HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/06/96 BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
September 6, 1996
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNffA~/~~~
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. A detailed memorandum is attached describing the basis for determination of assessments for
the proposed Chester Avenue Maintenance District.
Also attached is the progress report on the formation of the Chester Avenue Maintenance
District. We will be sending out another letter this week to property owners who have not
responded to our request to meet with them. It's generally going well.
2. Proposition 218 - "Right to Vote on Taxes Act (An Initiative to Preserve Proposition 13)" has
qualified for the November ballot. Some of the potential impacts of this initiative are noted, in
the enclosed memorandum prepared by Public Works.
3. The final summary from our goal setting session in June is enclosed for your review. Please
contact Gail Waiters with any comments or suggestions. We will place it on a future workshop
or agenda for additional refinements.
4. We will begin another construction project at City Hall next week, the installation of ADA
ramps for the northeast, southeast, and southwest entrances. This work is scheduled for
completion by November 1 st.
5. Enclosed for your information is correspondence we sent to American Airlines urging them to
reevaluate their decision to terminate the Bakersfield to Dallas direct flight.
6. The lawyer for American Construction, the Police building contractor, called a rush-rush
meeting with us, and then he didn't show - like lawyer, like client. Our position is they are in
default and offthe site: We don't yet know the bonding company's reaction.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
September 6, 1996
Page 2
7. I will be out of the office next Thursday and Friday on vacation. John Stinson will be in charge
and can contact me if something comes up.
8. The enterprise zone legislation we endorsed and initiated passed. It should help our marketing
efforts.
9. We are told both fire unions rejected ratification of their contracts. More information will
follow.
10. Responses to Council referrals are enclosed, as follows:
· Request for EDCD to provide business assistance to a person interested in opening an ice
cream shop at 301 34th St.;
· Code enforcement efforts for 1) the storing of old vehicles at Truxtun Avenue and Brown
Street, and 2) the abatement of a burned structure near California Avenue and "O" Street.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, Acting City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
August 30, 1996
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager [ ~
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directo~'~'~_ .d)-
SUBJECT: Basis for Determination of Assessment for o ol~hester Avenue
Maintenance District
The estimated assessments for the proposed Chester Avenue Maintenance District have been
calculated by the Public Works Department based upon three factors:
1. the weighted number of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) per acre;
2. the level of maintenance required, as determined by the tier system; and
3. the cost per EDU.
A full description of each of these factors follows.
1. Weighted Number of Equivalent Dwelling Units per acre
The Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) per acre are calculated by either the use or the
potential use per zoning. For non-residential zoning like that along Chester Avenue, the
assumption is six EDUs per acre. Because there are a number of multi-story buildings in the
proposed area, the EDU calculations were weighted to account for multi-story buildings
having more square footage than single story buildings on the same sized lot. Thus, buildings
with more square footage would pay more. This weighting is based 50% by lot area and 50%
by building area.
2. Level of Maintenance Required
The tier system in place with other maintenance districts would also be used here. In this
system, there are four levels, each with a progressively higher level of landscaping. Tier 1,
the lowest level, includes areas with street or median landscaping that meets the minimum
requirements for new development in the city. Tier 4, the highest level, includes a more
-August 26, 1996
Page 2
intense planting of trees, shrubs, ground cover and more ornamental plantings that require
additional maintenance.
The assessments for Chester Avenue are based upon the following assumptions:
a. the area from Truxtun Avenue to 23rd Street is in tier 4.
b. the block between 23rd to 24th streets is in tier 1, since only street trees in
sidewalks are proposed for this block.
3. Cost per EDU
Based upon the estimated costs prepared by the Parks Division, and approved by the City
Council, the cost per EDU in a maintenance district is $23.
When the above three factors have been determined, the assessments can be calculated using
this formula:
(weighted EDUs per acre) x (the factor of the tier level) x (cost per EDU)
For example, a property in the tier 4 area with a lot area of. 18 acres and a building area of
.12 acres would be calculated as follows:
(Lot area .18 acres) x (6 EDUs per acre) x 50% = .54
+
(Building area .12 acres) x (6 EDUs per acre) x 50% = .36
.90 weighted EDUs
.90 weighted EDUs x Tier 4 x $23 = $83 estimated annual assessment,
or 1.59¢ per square foot per year
If this same property were located between 23rd and 24th streets in the tier 1 area, the
calculation would be as follows:
.90 weighted EDUs x Tier 1 x $23 -- $21 estimated annual assessment,
or .4¢ per square foot per year
)an Ta~~ %'
~.~_~ugust 26, 1996
Page 3
To provide an example of some actual calculations, I have included a few estimates prepared
by the Public Works Department. While the parcel numbers are included, the names of the
property owners have been omitted.
Example 1
006-171-01, a large multi-story office building in the tier 4 area
(Lot area .35 acres) x (6 EDUs per acre) x 50% = 1.05
+
(Bldg area .95 acres) x (6 EDUs per acre) x 50% = 2.85
3.90 weighted EDUs
3.90 weighted EDUs x Tier 4 x $23 cost per EDU = $359 estimated annual assessment
Example 2
006-012-06, a small restaurant in the tier 4 area
(Lot area .07 acres) x (6 EDUs per acre) x 50% = .21
+
(Bldg area .06 acres) x (6 EDUs per acre) x 50% = . 18
.39 weighted EDUs
.39 weighted EDUs x Tier 4 x $23 cost per EDU = $36 estimated annual assessment
Example 3
005-381-11, a small retail operation in the tier 1 area
(Lot area .14 acres) x (6 EDUs per acre) x 50% = .42
+
(Bldg area .14 acres) x (6 EDUs per acre) x 50% = .42
.84 weighted EDUs
.84 weighted EDUs x Tier 1 x $23 cost per EDU = $19 estimated annual assessment
One property owner's identity that I will share is the City of Bakersfield. Our Development
Services Building at 1715 Chester Avenue is in the proposed district. Its estimated
assessment is $285 per year.
dl\cmd\cmdcalc.mem
B A K E R S F I E L D
E~o~omic and Community Development Depa~ment
M E M O R A N D U M
~~ /
August 30, 1996
TO: Jake Wager ,,~ /
FROM: David Lyman-X~~'
SUBJECT: Progress Report on Chester Avenue Maintenance District Formation
The level of support from property owners for a Chester Avenue maintenance district is as
follows:
Written support ................................................ 21.1%
Expressed support but need approval before putting it in writing ................ 4.5%
Total support .................................................. 25.6%
Expressed opposition .............................................. 1.5%
No position ...... ' ............................................. 72.9%
Despite letters from Mr. Phil Bentley, president of the Downtown Business Association, and
Mayor Price, a large number of property owners have not responded to our request for
meetings to discuss the proposed district. Another letter will be sent to those who have not
responded asking them to sign a written support for a district and return it in a postage paid
envelope. This letter will go out the week of September 3.
On September 6, the public notice will be mailed to all property owners informing them of
the scheduled hearings. The notification will be accompanied by a letter from Mayor Price.
The first public hearing is scheduled for October 9. The protest hearing is scheduled for
October 23.
dl\cmd\cmdrpt. 4
B A K E R.$ F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public W.orks Directorz~/~/
DATE: August 30, 1996
SUBJECT: Proposition 218 - "Right to Vote on Taxes Act (An Initiative to Preserve Proposition 13)"
Potential Effect on the City of Bakersfield
Proposition 218 - the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act", has qualified for the November 1996 general election and
is likely to be approved by the voters. Should this initiative pass, it has some very serious repercussions for both
Maintenance Districts and future City-sponsored assessment districts. In addition, there may be a significant
effect on impact fees. Some of the impacts are as follows:
1. Publicly owned property would no longer be exempt from assessments, including maintenance
assessments, unless a specific finding can be made that the property does not receives benefit from the
improvement (This finding may be difficult to justify). The result would be that the City would have to pay the
cost of the affected public property, or find a funding source if the property belongs to another public agency.
This cost cannot be assessed to the remaining property within the district, since this initiative sets a constitutional
limit for the property as the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit to the property. Therfor, all City
properties within the boundaries of the Consolidated Maintenance District would be subject to an annual
maintenance assessment, and all City property within the boundaries of any assessment disthct would likewise
have to pay the proportionate share, in relationship to the benefit received, of any improvement so financed -
sewer, water, road improvement, landscaping, etc.
2. District proceedings will be by mailed ballot. Only those ballots that are returned will count toward the
approval of the district. A majority of the returned ballots must be in favor of the district in order for the district
to proceed. In order to ensure that those residents that are in favor of the assessment district return their favorable
ballots, the City may have to enter into a public relations campaign. There will of course be no problem in getting
those residents opposed to the assessment district to return their ballots. Note: "Majority" is now defined by total
assessment, not property area.
3. Existing assessments would have to be validated by a mailed ballot/hearing process. The only
assessments exempt from this are those imposed pursuant to a request from 100% of the affected property owners
which assessments have not subsequently changed, and those assessments imposed exclusively to fmance streets,
sewer, water and drainage systems. Under this scenario, only those maintenance assessments for interim districts
would be exempt, and only until the next annual rate change. The only assessment districts that would be exempt
are the 100% developer districts, such as CalOak. Although most of the districts now in place can be considered
to finance only streets, sewer, water, and drainage, there have been several which have additionally financed
landscaping, fencing, and entry details. ' ~ -': :: ;;'C:"~' ~
4. My staff is concerned that this initiative, as written, may effect our ability to impose and collect the
transportation impact fees. We have requested that the Attorney's Office review the initiative with this in mind.
In addition to the obvious problems in funding City services and infrastructure expansion, one concern is that this
limits our ability to use an assessment district to fund and construct sewer service to newly annexed areas of the
City. My staffwould be happy to set up a meeting with the City's bond counsel to further examine the problems
that this initiative may cause the City. Attached for your review is a copy of Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates
analysis of the initiative, as well as a copy of an article from the California Debt Advisory Commission on the
possible effects of this initiative.
P:~I~SC~TAXES 13.ME2
RMR~p~
xc: Readi~ File
Project File
Judy K. Skou~n, City Attorney
Jacquea R. La Rochelle
Marian P. Shaw
Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates
- PRINCIPALS
WILLIAM L. FIELD~N
LAWRENCE G. ROLAPP
,.o~,~ ~. ~o.~,~ THE HOW~D ~HVIS
t~o.,,.. ~,.,,s T~PAYER ASSOCIATION
I~ITItT~:
2100 S. E. MAIN siren ACT"
SECOND FLOOR
"~L~'J. I~Lttiattve to
IrvINe, cA e~7,a P~oposition 13"
FAX 714~474~8773
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFICE
The Howard darvis Taxpayers Association group filed
510*933.6096
FAX.O.9~3.O098 the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act" initiative during the
first week in October in hopes of securing the requisite
number of signatures (10% of the state's registered
C.A,TERMEM"E" ,voters) to qualify for the November 1996 ballot (a
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
national general election). While philosophically
OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC
F,~ANCEADV,SO.S similar to "Protect Proposition 13" filed and then
withdrawn earlier in 1995, this initiative contains
numerous changes that will impact local government's
ability to fund public improvements and raise revenue
for services. For a copy of the initiative and/or a
further discussion of the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act",
please call Larry Rolapp at 714-660-8500.
,'trs~rolopp: 95 ~ho
"RIGHT TO ¥OTE ON Tzll~,ICES ACT"
' ~SUMMARY---
· Measure finds and declares that taxes should not be imposed on
Californians without their consent and that in order to protect all
Californians from unreasonable tax increases, limitations should
be placed on the methods by which local governments exact
cevenue.
· Requires that general tax increases by all local government
entities be approved by not less than a majority vote and that taxes
for special' purposes be approved by a two-thirds vote.
· Provides that existing language in the California Constitution shall
not be construed to limit the initiative power with respect to
reducing or repealing any local tax, assessment, fee or charge.
(Constitutionalizes Ross/v. Brown)
· Sets forth procedures applicable to all assessments including the
preparation of a detailed engineer's report, mailed notice and
public hearing. Requires that all notices include a ballot for return
to the agency indicating support or opposition to the assessment.
· Requires all assessments be approved by the property owners.
Property owners will no longer have to submit protests in excess of
50% of those subject to the assessment to stop its imposition.
· Prohibits property related fees and charges from exceeding costs
of the service being provided. Imposes procedural requirements,
including notice and public hearing prior to' imposition of new or
increased fees or charges on property. Requires that, except for
fees for sewer, water and refuse collection, fees be apprbved by a
majority vote of the fee payers.
-2-
"RIGHT TO VOTE ON Tit)lES ACT"
MGENERAL--
TAXPAYERS PROTECTION ACT proposes to add Article XIIIC and
Article XIilD to the CalifOrnia Constitution, in order to "protect
Proposition 13 by limiting the methods by which local governments
exact revenue from taxpayers without their Consent," The proponents
believe that "local governments have subjected taxpayers to
excessive tax, assessment and fee levies that not only frustrate the
purpose of Proposition 13, but also threaten the economic security of
all Californians and the California economy itself,"
It is proposed that no tax, assessment, fee, or any other charge by any
agency shall be assessed upon any parcel of property or upon any
person as an incident of property ownership or beneficial use of
property except:
1. The property tax imposed pursuant to Article Xlll and
Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.
2. Any special tax receiving a two-thirds vote,
3, Assessments as provided in the proposed Constitutional
Amendment.
4, Fees or charges for property related services as provided
- in the proposed Constitutional Amendment.
--DEFINITIONS---
A. Taxes
The proposed ConstitutiOnal Amendment proposes that all taxes
imposed by any government shall be deemed to be either general or
special taxes..Nothing in Article XIIID of the proposed Constitutional
Amendment shall provide any new taxing, assessment or fee authority
to any local government or affect existing laws relating to the
imposition of fees or other charges as a condition for property
development. The initiative power shall not be limited in matters of
local taxation.
1. "General tax" means any tax imposed for general
governmental purposes. Special purpose districts or agencies,
including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes.
2. "Spec/a/ tax" means any tax imposed for specific
purposes including taxes imposed for specific purposes which are
placed into a general fund.
B. Assessment
"Assessment" means 'any levy or charge upon real property by an
agency for a 'special benefit conferred upon the real property.
"Assessment" includes "special assessment", "benefit assessment",
"maintenance assessment" and "special tax assessment." General
enhancement of property value does not constitute "special benefit".
Standby charges are classified as assessments.
C. Property Related Fees and Charges
"Fee" or "charge" means any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a
special tax imposed pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIIIA or an
assessment imposed by an agency upon a person as an incident of
property ownership of property. Fees for the provision of electrical or
gas service are not deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of
property ownership.
Unrler the proposed Constitutional Amendment, no fee or charge may
be impoSed for a service unless that service is either actually used by,
or immediately available to the owner of the property in question.
Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not
permitted.
"1:~I$]]~? TO ¥07]~ 01~ T~[,~i~$ ACT"
--PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS--
A. Taxes
1. General taxes-.No local government may impose any new
general tax or extend or increase any existing general tax unless and
until such tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a
majority vote at a regularly scheduled election for members of the
governing body (except in cases of emergency and a unanimous vote
of the governing body). Any general tax imposed, extended or
increased on or after January 1, 1995 and prior to the effective date
of the proposed Constitutional Amendment shall continue to be
imposed only if approved by a majority vote of the voters voting in an
election on the issue, which shall be held within two years of the
effective date of the Amendment.
2. Special taxes--No local government may impose any new
speCial tax or extend or increase any existing special tax unless and
until such tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-
thirds (2~3) vote.
B. Assessments
1. Effective the day after the voter approval of the "Right to
Vote on Taxes .Act" no agency shall impose any assessment on any
parcel which exceeds the reasonable cost of the proportional special
benefit conferred on that parcel. Parcels owned or used by a public
agency are not exempt unless a finding can be made that they do not
receive special benefit. All assessments must be supported by a
detailed engineer's report. Written mailed notice (including a ballot)
must be provided to the record owner of each parcel. The agency
shall conduct a public hearing upon the proposed assessment not less
than 45 days after the mailing of the notice of the proposed
assessment. At ~the public hearing, the agency shall consider all
protests, shall tabulate the ballots and shall not impose an
assessment if there is a majority protest. A majority protest exists if
ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment exceed the number
of ballots submitted in favor of the assessment. The ballots shall be
weighted_ according to the proportional obligation of the affected
property.
2. Beginning July 1, 1997, all assessments existing on the
effective date of "Right to Vote on Taxes Act" shall be imposed under
the procedures outlined above except:
a) any assessment imposed exclusively to finance
capital costs or maintenance and operation for
sidewalks, Streets, sewers, water, flood control,
drainage systems or vector control. Subsequent
increases shall be subject to the procedures and
approved process noted above.
b) any .assessment imposed pursuant to a petition
signed by owners of' all parcels subject to the
assessment at the time the assessment is initially
imposed. Subsequent increases shall be subject to
the procedures and approved process noted
- above.
o
c) any assessment which is exclusively used to repay
bonded indebtedness,
d) any assessment which previously received majority
voter approval. Subsequent increases shall be
subject to the procedures and apProved process
noted above.
C. Property Related Fees and Charges
1. Effective July l, 1997 the parcels upon which or the ·
persons upon whom a fee is proposed for imposition shall be
identified and the amount of the fee proposed to be imposed upon
each parcel or person shall be calculated. Written mailed notice 'must
be provided to the record owner of each parcel. The agency shall
conduct a public hearing upon the proposed fee not less than 45 days
after the mailing of the notice of the proposed fee. At the public
hearing, the agency shall consider all protests and shall not impose
the proposed fee if there is a majority protest. A majority protest
exists if written protests filed represent a majority of the record
owners of the identified parcels. Except for fees or charges for
sewer, water; and refuse collection services, no property related fee
or charge shall be imposed or increased unless and until such fee or
charge is submitted and approved by either a majority vote of the
property owners of the property subject to the fee or charge o__[r by a
two-thirds (213) vote of the electorate residing in the affected area.
The election shall be conducted not less than 45 days after the public
hearing on the fee.
-8-
2. A. fee or charge shall not be extended, imposed or
increased unless:
a) fee revenues do not exceed the funds required to
provide services; and
b) fee revenues are used for the purpose originally
stated; and
c) fees shall not be imposed unless the service is used
by, or immediately available to the owner of the
property in question~ Fees or charges based on
potential or future use of a service are not
permitted; and
d) no fee or charge may be imposed for general
governmental services. This includes police, fire,
ambulance or library services where [he service is
available to the public at large in substantially the
same manner as it is to' property owners.
,9-
ZPt4-15-1996 iS:Si WILSON & ASSOCifqTEs 21~i3 P.~2
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST. ESTIMATES RIGHT TO VOTE ON TAXES A CT TO
REDUCE LOCAL REVENUES BY MORE T~N $100 MILLION ANNUALLY
l~ ~ ~ t~t ~ ~e Right To Fote On T~cs ~din~ ~liomofdoi~a~uaily
r~u~ 1~ age~ r~nu~ by mom th~ $100 million annu- Mo~er. thc LAG report wcm on to say dmt 1~i
ally. ~e Act. ~nfly ~ing cir~latcd for sig~tu~, would government ~uld e~cn~ an i,tcr~ in on.going opera-
amend the State Co~tu~on to ~blish young ~mcnts 0onal ~x~ m~ng tens of millio~ or doll,s mm~tty duc
on gcn~ and s~l ~x~. ~s~menm and fe~ (s~ ~c [o ~ A~'s p~aon ~o~8 ~biic a~ cxcmpuon from
Au~ 1995 ~cie in OEBT ~). The S~te Co~itution pm~ ~ Pa~ent ~ ~mcn~ by public agen-
and s~ law a~ im~ v~o~ voting ~ments on ci~. howler. ~d ~n~t p~vate pmpc~y owners by
t~x=. f~ a~d ~ments. but them is un~in~ as ~o pmpo~onateiy ~uOng ~etr ~mem bills. Fu~t~cr.
~hcth~ th~ requirements aopl~ to ch=ncr ci~. By ~mendins courts might i ntc~mt thc Act =s ~hqti,:= f.¥c.o/rc ypo,.,'d, dhv
the S~ Cm~Otu0on. the Right To [.~tc ~ '/hx~ Act would Front I~ govemm~t to ~h~ls. i.~.. requiring sch~i d~strims
e~end ~ ~mrcments to ail I~1 ~ovc~n~ including and commum~ college dis~c~ to t~ on additton:~
cheer cilia, public~ifi~. ~ ~O ~in~ out t~t this ~ofa~on
could ~olate Pm~don 98. the~o~, rcqmring thc smtc to
~O R~s on Fi~ Impac[ of Right ~o V~e On T~ reimb~ thc ~ for th~ ~s~. '
Act The Act cl~ly ~ all of Cali[ornia's 999 sch~l
~ AO r~m~ 1~1 ~ to--reply with ~e m~ure's distil. 4~ ~clopment agencies. 5 g3 g~ue~l law cities.
r~cUons on f~ an~ ~m~m by July 1. I997, This ggc~e~m~'Sg~H~.the~mmunity~ilegedinn~
pro~sion may pm~bit ~e ~nent pvaCti~ of t~e~ng ~d ~eUmwm~ot~o~a. It is uncl~r, however, what
~nt and f~ ~num (including ~by f~s) from eff~ t~ Right Ia ~ott On T~s Act would have on
water ~ ~er di~c~ to the gcncrat fun~ of 1~1 gove~- dismc~ fo~ ~ appm~tely 60 pnnc~ai law smtut~ or
m~. Metmpoli~ ~r and sewer dist~cts, for c~mpic, th~ 125 S~ial Ac, Distncls. Many of tllcsc dismcls
ge~ ~~ revenu~ that arc partially ~ve~ by Io~l voter approval provisions and may :iir=lfl~' be Ill coll~piiaucc
~ agen~u for gcncr~ p~u. This would no Ioager ~ permit- ~th ~e Act.
ted by ~e Act. Fu~h~, s~d~ c~gu wo~d ~ mo~
to im~ unl~ the ~e ~ a~ly use~ or made tmm~i-
atc]y 8vmlable to (he pro~ met. The Act dmifi~ s~ndbx Initiative P~pneU in P~ of Oblainin~
c~p u an ~~t t~t m~ meet mqon~ voter ap- Si~amm ·
p~. Al~ough the e~ent of cxi~ng revenue losses is un'-
kno~ thc LAG ~t~ thai costs bt' ~mpliance to thc Eariierthisy~.~cHowardJa~'isTaxpaycrsAss~iation.
pmvision's ~cOom on ~essments and f~ could e~ and O~e Paul ~nn Ci~ Commm~ sub--flea the
rote On 1~ Act to ~e s~e AHo~ ~ne~l. but [atcr
In ad~O~ ~e ~ ~ of ~ r~enues coul~ ~e A~ in O~m ~ A~o~ G~ for title m~d ~-
d~line mg~tly due to th~ A~'s provisiom ~ecting n~ tn~ and the im~a6ve was ~uentiy calendared by
and i~l~ ~. ~mcnts and f~. By e~imming S~reta~ of State Oxe follox~ing mouth. Ja~'is-Gann bus
the im~o of the m~m on the futu~ graph of cun~ ~ays to gather 693.0t~) sig~tu~ to quali[v tixc Act as
r~n~ th~ ~O cmmiud~ t~t ~c cost to i~ governmen~ co~im~o~ ~lot inioaUvc m the Novem~r ! 996 gcne~i
could ~ily ~xc~ te~ of millions of doll~ of'lost ~en~ el~on.
CALENDAR OF MEETING~sEM~A~CON~NCES
Feb i Fin~cing Solid Wnsm Faolifi~ CDAC ~urbmk (916) 6~3-3269
M~ 7 Sym~um on 1996 Ball~ S&PtCDAC Los ~ (415)
Agril [nv~t Fund~nmls CDAC Sim m ~ d~i~ (9161 653-3269
May 16,17 Fund~ of Debt l'mancln8 CDAC Irvine {916) 653-3209
S~p Can. t l~u~a in Pubhc l:i.a~ CDAC Sa~am~n~ ~916) 653-32~'~
Oct 24~5 Mechani~ ot'a ~ond Sai= C~AC Irvm~ (~!6) 653.32~9
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
City Council - Goals and Policies
GOAL #1: ENHANCE THE CITY'S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
1. Maintain and improve the quality of existing surface streets and arterials
a. enhance the road resurfacing program
b. adopt funding mechanism for new roadway construction
2. Support the development of beltways
a. secure necessary rights-of-way and adequate funding
3. Support the development of an Intermodal Transportation Hub
a. actively pursue high speed rail system
4. Promote and encourage public transportation
5. Support efforts for adequate air transportation
a. work with the county to retain jet service at Meadows Field; and for the
construction of a new terminal
GOAL #2: PROVIDE QUALITY PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
1. Proactively plan to reduce gang violence, domestic violence and child abuse
a. enhance city-wide efforts to address gangs and drugs
b. increase the number of neighborhoods participating in the Neighborhood Watch
program
c. establish performance measures for police services
d. establish a five-year target plan for police protection
2.Establish standards for fire safety and employee performance
3. Design a graffiti program that educates the community and actively enforces eradication
a. organize community volunteers
b. develop and seek support for legislation that pursues prosecution of taggers
c. allocate resources to prosecute taggers
Revised: 6/96 1
GOAL.#3: CONTINUE POSITIVE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT
1. Develop downtown around the Convention Center and hotel
a. develop a plan for an arena addition to the Convention Center
b. study the establishment of a Centennial Plaza
c. pursue compatible development of the federal building consistent with the
Convention Center and hotel
2. Complete Streetscape for Chester Avenue
a. develop mechanism to institute a maintenance district
b. extend streetscape theme to other areas of downtown
3. Offer incentives to reduce safety hazards of unreinforced masonry (UP, M) structures
a. increase visibility of program
b. encourage compliance
4. Explore the establishment of a downtown cultural center
a. develop facilities master plan for downtown core
5. Support continued enhancement of the Fox Theater
6. Address downtown parking needs
GOAL #4: PLAN FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
1. Provide annual General Plan updates
2. Determine the future growth patterns of the City for the next 20 years
3. Pursue annexations
a. encourage in-fill development (county islands)
b. urban areas
c. provide information to citizens regarding benefits
4. Expand wastewater treatment facilities to address future development
5. Support affordable housing for seniors and Iow/moderate income residents
Revised: 6/96 2
GOAL #5: MAINTAIN AND UPGRADE THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Maintain open space throughout City
2. Review and update the Kern River Parkway Plan
a. maintain water in the Kern River as often as feasible
b. complete the Kern River Parkway project
c. increase recreational activities along the River
d. make Parkway a tourist attraction and accessible to downtown
e. develop Parkway from Gosford Road to Beach Park as a greenbelt area
3. Incorporate recreational trails into the City's infrastructure
a. maintain/construct trails for bikes, walking, jogging and equestrian
4. Establish acceptable level of maintenance for existing properties, including curbs, gutters
and alleys.
5. Develop a comprehensive master plan for all infrastructure
a. improve the site plan review process
b. plan for construction and future funding of water facilities, fire stations, etc.
GOAL #6: ENSURE EFFICIENT USE OF FISCAL RESOURCES
1. Remain fiscally solvent
a. pursue grants and private donations prior to reducing service level
b. assess the need for matching subsidies to private sources for cultural activities
2. Establish administrative/financial policy of full cost accounting
a. review and prioritize each service: real cost, level of service
b. maintain lowest possible fee structure for all services
3. Streamline government operations to be more responsive
a. develop process for all non-profit agencies to access General Fund monies
b. establish benchmarks for financial responsibility of departments
c. design department budgets based on need and equity
Revised: 6/96 3
GOAL #7: ATTRACT AND FOSTER A QUALIFIED WORKFORCE
1. Create an environment that encourages employees to achieve
a. provide customer service training for employees
b. explore incentives for employees to reside in the city
c. develop and implement employee recognition and performance reward program
d. ask employees for their ideas
2. Establish labor negotiation strategies to ensure effective resolution
3. Involve all staff equally in implementing the goals and objectives of the City
a. Develop a mission statement that promotes cultural equity in employment
GOAL #8: IMPROVE CITY GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS
1. Design ways to educate the citizenry on the City Council's role
a. promote successful projects/programs/legislation
b. provide more positive council interaction with public
2. Utilize surveys to obtain feedback from residents and businesses about living and working in
Bakersfield
3. Review and assess continuation of boards/commissions/committees
a. clearly define roles and goals
b. review boards and commissions annually
c. revisit council policies and ordinances -- revise or sunset
4. Improve internal Council relations
a. promote common goals
b. respect individual positions
c. reduce the level of "political" decision-making
d. design process to assist in resolving difficult and controversial issues
Revised: 6/96 4
GOAL #9: STRENGTHEN AND DIVERSIFY OUR ECONOMIC BASE
1. Enhance the City's economic development opportunities
a. give businesses reasons to feel good about residing in Bakersfield
b. assist in business expansion
c. attract industries which best suit our Iocational advantages
d. focus on improvements and opportunities within the southeast and the Incentive Area
2. Review and enhance the TEAM BAKERSFIELD concept
a. obtain input and feedback from customers on permit processing
b. review business license fee structure and policy
c. provide City procurement information to local vendors
3. Devise a program that focuses on job creation
a. support the creation of 1000 new jobs by the year 2000
GOAL #10: PROMOTE COMMUNITY PRIDE
1. Establish a comprehensive community relations program
a. investigate cable casting, Internet and Home Page access
b. develop newsletter to citizens
c. promote special events (i.e. City centennial)
d. promote customer service orientation
e. implement two-year plan to improve the image of the City
f. design media packet and news releases
2. Develop a campaign against littering
3. Facilitate the development of cultural and recreational facilities
a. baseball complex
b. cultural arts.
c. encourage corporate capital investments
Revised: 6/96 5
GOAL #11: ENHANCE CITY-WIDE RECREATION SERVICES
1. Develop a comprehensive recreation plan for all citizens
2. Promote programs for children and families focussing on honesty, ethics and respect
a. develop a youth service plan to include recreation and health
b. identify role models to assist in youth outreach efforts
GOAL #12: SUPPORT POSITIVE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
1. Work with the County to provide efficient government services for metropolitan area
a. support universal garbage system and recycling mandates
b. reduce duplication of services
2. Proactively pursue intergovernmental legislation at the county, state and federal levels
a. monitor, take a position and actively pursue pending legislation
b. expand annual lobbying effort with state representatives
a. invite legislators to council workshops or other activities
4. Hold joint City Council/County Board of Supervisor meetings to discuss various issues
a. work harder at City/County relations
5. Partner with school districts on recreation and education programs to reduce youth violence,
drugs and crime
Revised: 6/96 6
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 4, 1996
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: ~~ojas, Public Works Director ~~/~~
Subject: ADA Ramps at City Hall Entrances
On September 9, 1996, another construction project on our City Hall campus will begin - construction of
ADA Ramps at the northeast, southeast and southwest entrances to the main City Hall building,
The Contractor has requested that the City make the Management/Department Head parking lot at the
southeast entrance available to him on Wednesday. September 11. By using that parking lot to stage his
demolition operations at the southeast entrance to City Hall. he will be able to minimize thc inconvenience
to City staff. Please let me know if this one day of not being able to park in that area is acceptable to you.
During the contractor's work at the southwest entrance, the stair well from your offices will be closed for
a couple of weeks in order for the contractor to re-construct the ramp outside the door at the bottom of
the stair well. We will provide you and your staff advance notice of when that closure will occur. As part
of that work. the landing, door frame and door at the bottom of the stair well will be reconstructed. The
Contractor is given a. three day period for reconstructing that door frame and door. During that time, he
is required to install a secured plywood panel at the bottom of the stairs to provide a barrier against entry
into the building at the end of his work day.
The northwest doors on the City Hall Annex must also be Closed during the work at the southwest entrance
to City Hall. Signs will be placed at strategic locations informing both City personnel and the general public
of the closed doors and the alternate routes available to them.
All three entrances will be closed at various stages of construction through out the duration of the project.
With the exception of the closures described above, other exit doors should not be affected for more than
a day at a time. We will post notices informing City personnel and the visiting public of the closures as they
occur.
The Contractor has 40 working days to complete thc project, so the project should be done by November
1. 1996.
Please call Arnold Ramming at extension 3591 should you have any questions concerning this project.
cc: Judy Skousen. City Attorney Gregory Klimko, Finance Director
Pam McCarthy, Acting City Clerk Carroll Hayden. Human Resources Manager
Bob Trammell, Management Information Services Director
Scott Manzer, Risk Manager
Wait Moulton. Fire Department Communications Manager
Lt. Alan Zachary. Police Department Communications Center
G: 'PROJE (TSLMlNOLD\(?ITYHALLADA\RAMPS\TANDY.830
B A'K E R S F I E L D
Alan Tandy · City Manager
September 3, 1996
Mr. Robert Crandall, AMR CEO
American Airlines
rdo Mr. Ray Bishop
Department of Airports
1401 Skyway Drive, Suite 200
Bakersfield, CA 93308-1697
Dear Mr. Crandall:
We would like to encourage you, as the time comes Closer to the deadline American
Airlines has set for terminating the Bakersfield to Dallas direct flight, to review a number
of advantages that American Airlines has in serving the Bakersfield community.
As you are aware, Bakersfield has a population of over 212,000, with a metropolitan
population of over 372,000. Bakersfield is the 13th largest city in the State of California
but has not yet been tapped to become a major metropolitan airline center. In 1994, the
City of Bakersfield conducted a survey of the largest employers in metropolitan
Bakersfield. These employers, those with 100 or more employees, cited the lack of
convenient, affordable, and direct airline service as a major weakness of doing business
in Bakersfield. In 1996, the City surveyed mid-sized employers, those with 50-59 workers.
Again, the level of airline service was listed as one of the weaknesses of doing business
in Bakersfield. Both surveys included private and public sector employers. It is obvious
that a large market segment is being left unserved.
It is our understanding that American Airlines has a number of agreements with suburban
airports around the Los Angeles area (such as Ontario and Burbank) whereby tickets
which are purchased from the local airport to specified destinations are the same price as
those purchased at LAX, thus giving the local airports an equal footing with flights from
LAX. The Bakersfield market has not been given this opportunity. If such were to happen,
I could virtually guarantee that flights from Bakersfield would increase exponentially.
With the resulting new consumers, and revenues, at Meadows Field, improvements could
be made, such as increased services, better equipment, or improved facilities. This, in
turn, would benefit the Bakersfield airlines as well as Bakersfield consumers.
City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield · California · 93301
(805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 324-1850
Mr. Robert Crandall Page 2
September 3, 1996
There would be no economic reason to travel to LAX to catch a plane. Once at LAX,
consumers can choose not only American Airlines but any number of other airlines that
serve LAX. Leaving from Bakersfield will eliminate the necessity roi' consumer to make a
choice between American Airlines and others at LAX.
The City of Bakersfield encourages you to consider these points while determining your
company's course of action.
Sincerely, ~
City Manage~/
(s:~s~m0830961)
cc: · Honorable Mayor and City Council
Trudy $1ater, Administrative Analyst III
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
September 4, 1996
TO: Jake Wager
FROM: David Lyman~-~'[,~
SUBJECT: SB2023
The California Assembly approved SB2023 late Saturday night. The bill, authored by Senator
Jim Costa, will unify the enterprise zone and incentive area programs. On a 46-23 vote, the
bill passed the Assembly and then received a 31-0 concurrence vote in the California Senate
later that evening. The bill is now headed to Governor Wilson for action. The governor has
30 days to sign or veto the bill.
Along With unifying the two programs, SB2023 now includes two additions, one at the
request of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and one at the request of the City of
Oakland. The first is the inclusion of provisions from SB420, authored by Senator A1 Alquist
of San Jose, into SB2023. These additions will allow zone employers to claim the full
five-year hiring credit even if the zone designation expires before the end of the five years.
The second addition allows zones to expand into adjoining cities under the existing 15%
expansion provisions.
SB2023 had previously passed the Senate and two Assembly committees unanimously. Only
when the end of the legislative year loomed, and several enterprise zone bills were competing
for the Legislature's attention, did the bill encounter difficulties. The first hurdle was that the
bill was joined with several other zone-related bills. Joining means that if one bill dies, all
others joined with it also die, unless amendments are accepted to unjoin. This is exactly what
happened with SB2023. One of the bills to which SB2023 was joined was AB243, authored
by Assemblyman Jim Battin. The Battin bill did not get off the suspense file in the Senate
Appropriations Committee meaning it was, in effect, dead. On Thursday, August 29, the
Assembly Republican Caucus informed Senator Costa's office they were willing to let
SB2023 die unless the Senate Appropriations Committee took the Battin Bill off suspense. In
effect, SB2023 was caught in a power play between the Republican majority in the Assembly
and the Democratic majority in the Senate.
At the request of Senator Costa's staff, this office mobilized the network of enterprise zones,
incentive areas, and other supporters to contact all Assembly Republicans
Jake Wager
September 3, 1996
Page Two
support of unjoining SB2023 from the Battin Bill. Fifteen Assembly Republicans have at
least one enterprise zone or incentive area in their district, including Assembly Speaker Curt
Pringle.
Because SB2023 has the support of the California Association of Enterprise Zones and many
other organizations, cities, counties, and chambers of commerce, calls from these supporters
immediately began coming into Assembly Republicans' offices. In addition, calls were made
to Assemblyman Battin's office asking for his support of unjoining his bill from SB2023. By
late Thursday, enough support came into Assembly Republicans' offices in support of SB2023
that the Assembly majority no longer supported keeping SB2023 joined with the Battin bill
and approved an amendment to unjoin the bills.
When SB2023 finally made it to the Assembly floor Saturday evening, it was the Democrats'
turn to oppose the bill. Assemblywoman Marguerite Archie-Hudson spoke in opposition to
the bill and encouraged all Assembly Democrats to oppose it. Her basis for opposition
stemmed from the expansion of the definition of an eligible employee from long term
unemployed to any resident of a targeted employment area. This change would make more
people in distressed areas eligible for hiring under the unified programs. Assemblywoman
Archie-Hudson had previously spoke enthusiastically about SB2023 when the bill came before
the Assembly Utilities & Commerce Committee, of which she is a member. Also, despite
requesting language to benefit their community, the two Oakland assembly members that
requested these amendments voted against SB2023.
Nevertheless, SB2023 passed the Assembly, returned to the Senate for a concurrence vote
since amendments had been made since it originally passed the Senate, and is now headed for
the Governor's desk.
Indications from Senator Costa's office, the Trade and Commerce Agency, and the Franchise
Tax Board indicate that Governor Wilson will sign the bill. Should Governor Wilson sign
SB2023 into law, the bills' provisions become effective on January 1, 1997.
dl\caezXsummary.mem
B A L{ E S I L 3
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
September 4, 1996
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROVIDED DEBORA GABLE
301 34TH STREET - SITE PLAN #P96-0519
Debora Gable is attempting to open an ice cream shop in an existing vacant building at 301 34th Street,
adjacent to the vacant Kmart shopping center. She received her site plan conditions from Planning in
a letter dated 7/1/96. One of the conditions required her to install a sidewalk and a new drive approach
on 34th Street. She contacted our department for assistance in funding the estimated $3,000 of off-site
improvements.
We explained our finance requirements and limitations using CDBG funds for small businesses. We
referred her to the Small Business Development Center and the Kern Small Business Loan Fund. She
did not go to either organization, but appeared at the City Council meeting on 8/7/96 to complain about
the City's requirements and inability to provide her a grant/loan. Council referred her to our department
for further counselling.
A meeting with Ms. Gable determined that she had very limited finances to open the ice cream shop and
the additional $3,000 of off-site improvements costs would not allow her to purchase the necessary
equipment and inventory to operate the proposed business. We discussed the situation with Public Works
which suggested she apply for a one year postponement of the off-sites due to financial hardship. Our
department drafted a letter for her to submit to Public Works. She has submitted a letter and Public
Works has drafted a lien document to be recorded on the property securing the off-site improvements
for one year. The owner of the property is currently reviewing the lien document for approval.
In addition, with our encouragement, Ms. Gable has begun working ,with the Small Business
Development Center to develop a business plan for her ice cream shop and take classes on how to run
a small business.
MEMORAND~UM
September 4, 1996 ,
TO: IRMA CARSON, COUNCILMEMBER
FROM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, CITY ATTORNEY ~-~
CARL HERNANDEZ III, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY C
RANDY G. FIDLER, CHIEF CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
SUBJECT: CODE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS REGARDING RECENT COUNCIL
REFERRAL MATTERS
At the August 21, 1996 Council Meeting, you requested code enforcement efforts
to resolve the following problems: (1) the storing of old vehicles at Truxtun Avenue and
Brown Street; and (2) the abatement of a burned structure near California Avenue and "O"
Street. We have contacted you by telephone to discuss these efforts, however, this
memorandum will serve as a more complete written response
Storacje of Old Vehicles at Truxtun Avenue.
Code Enforcement officers have been working on this matter and have issued
correction notices and a first notice of violation. Subsequent to issuance of the first notice,
the property owner contacted the Code Enforcement Division and agreed to cooperate with
the Division's efforts to bring the property into compliance. The property owner has agreed
to remove all junk vehicles from the premises.
This particular property is located in an M-1 Zone. The Planning Department has
indicated that because the property is located in an M-1 Zone, the property owner may
continue to keep used cars on the premises. The Code Enforcement Division has notified
the property owner that only used cars in working condition can be kept on the property.
The Code Enforcement Division has been working diligently to solve this situation for a
number of weeks. Should the property owner fail to abate the problem as he agreed, the
City will then order that the matter be brought before the hearing officer. We will update
you on this matter as progress is made.
THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS.PR_O_TECTED
BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRI~V. I~.E.G~S,
SEP - § 1996
IRMA CARSON, COUNCILMEMBER
September 4, 1996
Page 2
Califomia Avenue and "0" Street - Burned Structure.
On August 23, 1996, we personally inspected the subject property. The structure
is substantially burned to a point where it poses an eminent threat to the health and safety
of the public. The Code Enforcement Division contacted the property owner and informed
him of the dangerous structure. The property owner agreed to place a fence around the
remains of the structure pending its prompt demolition. The City has commenced summary
abatement proceedings in this matter and will step in and demolish the structure if the
property owner fails to remove the structure quickly. We will keep you updated on this
process.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, or we can be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to call.
CH:dlr
cc: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
Alan Tandy, City Manager
Robert Sherfy, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Dennis Fidler, Building Director
S:~,OUNClL~REFERRAL~CODE~ISS .MM2
THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED
BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGES.
ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
Auffust 28, 1996
Oty Manager
1501 Truxtun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Sir:
I have been meaning to write about this subject for
quite some time. I live in the Campus Park North
area and I just wanted to let you know what a great
job the CitY did on the median on White Lane in my
area. I also want to let you know what a good job
the lan&cape maintenance people do in my area.
Their hard work is greatly appreciated. I could not
find a "landscape maintenance" section in the phone
book, so could you please send this to the appropriate
department. I would like to let the people know what
' -a gObdjob'~they -areaotng' ';~ana .............. to teeep"::==-~:='--'~---='=~ ~ "'up toe gooa ---~--
work//
Sincerely,
Ms. Jan Bentley
4004 Clancy Court
Bakersfield, CA 93311