions.21o On the demand side, Professor Teal offered these explanations: Demand for taxi service is characterized by imperfect information and strong name recognition; The demand for taxi service may be inelastic; Per capita demand for taxi service is either stable or suffering from long- term decline: and Leasing partially insulates taxi firms from the passenger market.TM E. INCOME In the deregulated cities, driver income decreased despite higher fares. The fare increases imposed by taxis under deregulation have not offset the sharp decline in productivity (the reduction of revenue trips per day) caused by excessive entry.2x2 The shift from employee drivers to owner-operator or lease drivers results in a loss of minimum wage guarantees for taxi drivers.2~3 Most taxi drivers in aleregulated cities earned less (often despite spending more hours behind the wheel) than before deregulation.TM For example, under deregulation in Phoenix, drivers worked an aver- age of 10-14 hours per day. six days a week. earning only about $2.00- $4.00 per hour.2~-~ In San Diego, driver wages declined 30% from pre- 209. 210. 211. 212. IN SAN 213. Teal & Berglund. supra note 4. at 04. /d. ld. at 37, 48. See TEAL~ r.T A~. supra note 160. at 14: ROGER TEAL. TAXlCAa REGULATORY CHANGE DINGO. TAXICAn MANAGEMEN't 28. 32 (Fall 1986): Teal & Berglurid. supra note 4. at ,~6. Teal & Bergtund. supra note 4. at 46. 214. PAT GEL./~. EFFEC"I'S OF TAXl REGULATORY REVISION ~N SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA U.S. Dep't of Transp.. 1983 ): PAn GELn. Etr~'EC'rs OF 'FAXl REGULATORY REVISION IN SEA3'~LE.. WAS~I~NGTON, (U.S. Dep't of Transp.. 1983): TEAt. & BERC~.UN~. supra note 151 (unpublished manuscript), at 17-18: Teal & Berglund. supra note 4. at 215. TEAL. E'~ AL.. supra note 100. at 1'~. 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 111 deregulation levels, to only $135 a week.2~6 Such poor pay is for a job which has the highest homicide rate of any profession.2~7 F. SERVICE As we have seen, most of the new entry unleashed by deregulation has been by small companies in the airport and hotel cabstand market -- a market traditionally well served--in effect, "cream skimming" the least costly market. The telephone dispatch market, upon which most local residents rely, is generally left with the same, or poorer (and more highly priced), service as before, since taxis in the larger firms are now dis- suaded from entering the 'end of a longer queue at the cabstand market, and forced to focus on the higher-cost radio dispatch market. The radio dispatch firms have lost between 10% to 25% of their business because of the need to abandon the cabstand markets, which were the least expen- sive markets to serve (for it requires neither dispatching operations nor equipment dead heading).2~8 As we have seen, excessive entry leads to declining productivity, and because fare increases failed to keep pace, declining profitability. A car- rier facing profit erosion can reduce costs by "lowering the quality of taxi services (for example, employing a small or deteriorated vehicle, reducing insurance coverage, or driving recklessly).'m° Not only has deregulation generated little service innovation,22o it is not unusual to see several ser- vice problems arise when the regulatory system collapses, including: Excessive fares; - Circuitous routing; and Refused service.=~ Most cities which deregulated experienced a deterioration in service. The taxi refusal and "no show" rates increased, particularly in low income areas,222 although there were many short haul refusals at cabstands as well (probably by drivers who had sat in the queue too long and needed a long trip and a decent fare to compensate them for their inactivity).223 216. TEA~.. supra note 212. at 32: Teal & Berglund. supra note 4. at 42. 217. Death On the Job, T}m ECONOMISX Dec. 3. 1994, at 39. 218. Teal & Bcrglund, supra note 4. at 54. 219. Gallick & Sisk, supra note 9, at 120. 220. "Exclusive ride taxi service remains the only sermce offered in the aleregulated cities." Teal & Berglurid. supra note 4, at 46. See TEAL. El' AL.. supra note 160, at 13: Rosenbloom. supra note 13. 221. ROBERT RUSSELL. RECENT TAXICAB DEVELOPMENTS IN Los ANGELES. l'~ PROCEED- INGS OF TIlE CONFIERENCE ON '[-AXIS AS PUBLIt' TRANSIT 05 (Univ. of California. 1978) (describ- ing the illegal a~ivities of taxi "bandits" which emerged after a major taxi company fell into bankruptcy). See generally, Suzuki, supra note 20. at 129, 222. See PAKATRANSIT SERVICES. INC.. supra note 207. at 24 223. See PRICE WATERttOL,'SE. supra note 153, at 15. 112 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 The "no show" rate at Seattle increased 35 % after deregulation; the "no show" rate at San Diego increased from 5% in 1976 to 18% in 1979.:2n The oversupply of cabs reduced the earning potential of drivers, causing a decline in the quality of the drivers, and leading them to engage in overcharging and discourteous behavior.225 Indianapohs, among the first cities to deregulate entry in the taxi industry, experienced the follow- ing problems: After the first winter the independent operators found they had no money to maintain or repair their vehicles. Insurance cancellation notices received by the City... increased from "one or two" per month to "about one hundred fifty" per month. Complaints to the City about cab service "tripled".... Added to these difficulties was a reported rise in the amount of crime by taxi drivers and operators... It]he reported rapes and robberies committed by taxi drivers also increased.226 Reviewing the Indianapolis experience, the U.S. Urban Mass Trans- portation Administration concluded, "adding new owners into a highly competitive supply-rich market is beneficial neither to the public nor to the taxi operators."227 Customer complaints in Fresno, California (where deregulation lasted only e!ghteen months), tripled, and they ranged from price gouging to the poor upkeep of the vehicles.22s In San Diego, many drivers re- fused short trips, and drivers at the end of the queue sometimes sought to serve passengers at the head of the line -- often generating physical alter- cations.22~ In Phoenix and San Diego, the visitor and convention bureaus pushed for re-regulation.2-m The Washington state legislator who led the successful fight for taxi re-regulation said, "taxicab riders have been get- ting 'raped' by poor service and expensive fares ever since Seattle area taxicabs were deregulated .... ,,23t Another source summarized the Seat- tle community's response to the problems created by taxicab deregulation: 224. TEAL & [~ERGLL'ND. supra note 15[. at 10. 225. MULTIPLICATIONS. Inc.. ~upra note 161. at 40. 226. U.S. DOT URBAN MASS TRANS~'. ADMIN.. Tim INDIANAPOLIS EXPERIENCE wl-rll OPEN Em'RV ira 'ore 'F^x~ irar)tJs'rRv 9-10 (1980). Drug and prostitution rings were also operated by the unregulated taxas. !d. Taxi drivers also often are victims of crime. Statistically, taxi drivers and chauffeurs suffer the highest homicide rate of any profession, even higher than policemen. Death On the Job. supra note 217. at 39. 227. Id. at 15, 228. See P^~A'rR^NSrr S~'Rv~¢nS, [sc.. supra note 159. at 10. 229. Rosenbloom. supra note 13. 230. See Shane, supra note 207. at 46: PARATRANSIT SERVICES. I~c.. supra BOle 159. at 23. 231. Doug Underwood. Tart Regulation /s Back in Laps o£ Local Governments, SEAT'rLr TIMnS, Feb. 26. 1984. at 52. 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 113 The troubles in the cab lines--large increases in fares, substantial varia- tion in fares among taxis, much longer taxi lines, refusals by drivers to carry passengers short distances, and minor violence---convinced area officials, ho- tels, and the tourist industry that this market was not suited to full-scale decontrol.232 After deregulation, both Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, experienced increasing problems with drivers who had a language prob- lem and poor knowledge of city streets, were overcharging customers, and were dishonest by not tatting the most direct route?3 Service quality deterioration under deregulation also prompted calls for entry regulation by Congressional and media leaders in Washington, D.C.TM The ington Post recently had this to say about taxi service in the de facto der- egulated District of Columbia market (one out of four D.C. cabs operates with an illegal permit, and bribes for the issuance of inspection stickers and operating permits were under criminal investigation): IT]he District's cab fleet averaged 10 accidents a day last year -- aro. und 3;800 annually. That's more crashes than there are cabs in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Diego and San Antonio combined .... [D]rivers routinely overcharge passengers, bribe their way through safety in- spections, swap cars and drive without insurance .... Though ours is' the nation's 19th largest city, Washington harbors at least three times the number of cabs of any other city in America except New York and Chicago. (Only one, New York, has more cabs--11,S00.) Since this massive oversupply means fewer fares per driver, many cabbies make ends meet by cutting comers--for instance, refusing trips to out-of-the-way places, overcharging or sialroping on repa/rs.235 Atlanta suffered many of the same problems under deregulation: The taxi industry... has h/swncally been criticized by c/ty visitors for the poor condition of its vehicle fleet, the sloppy appearance of drivers and their negative attitudes, apparent dr/yet lack of knowledge of the city, and fre- quent instances of overcharging. Officials of local commerce and trade orga- nizations consistently complained that the industry. was an embarrassment to 232. Richard Zerbe, Jr.. Seattle Taxts: Deregulation Hits a Pothole, Rr-GULA~O~a. NovJDec. 1983. at 43, 47. At the: Seattle Aretrak station. "There were reports of physical intimidation, of drivers who lied about the availability of bus service, who were slovenly. vulgar. and rude -- and ao on." ld. at 46. "The Sea-Tac airport has had even worse problems in its cab lines .... Many Idrivers] refund short-haul customers .... Drivers were less knowledgeable, cabs dirtier." ld. at 46. 233. PAR^TR^NSiT SERVlCES. INC., supra note 207, at 14.20: MULTIPLICATIONS. INC.. supra note 161. at 18-19. 234. U.S. D£~,'l' or' TRA/,aSP., supra note 4. at 130. 235. Christopher Georges. D.C. 's Checkered Cabs: Why Washtngton's Taxis Are Arnertca's Worst, W^su. POST. Mar. 21, 1993, at C1, C2. 114 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 the city ,and lobbied strongly for reform.236 As a result, in 1981, Atlanta reimposed entry controls.237 Poor profitability made it impossible for many taxi companies to in- vest in new cabs, causing the average age of vehicles to grow.238 For ex- am_pie, Washington, D.C., with the most taxis per capita of any city in the nation,239 also suffers from the oldest fleet.240 Seattle's average fleet age increased 50% during the first three years of deregulation.24t Charges of inadequate equipment maintenance, lack of cleanliness, and poor appear- ance also have been levied. The taxi operator is the first introduction to the city that a conven- tion, vacation or business traveler has, and the last impression he has prior to departure. Consequently, the convention and hotel industries often lead the charge for re-regulating the taxi industry. G. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Although one would intuitively expect government administrative costs to fall under regulation, in fact, the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion case studies reveal that such costs either did not change or in- creased.2~2 In several instances, consumer complaints led to enhanced governmental scrutiny of the industry, and correspondingly increased' ad- ministrative 'costs. For example, under deregulation, Seattle estimated it spent more money that it ever had in enforcing the remaimng vehicle regulations.243 VIII. SUMMARY OF THE EMPIRICAL RESULTS OF TAXl DEREGULATION After concluding several exhaustive studies of the empirical results of taxicab deregulation, Professor Roger Teal concluded: Taxicab deregulation cannot be demonstrated to have produced. in most cases. the benefits its proponents expected. Prices do not usually fall. im- provements in service are difficult to detect. and new price-service combina- tions have not been developed. There is little evidence that either 236. MULTIPLICATIONS. l~c., supra note 161, at 34. 237. Rosenbloom. supra note 13, 238. PRtC£ W^'rERHOUSE. supra note 153. at 15. 239. A 1979 telephone survey revealed that Washington. D.C.. had five times the number of tamcabs per capita as the next highest city. Atlanta. Washington had 14.7 per 1.000 residents. while Atlanta had 2.8. U.S. DEv'r oF TR^r~SP.. supra note 4, at 61-62. 240. PARATRANSI'T SERVICES. INC.. supra note 207. at 11. 241. Rosenbloom, supra note 13. 242. PRICE W^TERHOUSE, supra note 153. at 1O: PARATRANSIT SERVICES. [NC., supra note 159. at 45. 243. Rosenbloom. supra note 13. 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 115 consumers or producers are better off. The one important exception is new entrants to the industry, who now have an opportumty to serve a market to which they were previously denied access. Even for them, however, deregu- lation is a mixed blessing. Many have been unable to survive in the more compgtitive unregulated environment, and those who have survived are ap- parently obtaining low earnings.TM A more recent study by Price Waterhouse of twenty-one cities which deregulated reached similar conclusions: IT]he benefits of deregulation were devaluated by unanticipated and unat- tractive side effects: Although the supply of taxi services expanded dramatically, only marginal service improvements were experienced by consume,rs. Within a year of de- regulation, the supply of taxi services increased an average of 23%. Because most new entrants were independent operators and small fleet owners.with limated capability to serve the telephone-based market, most new service was concentrated at already well-served locations--such as airports and ma- jor cabstands. Customer wait times at these locations, already short, were reduced further. Response times in the telephone market were similar to pre-deregulation performance. Trip refusals and no-shows, however, in- creased significantly. Prices rose in every. instance. Paradoxically, the influx of new entrants did not invoke the price competition typically experienced in other newly-der- egulated industries. Prices rose an average of 29% in the year following deregulation. There appear to be two sources of this unexpected event. First, fare increases prior to deregulation had consistently lagged cost in- creases. Veteran operators thus corrected prices at the first opportunity. Second. new entrants generally charged higher fares than veteran operators. The cabstand markets on which these operators focused their services are generally price insensitive and, because of the first-in first-out nature of the taxi queues, comparison shopping is discouraged. For these reasons, the new entrants had no incentive to introduce price competition. Service quality declined. Trip refusals, a decline in vehicle age and condition, and aggressive passenger solicitation associated with an over-supply of taxis are characteristic of a worsening m service quality following deregulation.2'~-~ Given the failure of deregulation to produce consumer pricing and service benefits, coupled with its propensity to injure carrier productivity and profitability, most communities which have experimented with dereg- ulation have rejected it, and re-regulated, in whole or part, their taxi in- dustry. Of the twenty-one cities which deregulated prior to 1993, the experience with deregulation was so poor that only four of the smallest cities in the group, (i.e., Berkeley, California. Spokane, Washington, Ta- 244. Teal & Berglund. supra note 4. at 54: See also TEAL & [~ERGLUND. supra note 151. at 30- 31. 245. PRier- W^'rr.~.~ousE. supra note 153. at If-Ill [emphasis in original]. 116 Transportation Law Journal [VoL 24:73 coma, Washington, and Springfield, Illinois) retained a fully unregulated system.246 Cities which continued to embrace deregulation tended to have one of the following characteristics: (1) a relatively smaller population; (2) less reliant on airport activity; or (3) had implemented other measures which created barriers to market entry?7 In contrast, "[c]ities which had a relatively large population, a high level of airport activity, and condi- tions conducive to low-cost market entry tended to have a negative expe- rience with deregulation. As a result, these cities either fully or partially re-regulated taxi services .... ,,248 The wave of re-regulation was led by the largest cities with the most airport activity among the group that had deregulated.249 IX. THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENTAL PLANNING ~ OVERSIGHT Taxicabs are an essential part of the urban transportation infrastruc- ture, and some would argue, in the nature of a public utility.2s° As we have seen, the unregulated taxi market suffers from the absence of a com- petitive market, imperfect information, significant transactions costs, ex- ternalities, cream skimming, the loss of economies of scale and scope. and destructive or excessive competition, collectively producing demonstrable deleterious economic and social consequences. While deregulation pro- duces a significant increase in new entrants, it appears to cause declining operational efficiency and productivity, an increase in highway conges- tion, energy consumption and environmental pollution. a decline in driver income, a deterioration in service, and paradoxically. an increase in pas- senger rates, with little or no improvement in administrative costs. Any objective assessment of the empirical evidence would conclude that the costs of taxicab deregulation outweigh its benefits. Virtually every major 246. Id. at [-lII. 19. 247. Id. at 6. 248. ld. at 8. 249. ldat 17, 250. One source provided a comprehensive rationale for economic regulation of the taxicab industry.: Government regulation is deemed necessary. because taxicabs supply a service which is considered publicly indispensable and because taxicab firms often operate as monopolies or oligopolies. Moreover. in theory., government regulation of monopolies can keep prices at a reasonable level. Early common law established that certain busi- nesses could harm those who wanted or needed service by refusing to serve them or by charging exorbitant prices. thereby justifying public regulation of such businesses. Taxicabs. as public utilities. are required to serve every. customer m their service area at reasonable rates and without unrest d,scrimmat,on. Public utilmes are also pro- hibited from entenng a new market. suppling a new service. or abandon,rig an existing market without the consent of a public authority. The "public interest" es the determin- ing factor in most governmental decisions revolving public utilities. BARKER & BEARD. supra note ~. at 33. 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 117 city which has tasted economic deregulation of the taxi industry has lived to regret it, and reversed course. The fundamental question is not whether taxis should be regulated, but how they might best be regulated. That requires careful oversight by the regul_atory body to assure the appropriate ratio of taxis to passengers to ensure prompt, safe, and reasonably priced service for the public, while allowing efficient and well managed firms to earn a reasonable return on investment?~ Too few taxicabs results in excessive waiting times (and opportunity costs) for passengers. Too many taxicabs results in lower productivity and lower profitability for service providers, despite higher fares for consumers. If there is a legitimate criticism to be levied at regulators, it is that they too often skirt this difficult task. As one commentator said of the New York medallion system: The main deficiency of the New York system of price/entry regulation was the total lack of any planning. Neither the fares nor the number of medal- lions issued was determined on the basis of what was needed to achieve eco- nomic efficiency in city transport .... The shortcomings of the New York City system of price/entry regulation is a result of poor administration. and not of any inherent deficiencies of a system of regulation.252 Generally speaking, taxi demand is a function of two major variables -- the overall economic activity in the market (including population, em- ployment and income), and the relative price and quality of service of taxis vis-~-vis alternatives modes of transport (automobiles and public transportation). 'The appropriate level of taxis per thousand citizens should be determined in light of the unique transportation needs of each city, ascertained on the basis of the density of its population,2s3 street congestion, air pollution, and perhaps such factors as the price and availa- bility of downtown paricing,254 the number of automobiles per capita, the 251. See generally. DEmt, s£Y. supra note 2. at 220-27. 252. Shreiber. supra note 90, at 278-79. 253. The following chart provides data on population densities in selected cities: PG~PULATION PER SOUARE MILE IN S£1..ECT£O CITI£S City Population/Square Mile Land Area (Sq. Miles) Chicago 12.251 227.2 Denver 3.051 153.3 Los Angeles 7,426 469.3 Philadelphia 11.734 135. I Phoenix 2.3~2 419.9 San Francisco 15,502 46.7 San Diego 3,428 324.0 Seattle 6.15.1 83.9 American Almanac (1993-94). 254. The following chart provides data on the number of parking spaces per employees for selected cities: 118 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 number of hotel rooms, the distance of the airport from downtown?s the volume of passenger traffic derived therefrom, and the economic health of existing taxi firms.2s6 For example, in the mid-1970s, taxis carried a million passengers a day (one fifth as many passengers as the subways) in a huge urban city like New York, with its rush hour grid lock.257 Cities like New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Detroit or Chicago are densely concentrated urban centers where streets are congested and private automobile parking is ex- pensive. Many residents do not own an automobile, nor need they, given the well developed public urban transit systems. Taxi service consump- tion would likely be at a much higher level in an Eastern city (built for the horse and carriage) than in a Western city (built for the automobile), like Denver, Salt Lake City, or Dallas, with their suburban sprawl, rela- tively uncongested streets, and relatively plentiful and inexpensive RATIO OF PARKING SPACF_~/EMPLOYEES IN SELECTED CITIES City Parking Spaces Employees Ratio of Spac.es/Employees Charlotte 36,000 50,000 1 / 1.4 Dallas 77,034 117.000 I / 1.5 Denver 33.200 102,000 1/3.1 Minneapolis 62_~30 140,000 1/2.2 Phoenix 22,669 24,000 1/1.0 Portland 43,914 94.000 1,2.1 Salt Lake City 27300 58,000 1/2.1 Seattle 48,557 156,000 1/3.2 Denver Downtown Partnership, Inc. 255. The following are the approximate driving distance of the airport from downtown in selected cities: AIRPORT DIS'rANCE FROM DOWNTOWN [N .SELECTED CITIES (in miles) Atrpo ,r't Citv Served Distance to Downtown Dulles Washington, D.C. 26.5 Denver International Denver 24 Houston Intercontinental Houston 22 DFW International Dallas 17 K,C. International Kansas City 17 John F. Kennedy New York 15 256. cation of national industry. average performance: SELEC'r~O NATIONAL T^xtcAa PERFORMANCE DAta (1993) Average Annual Miles Per Taxi Average Paid Miles Per Trip Average Annual Trips Per Taxi Average Annual Passengers Per Taxi Average Cost Per Mile Industry. Sources. 257. Shreiber, supra note 90. at 278. In asseasing the economic health of existing firms. the following data provide some indi- 51.224 6.3 8.359 13.883 $0.943 1996] Taxi Industry Regulation, Deregulation & Reregulation 119 parking.25s New entry should be modest, measured and monitored. In deciding which among several applicants should be allowed to operate in the mar- ket, a prudent regulatory authority might choose the applicant which, for example, has a sound financial base and a seasoned and experienced managerial team, a minimum fleet size with centralized radio dispatch to serve the entire community adequately?9 trained and experienced driv- ers, adequate insurance, and a young, safe and environmentally sound fleet of cabs. On the last point, there is significant concern as to whether a number of cities will be able to comply with Federal Clean Air Stan- dards. If not, they stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal grants. The regulatory authority might also phase-in additional taxicabs over a period of years, regularly monitoring their impact upon the public in terms of price, safety and service (including customer complaints, service response times, and such), and upon the health of the industry. If the regulatory authority found that the problems of destructive competition, described above, were emerging, it might well reduce the number of taxi- cabs to be licensed during the prescribed forthcoming period. Thus, the regulatory authority must be careful to expand entry on a phased-in basis only very gradually, and monitor the results closely. In the final analysis, the suitability of taxicab service and pricing is a 258. The foliowang chart provides data on the distribution of vehicles-to-population of a sam- ple of 741 cities: DtSTRIBL~'ION OF THE CABS-To-PoPULATION RATIO. 1970 Proportion of Cab licenses per thousand population Sample Jurisdictions % Under 0.2 10 0.2 to under 0.4 20 0.4 to under 0.6 23 0.6 to under 0.8 16 0.8 to under 1.0 I0 1.0 to under 1.2 8 1.2 to under 2.0 ~) 2.0 and over 5 Median licenses per thousand = 0.57 J.D. Wr:Ll~s & F.F. S£LOVI~R. CIIARACTI~R.!STICS OF TIlE URBAN TAXICAB TRANSIT INDUS'r'~Y (1972). 259. The city officials of Indianapolis, which experimented with open entry in the early 1970s, concluded that "they should have required a manimum of ten vehicles per owner and radios in each cab." U.S. DOT URBAN MASS TRANSP. ADMIN.. supra note 226. at 9-10 . An- other source concluded. "all taxicabs should be required to be affiliated with a fleet large enough to serve all parts of the citv 2,; hours a day (e.g.. 25 vehicles) and that every. taxicab be required to have a two-way radio and meter. Gene Stalians, supra note 7. at 11. Address before the 50th Annual Convention of the New Zealand Taxi Proprietors' Federation. Wellington. New Zealand, Aug. 30. 1988. 120 Transportation Law Journal [Vol. 24:73 peculiarly local issue, best tailored by local governments based on their unique populations, spatial densities, road congestion, air pollution, and airport and hotel traffic. For that reason, whatever the national ideologi- cal infatuation with comprehensive infrastructure deregulation, Congress should instead embrace an alternative national political movement--one which champions devolution, or reversing the 20th Century megatrend of power flowing from the states to Washingtonrain favor of local con- trol?° In this area, the state and local governments should be left alone to foster the unique local public and private transportation system that suits them best. 260. Michael Barone, Power to the States, U.S. News & Wo~tLO Rr-e.. Jan. 23, 1995, at 40.