Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/12/96 ~ ~. -- BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM April 12, 1996 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER &1 SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Enclosed is the infonnational packet which will be sent out next week to participants in the retiree Fee-for-Service plan to explain the upcoming rate increase effective July 1st A meeting will be held for them on April 22nd. 2. The Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a Notice of Violation to Valley Communities, Inc. for non-compliance at the 1-5 wastewater reclamation site (allowing eftluent from the City to runoff into an uncultivated 'area of the site). They requested that VCI provide overdue monthly self-monitoring reports For October 1995 through February 1996 by April 15th and to submit a wórk plan to increase their on-site storage capacity by July 1 s1. We have received coITespondence from VCl that they intend to comply with the requirements of the NOV within the specified time frames. 3. We have submitted a new proposal (enclosed) to Riverlakes Ranch which we feel is very fair to them and will hopefully allow for resolution of the outstanding issues and move the development of the area forward. We have a Monday meeting with them to discuss it 4. The bill to unify the enterprise zone and incentive area program has passed through the state Senate Governmental Operations Committee unanimously. It will now go to the Senate Appropriations Committee. 5. .We are in the process of putting the budget to print You get it on May 8th. It's a pretty good year! 6. . We got a response back from the attorneys on the Panorama landfill - it is under review. 7. As a follow-up to a Council refeITal response in last week's General Infonnation, enclosed is a letter we sent to Olen Arnold regarding the traffic impact fee for a proposed Lamppost Pizza at Gosford Road and McNair Court. = - -~ - ./ '-"""... ---- Honorable Mayor and City Council April 12, 1996 Page 2 8. Some opposition such as letters, etc. are beginning in Old Stockdale - no surprise there. Our overall sense is that our effort is going well in Chester, Dennen, and Casa Lorna. Relations are improving with Old Stockdale, but that one is too early to read. 9. Enclosed is a very positive article from the latest LGR Review about the maintenance district restructure. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Carol Williams, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst ~ - - 'i.¡;"- - -,.'., EE BAKERSFIELD CO NVENTI ON CENTER Monday April 22, 1996 -10:00 a.m. The City of Bakersfield is implementing changes which will result in a rate increase for those who participate in retiree Fee-for-Service plans effective July 1, 1996. The City has schedUled an informational meeting regarding these changes and the addition of a new Medicare Risk option (Secure Horizons, Blue Cross Senior Care) for retiree medical insurance coverage. There is no change in the 1996 rates for those in the California Care plan. The new Medicare Risk plans may provide a cost effective health care option for those retirees who are eligible for and participate in Medicare. Infonnation about these plans is available by contacting Ginger Rubin. This meeting will be an opportunity to ask questions and get infonnation on how these changes will effect you. You are encouraged to attend. Please contact Ginger Rubin at 326-3094 if you are unable to attend and need more information. ¡', " MEMORANDUM April 12, 1996 TO: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD - RETIREE MEDICAL PAR TICIP ANTS FROM: JOHN W. STINSO$sTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CORRECTION OF RETIREE MEDICAL PREMIUM RATE STRUCTURE ~EFORSER~CEPL~ IMPORTANT MEDICAL PLAN INFORMATION - PLEASE READ THOROUGHLY! . Retiree Medical benefits were originally offered with the retiree paying the total cost. However, due'to substantial increases in premiums over the years, certain subsidies of the premiums have been incrementally instituted by the City Council. The City understands the importance of Health Insurance to its employees and retirees and has tried to maintain cost-effectivç plans with reasonable benefits. The City Council requested that staff and the Health Care Consultant prepare a report reviewing the plan structure, participation and contribution policies of the City Retiree Medical Plan. The report revealed that Fee-for-Service participants were receiving an unintended additional rate subsidy because retiree Fee-for-Service rates were blended with active employee rates in error. This resulted in an inequity in retiree medical premium subsidies between those retirees in the Fee for Service and California Care HMO plans. This error caused those Retirees in the Fee-for- Service plan (the more expensive plan) to pay less than those retirees in the California Care HMO (the most cost effective plan). This also resulted in lower insurance contributions by some retirees with fewer years of service compared to other retirees with greater years of service with the City. For example these are the 1995 monthly premium contributions paid by retirees with 30 years service for bo~h plans: ~til:m::::::::":'::: .::::~i¡;jii~ $0.00 ¡¡Ii¡¡llililli::¡:¡::::::: $117.16 {m¡:::i:~:¡I¡II:::;:;t:i~:~:::¡¡¡:: $238.92 As you can see, this situation encourages retirees who pay the least to bein the most expensive plan (Fee-for-Service) which is not appropriate and has significantly increased the cost , of Retiree insurance to the City. (See Chart) 1 ~ _____n Retiree Medical Pram iums " ~, Cost History and Estimated Increases $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $600,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 . City Contribution D Retiree Contribution This chart shows that the City's contributions for retiree medical premiums have grown at a dramatic rate and will continue unless this error is corrected. There are also additional costs to the City because of blending the active and retiree rates, since it increases Fee-for-Service rates for active employees. The City currently pays 80% of active employee health insurance rates. Due to these inequities in retiree contributions, and also to dramatically growing costs to the City, the City Council directed staff to address the problem. Staff met on numerous occasions with the Joint Employee/City Insurance Committee (which includes union representatives and several retirees) regarding this issue. Due to legal constraints regarding retiree benefits, options were limited. It was determined that the City had the legal right to unblend the rates. However, this could negatively affect retirees in the Fee-for-Service plan if this was done. An attempt to find alternatives to this option were unsuccessful as the City and individual labor unions were unable ,¡ " MEMORANDUM April 12, 1996 TO: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD - RETIREE MEDICAL PAR TICIP ANTS FROM: JOHN W. STINSO~TANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CORRECTION OF RETIREE MEDICAL PREMIUM RATE STRUCTURE ~EFORSER~CEPL~ IMPORTANT MEDICAL PLAN INFORMA nON - PLEASE READ THOROUGHLY! , Retiree Medical benefits were originally offered with the retiree paying the total cost. However, due'to substantial increases in premiums over the years, certain subsidies of the premiums have been incrementally instituted by the City Council. The City understands the importance of Health Insurance to its employees and retirees and has tried to maintain cost-effectiv~ plans with reasonable benefits. The City Council requested that staff and the Health Care Consultant prepare a report reviewing the plan structure, participation and contribution policies of the City Retiree Medical Plan. The report revealed that Fee-for-Service participants were receiving an unintended additional rate subsidy because retiree Fee-for-Service rates were blended with active employee rates in error. This resulted in an inequity in retiree medical premium subsidies between those retireeš in the Fee for Service and California Care HMO plans. This error caused those Retirees in the Fee-for- Service plan (the more expensive plan) to pay less than those retirees in the California Care HMO (the most cost effective plan). This also resulted in lower insurance contributions by some retirees with fewer years of service compared to other retirees with greater years of service with the City. For example these are the 1995 monthly premium contributions paid by retirees with 30 years service for bo~h plans: , Mr'::¡::::::::;~;:':;~~:¡~¡¡~:¡¡, $0.00 $14.52 $117.16 $163.82 $238.92 $280.90 As you can see, this situation encourages retirees who pay the least to bein the most expensive plan (Fee-for-Service) which is not appropriate and has significantly increased the cost . of Retiree insurance to the City. (See Chart) I. 1 - ~---------- -~---- -------- . . ,- This wiD result in an increase in the monthly Fee-for-Service retiree contributions of approximately 535.36 Single; 570.72 Two-Party; and 5105.98 Family coverage. There are no changes in 1996 rates for those in the California Care HMO plan. In order to limit the impact on retirees participating in the City Retiree Medical plan, the Council chose July 1, 1996 for the effective date to change the Fee-for-Service rates rather than January 1, 1996 to give retirees sufficient time to evaluate their options and get plan information ftom city benefits personnel. MEDICARE RISK OPTION: The Council also directed that the City implement a Medicare Risk option with the City contributing toward the cost of the Medicare Risk premium and the Medicare Part B premium (see Attachment "A"). Medicare Risk is an HMO type of plan which would be available for those retirees or their spouses who are eligible and enrolled in Medicare (parts A&B). Retirees typically assign their Medicare benefits to the provider and receive benefits similar to those under the City's HMO plan at a significantly reduced cost. As previously notified in January, retirees who are eligible for Medicare must enroll. Questions regarding Medicare eligibility should be directed to the Office of Social Security. \ The City is preparing to contract with Blue Cross Senior California Care and Secure Horizons for Medicare Risk Benefits. A sheet is attached showing the comparison of benefits offered. Eligible retirees in both the current Fee-for-Service and HMO plans may find that the Medicare Risk plans are desirable as they provide a lower cost alternative with benefits similar to the current California Care HMO. Participation in a Medicare Risk plan is in lieu of participation in current Fee-for-Service or HMO plans. Those retirees interested in the Medicare Risk option should contact Ginger Rubin to get more detailed provider and benefit information. The Council also asked staff to investigate and develop a strategy for possible participation in HMO plans in other states for City retiree participation. There are currently only a few retirees who live out of state. The City will provide assistance to these retirees to help them understand the options available to them for health care coverage. SPECIAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING I OPEN ENROLLMENT: For retirees that may be impacted by the increases to Fee-for-Service rates due to unblending, the City will provide information about options available to them such as transferring to the HMO or Medicare Risk plans. A special informational meeting for those with questions regarding the new rat~s. the Medicare Risk plans 'and options for health care coverage will be held at the Convention Center on April 22nd at 10:00 a.m. For those who wish to change their insurance to the HMO or Medicare Risk plans, a special open enrollment has been scheduled for the month of May. Please call the Benefits office 326-3094 to schedule your appointment. If you are unable to attend the informational meeting, or would like additional information regarding your options, or if you have special benefit problems please contact Ginger Rubip at the Benefits office 326-3094. 3 -~ ------- - -- - -------- - '. ", ", Attachment 8A8 A) The City will exercise its legal right to no longer combine (unblend) the rating experience for retirees with active employees for the indemnity (Fee-for-Service) plan effective July 1, 1996 (or the nearest payroll period). B) The City will as soon as practicable restructure both the base indemnity (Fee-for- Service) and HMO rate structures to reflect the appropriate rate relationship for participants in Medicare. The proposed rate structure will further reflect the concept of a two-party rate that is approximately twice the single rate and a family rate that is approximately three times the single rate. C) The City will implement a Medicare Risk option with thè City contributing the cost of the Medicare Risk premium and a flat dollar amount up to the Medicare part I B monthly premium at the 1996 rate (estimated at approximately $42.50). The I combined City contribution (Medicare Risk premium and fixed Medicare contribution) will not exceed the City contribution otherwise provided should the retiree not participate in the Medicare Risk option nor exceed 90% of the lower \..' of the applicable HMO or indemnity (Fee-for-Service) single party rate. The City . reserves the right to modify or eliminate this practice in the future in response to changes in medical plans by providers, the changes to the Medicare program by the federal government, or changes to economic or legal conditions, subject to the meet and confer requirements under the law with labor organizations. , I I I D) The City will investigate and develop a strategy for possible participation in HMO plans in other states for city retiree participation. Implementation of such strategy is dependent upon reasonable availability and cost to the City. The City will provide counseling and assistance to retirees in helping them understand the options available to them for health care coverage. .. " ,. City of Bakersfield Medicare Risk Benefits Blue Cross SecuTeHö'rlzonS '...' , Senior CalifomiaCare SH-STD 3 (Over 65) . $5 copay Office Visits $3 copay Rx $5copay $5 copay Rx - Mail Order $10 copay (per 60 day supply) $5 copay (per 90 day supply) Rx Benefit Maximum Unlimited Unlimited Hospital 100% 100% Health Appliances " 100% only if meets Medicare coverage criteria 100% Home Health Care 100% 100% Emergency 100% after $25 copay, waived if admitted $20 copay Skilled Nursing Care 100% up to 100 days per Benefit Period 100% Ambulance 100% 100% Inpatient Mental Health 100%, lifetime limit of 190 days 100%, lifetime limit of 190 days Outpatient Mental Health $10 copay . ~ $10 copay . Vision Exam MESC: $40 Exam Maximum $3 copay (May either use MESC or Blue Cross) Blue Cross: $5 Copay $30 Single lens, $50 Bi-focal, Eyeglasses MESC: $65 Tri-focal, $40 Frames; $20 copay, limit Ipair/2 years 12 months Blue Cross: Not Covered Hearing Aid Appliance not covered. (Exam = $5 copay, . then 100%) A vailable as supplemental Mammogram 100% $3 copay Ro~tine Podiatry Only covered if medically necessary 100%, Covered if Medicare approved Chiropractic Care Limited to manual manipulation Limited to manual manipulation Inpatient Substance Abuse/Detox. 100% Acute phase only 100%, 190 days/lifetime Outpatient Substance Abuse/Detox. $10 copay $10 copay __un n___n____- - 1996 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD i ~ ., Retired Group Health Insurance Monthly Rates Effective July 1, 1996 - ( WITH OR WITHOUT MEDICARE) .., SUB (*)LESS SPEC1AL SUB . LESS CITY - - .. GROUP # 97039C PREMIE\I .. HEALTH . VISION TOTAL CONTRIBUTION TOTAL FORM{jLA Single $301 .24 $7.25 $0.00 $308.49 $129.57 $178.92 See Below Two Partv $602.48 $9.25 $0.00 $611.73 $256.93 $354.80 See Below Familv $903.71 $10.00 $0.00 $913.71 $383.76 $529.95 See Below ¡'.(lllIi_IIIIIIIIIII:1I1 I: I~: ¡I¡I¡IIIII¡I¡'~ 11:181111 MEDICAL I ~MENTAL VISION SUB .. LESS (.1TY ,. UNDER 65 GROUP #59E698 PREMIUM HEALTH CARE TOTAL FORMULA.. Retiree under 65 - Single $145.88 $7.25 $3.75 $156.88 See Below Retiree & Dependent Under 65 - Two Party $291.76 $9.25 $7.50 $308,51 See Below Retiree & 2 or more Deoendents under 65 - Familv $437.64 $10.00 $9.75 $457.39 See Below OVER 65 GROUP #59E69C Retiree over 65 - Single (S65) $88.92 $7.25 $3.75 $99.92 See Below Retiree & Dependent over 65 - Two Party (T65) $178.48 $9,25 $7.50 $195.23 See Below a OVER & UNDER 65 GROUP J Retiree under 65 (TJ1) $145.88 Dependent over 65 (T J2) $89.56 $235.44 $9.25 $7.50 $252.19 See Below Retire over 65 $88.92 Dependent under 65 $155.99 , 244.91 $9.25 $7.50 $261.66 See Below ;~~FI ~ ~ ::~: ii~ ': ~::lIlmp ~:::: ::~:: s I ¡ mmt:: ~ ~II:::: or:::::: T mmmmmømm¡WiWM@Mm] 1M: :.11 lB..' :. '.': "':"'.:.:.:111. . :«.".:.:.:.,:pj .:.:.,. ..MS.:,.:.:.:.:.:o:.:.:.:o".:.:.,..:o:.:<o:.",."."..:)<,.:"'<'k"'<"""'o:':«W (MUST HAVE MEDICARE PART A & E '.':..':..::...::..:.,::..':'..:'.:'::-..:.':...:'....::::::::~::..':..-:.':.:':..:.:. '::¡:::::::'::'.:::::..:'...:...:..::::..:.::.,~~::::~::::~mm::::::::::¡::~~<¡::;:::,:¡::>«:>.:~~m~::::~:$'~"W MENTAL ,. ,,".' -.. .. ... I LESS CITY ',. MEDICAL I -. . ..VISION:- I:,. ,SUB . .. .... I ..,..' ,... CARE 1':'. .,.'. . - . ... . - . .. PREMItJM HEALTH . TOTAL . FOR.'..tULA Senior California Care $20.62 $0.00 $3.75 $24.37 See Below Secure Horizons $17.34 $0.00 $0.00 $17.34 See Below " CITY FORMULA FOR RETIRED EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTIONS Employees who have retired with 15 years of employment with the City of Bakersfield or retired due to a disability are eligible to participate in the City's retiree health insurance plan. Contributions, formulas and conditions for participation in City's retiree medical plans may vary depending on the employee bargaining unit and employee labor agreements. This chart shows the City of Bakersfield's contribution to retirees premiums to be: A. A máximum of ninety percent (90%) of the lowest single party rate for retirees I under age 65 for each year of service to a maximum of 30 years. $141.19 Maximum City Contribution I $4.7064 Per year up to 30 years of service I ( * ) Represents 42% of the 1996 Fee For Service rate. Not applicable to employees hired after 4/1/96. , cûR:REllNC71) ----- _n- - ----- . Cln'., OF BAKERSFIELD Page 1 1996 Medical Benefits I Uf ~ ti m ~jjiM aii ~ û m . j*i~tjl. <¡!e âí if óirl1ã;;c ä;~\XII;j I; ~.€~~ ;¡~ q~I§'[i;V¡~[ií~i None $5,000,000 IDêauctit}le::fu:j",,:,:,:¡¡,;:,j';;ij"~;;:;:j:j)::::::',j":rJ ,'. '- -, -. -,. Individual None $150.00 Two Party None $300.00 Family None $450.00 Carryover Provision None Yes (1ast 3 months of calendar year) Common Accident Yes ~ """" ,.."..,..,.., ""'" "':,:' ",,' "':""'" 'w' ,""'. ?:,':,,:>'::':::':::',:::::,:::::::,:::,::,,::: "........ -..........-,.. ," ",',',',-,"",-,",',"',',',',',',',',,-,',',','-' Stop <,Loss :"",LII'DI!:::::}:::::,::))))::::: $ 500 co-pay max single After Blue Cross pays $1.000 co-pay max two party $1,1500: $1,500 co-pay max family plan pays 100% ~"""""""""""""""""""I Höspitâ".":¡'!:':;,::'.t'::,jj¡:¡'::j:¡¡¡::':¡:::;';::¡r,::::'::;'jj,¡:::::¡:¡:¡::":jI:: INPATIENT Room and board and all medically necessary services. No charge PPO: 100%1N0n-PPO: 80'36 including general nursing care (all care must be referred by Non-contracting: 25% penalty services, operating and special Primary Care Provider and plus $500 deductible per room fees, diagnostic x-ray authorized by your facility) " admission and laboratory services Non-PPO: $500 deductible OUTPATIENT No charge PPO: 100%/N0n-PPO: 80'36 Surgical room fee. rediation (all care must be referred by Additional $500 deductible and chemotherapy treatment Primary Care Provider and fer Non-PPO treatment. renal dyalisis authorized by your facility) . -Non-certification penalty: 25% penalty plus $250 deductible if precertification is not obtained prior to admission I " "" '..,.. ........ P his i ci åri:Cårfj:':';:-:'::::'j::::::::::':'j':j:j' Office/Home Visits $5.00 co-pay PPO: 80% of negotiated fee Non- PPO: 80% of allowable fee Hospital No Charge PPO: 100%/N0n-PPO: 80% Allergy Testing/Treatment No charge 80% Immunization-Influenza No charge (If approved by PPO: 100%/N0n-PPO: 80% Medical Group) Well Child Care $5.00 co-pay (no charge for PPO: 100%/N0n-PPO: 80'36 (including immunizations) immunizations) (Up to age 19) Wellness (annual physical exam. $5.00 co-pay $50,00 co-pay, no deductible papsmear. mannogram, prostate exam) (subscriber and spouse only) .. , ... (> Page 2 I :ÇêllifQtnifi<:,þ~'r~I:'¡.i:i:I:I;':I.:.jjljl } :::Fi~ê...iiFÓr'::i:!:ßêrvi:c;~:.::: ..'..1 - --. ~u.. .'...<XuRu~&.'.Cb. ......:...'....:.::.'u:.,.O:.::.....:.,:,<: :".,,:::,',::.::"::.;:.::..1 IS nostlc u .u. ay.'. ..s oratory"'~~~~"~ .uu.....:.:.'~ ...:u.u.:. .u..::::,:::.:.::::}~ Outpatient Dlagnœtic X-Ray and . -.. . .. No charge "PPO: 9O'J6INon-PPO: 7œ6 Laboratory Services Ie re~ç.tip!¡QIî'::Prij9~"i.":::":'::':::'::::::::'::..,. Drugs (approved by the $10/$5 co-pay (Activies) No deductible Food and Drug Administration $5/$2 co-pay (Retirees) Inpatient PPO: 100%1N0n-PPO: 8O'J6 and prescribed by a physician) for brand/generic Outpatient $10/$5 co-pay 30 day supply for brand/generic do-day supply: thereafter PPO: 100%1N0n-PPO: 50' 6 Mall Order Program $5 co-pay (Active) $5 co-pay $2 co-pay (Retirees) 60 day supply 60 day supply I Em erg elicy:.::.çare /S.ef'lices:I:::,::::i'::j::.::m:':::.:.:::::::::=::':::::.':,::.i'::',:::(,:::::::::::'.::::::.:::...:\:':\:\::::':::~::.:::::j:;::::1 In Area $25.00 co-pay PPO: 100%/Non-PPO: 8O'J6 (waived if admitted) Out of Area $25.00 co-pay PPO:100%1N0n-PPO:80'J6 (waived if admitted) IAmbûlariç~-:;.::.':::!:::,;:::.,:::..:.::\::::::::::,:::,:::::::::::;:,:':;:::::"::::::::::::::::1 Ground Ambulance Services No charge 8O'!E. (when medically necessary) IF am ilY'::PuJål1iji "9"'::'::::':.::;::';::::::1::::::::;:;:::::':':':":1 Sterilization $50 co-pay: Vasec1Dmy Same as any other $150 co-pay: Tubal Ligation Infertility TestlngfTreatment 50% Not covered Contraceptive Devices/Fitting Not covered Not covered , H 0 rri-~':.H.êâl tho ~ èiVi êêš:"":::;::.-;:,-¡'::;::::;~':,;';¡:¡:\,¡:::::::::"::'\::::.:.:'\:i.,:::::i:,::i::i\:,.:.:.".\:::::..::::,:,::;;:.:.:.:::.\ Medically necessary services No charge PPO: 9O%INon- PPO: 7œ6 obtained through a licensed Qimited to (Umit; 100 vlsits/year) Home Health Agency; 3 two hour visits) (custodial care not covered) '" .' ',' Page 3 . _.- 1:::Cå.liforniåcàrÉ!, i 1::,:i,:i.€~~'::~P:t:'¡.:§:~:ç~i¡'ç;1::¡.:j:.¡..:.:..¡:I I SkilledO-Nursil1g:::::,:::.)::\j Services provided In a licensed No charge 100'!6 skilled nursing facility when (up to 100 daysly881) (Umit 365 days/year) medically necessary; custodial care not covered ITh~r¡¡RY'::::::""":'::':':"';':':':;:.::::'O":':":::::;::....:::.:::':::...::.:::.:.:..I PPO:~-PPO:7~ Speech -- Only covered if due No charge $25 max benefitMsit to surgery. injury or disease (short-term/SO day max per injury or illness) Physical Same as above PPO: 9O%fNon-PPO: 7~ I :';, '-,/,::',:,: ',',-:,:,,:,- '. :' "'::':::':::::':""- ""::::.",::.:.::::::::,::,:,::.:.:.,,,.:::::::: C hlro p fa Ctl C::::::::{::::::::::ii:::::/::::= Not covered PPO: 9O%fNon- PPO: 7~ $SO max benefitMsit $750/year max 10"""'""b'I"':::::':' , 'd":-':':-:':'::'I"'::,e':::"::'::"""-':-- ",' ::':':::::':::'::>:':":":::'::':::'::::'::;::::....::.::'-::':';:":'::::':::::::::::::':::::::':':""1 ura ,e);:Me Ica) ~ment::?\{::::,:::..,:::::::::::::\:::::~ No charge 80% $2,000 max per year I '" , ..", I ,...... .......' .. , . ".... .....- .. ...., ..... .... . ........,..,..".. '",.. , '......... ......... ... . ........... .... ...... .Other:::\:;;::::::::.:::::::::\::::::";'::::{::::::/::)-:-:- Acupuncture Not covered 80% up to S5OO/ye81 Biofeedback Not Covered Subject to review Unreplaced Blood and Blood Products No charge 80% Health Education Clsaaes Offered byMedicai Group Not covered at no or little charge Hospice Not covered 80%, $5,000 lifetime max Organ and TIssue .Transplant No charge Same as e.ny other expense Supplemental Accident N/A 100'!6 up to $300 (no deductible) I p re..Existing'.(:;Öñditiëjri~ None Treatment 3 months before coverage will not be covered until the member has been covered for 6 consecutive months ---0000000--- These charts are informational only, please consult your benefit booklets/brochures for specific details. - ~" "', ~-"'" ". CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Page 4 1996 Medical Benefits Mental Health/Substance Abuse Benefits By: Psychology Systems Inc. Note: You must contact PSI at 800-998-8448 for pre-approval of treatment In cases of emergency, you must contact PSI within 72 hours See PSI brochure 1.:::.:....'::CalifÓrniaÇãrêo:.:::.::::':.AND::.:~..;;.:F.:eê~F()r$.çm~~;!::;;i{~.:::m.,:: '~,'I for further details """'~""'~""""'~"""""f .......~."'.........'... :;;::;;:::::U::::I::N ÕÔ:::;:':.P:i:efê'fre:(tw}:;:!:::::::. :.::.:.:.,.:.,.,.:.:.:.:.:.,.::,.:::::: """.'.'::.'.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.,-:;..:.:.::.:.:.::-:.- i.~Î91~"ìZ¡~~' ':'::i!:;:.:::¡,:::,':;;':::::::'g;{~ÿi~';:,:;:~~;:O:~[jl~'¡:':i-¡::::i:'::": .lif ètim e:::'M ~xi mUm.:;:::!:::;:;::.':::;::::;::::::::': $100,000. $50.000. IAn nÛâl.iM Eûcil11û.rh':::::",':'::';:::':::;:::¡:¡::::'::: 2 courses of One course of treatment" treatment" II nstitÜtionaï:..Dêdù cfiÞJg:.:foi;::,.þUtpå'ie nt:::.::::::.::::::::::;..;'.:.::::::;:::;::.::?::! Acute None $150/day Day Treatment None $100/day Structured Outpatient Program None $6OO/program [§ .. ~ .... ".+" """""'1 Inpatient..:.::::.::::::;.:::.::.::::::,!:;:::!:::::):.;:!::;:::.¡;:;:;:!.;:.:;:::::;:!;::::::::!;;:!:.:... Psychiatric Service 1 ()()' 6 1 00'J6 Psychiatric Facility 1 ()()' 6 up to 30 100'J6 up to 30 days/year days/y881 Detox and Rehab 1 ()()' 6 up 10 5 100'J6 up to 5 days/year days/year Detox Only 1 ()()' 6 1 00'J6 Residential Treatment 100'J6 up 10 45 days 1 ()()' 6 up to 4S d ays s chiatric or substance abuse .. . -. ......... 0 t --'-':""'ti .. 1':':':':'::':'-':':"":':'::"':':':':':':':':':"':.'::':'.'.':'.':':':':':':':'.'::':'.':':'.' .............................. .................. U P Cl e n:f:}:;:::::¡'ffiIIi}::/iii:Im::}}:{:}};: Co-pays Co - pays Outpatient Psychotherapy 1-20 visits: $10.00 1- 20 visits: $60.00 21-30 visits: $20.00 21-30 visits: $70.00 up to 50 visits/year up to 50 vlsits/year Day Treatment Center 1 ()()' 6 up 10 60 100'J6 up to 60 days/yeer days/year days/yeer days/year Structured Outpatient Treatment 1 00'J6 up to 6 months 1 ()()' 6 up to 6 months . Preferred Panel provider. Ufetime maximum: 30 courses of treatment . Non- Preferred Panel Provider. Ufetime maximum: 30 courses of treatment .. Maximum annual treatment is 30 acute days in a psychiatric or substance abuse treatment facility. 1.5 Residential days equals 1.0 acute care day. 2.0 Day Treatment days equals 1.0 acute day. 4.0 structured outpatient sessions equals 1.0 acute care dæ¡. Psychiatric services are limited to one service daily. (GR:COMPCHART.L) . .--, -- .. '" );. - I c, . I MEMORANDUM I April 8, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ FROM: Gene Bogart, Water Resources M nager SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION - VALLEY COMMUNITIES, INC. (1-5 Disposal Site) Attached please find a "NOTICE OF VIOLA TION" directed to Valley Communities, Inc. dated April 4, 1996 for non-compliance of Wastewater Reclamation Requirement Order No. 88-172 issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The violation notice says V.C.I. violated or threatens to violate Order No. 88-172 by allowing effluent from the City of Bakersfield to runoff into Section 12 of T31S,R25E, MDB&M. This is the same undeveloped property that V.C.!. has in dispute under the Endangered Species Act with both the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Based on this new information, it is recommended that we put an immediate hold on any release of funds to V.C.!., either for reimbursement from trust funds or payments that would otherwise be made for water delivered during the first quarter of 1996. This would result in an immediate withholding of $142,000 ($90,000 mitigation settlement and approximately $52,000 in water delivery fees) until V.C.!. brings the 1-5 disposal site back into conformance with the Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. GB:sr Attachment cc: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Judy Skousen, City Attorney I ,'. ," k' .. . - ~ATE OF CALIFORNIA. Environmental Protection Agency PETE WILSON. Governor ~. .. .CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD CENTRAL VALLEY REGION 4ft.'~\ 3614 East Ashlan Ave. {'Zf!i".- --: . \ Fresno. CA 93726 :'II~. Ii' PHONE: (209) 445-5116 rö) ~ ~ ~ ~ o/J ~ r¡y \~ '\; . ,. ~, FAX: (209) 445-5910 U\\ I..!::V"'~ APR 0 8 1996 4 April 1996 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES Mr. Randall Abbott Valley Communities, Inc. 531 California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93304 NOTICE OF VIOLATION - VALLEY COMMUNITIES, INC., 1-5 LAND APPLICATION SITE, KERN COUNTY Board staff recently inspected the Valley Communities, Inc., wastewater reclamation site near 1-5 and Taft Highway, A copy of the inspection report is enclosed. Based on the results of the inspection, VCI violated, or threatens to violate, Specification B.2. of Wastewater Reclamation Requirements Order No. 88-172 (WRRs) by allowing effluent from the City of Bakersfield to runoff into Section 12, T31S, R25E, MDB&M, an uncultivated area of the site. The failure to properly manage wastewater appears to have been exacerbated by the lack of storage capacity to adequately store effluent during wet weather. As you recall, we questioned the size and construction of your effluent storage reservoir in June 1994. In response, you submitted an irrigation management plan, dated 20 July 1994, which purported the site was capable of fully utilizing reclaimed water year- round. The irrigation management plan is technically deficient, in that it failed to account for and consider seasonal precipitation. You are, therefore, requested to provide, by 1 July 1996, a work plan to increase your on-site storage capacity, and/or an irrigation management plan to ensure that future violations do not occur. An acceptable irrigation management plan should take into consideration possible rainfall from a l00-year, 24 hour storm event, and describe the controls used to assure compliance with Specification B.2. of the WRRs in the event of heavy precipitation. An acceptable work plan for sizing your storage reservoir should be stamped by a registered civil engineer or engineering geologist and contain sufficient detail for us to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed work. On another matter, a review of our records show that you failed to submit monthly self-monitoring reports for October 1995 through February 1996, as required by Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 88-172. Failure to submit complete reports is a violation of Provision c.2. of your WRRs and Section 13268 (a) of the California Water Code. Water Code §13268 (b)(l) provides for civil liability of up to $1,000 per day for each day we have not received a required report. By 15 April 1996, please provide the overdue reports, along with a description of steps taken to assure that future reports are submitted on a timely basis. " " . . . I Me. Randall Abbott -2- 4 April 1996 I .,' t ~ For questions regarding this letter or the enclosed inspection report, please contact Kevin Long at (209) 445-6187. ~ ~ ~::Ø::: LONNIE M. W ASS Senior Engineer RCE No. 38917 KDL: Enclosure cc:h. Joe Turner, Wastewater Superintendent, City of Bakersfield -- - -- -- - - ~--- --- -- -- ----- - - _._- -----.- pFFICi NO: 5F - FACiliTIES INSPECTION REPORT SWRCB 001 (REV.5-t1) I!"ISPECTOP' KnI . . PCA System Task No. 12101 50152105ðð1 VAil FY COMMIINITIE~ INC 1.5 EFFLUFNT DI~PO~AI SITE WDS NUMBER NAME OF AGENCY OR PARTY RESPONSILE FOR DISCHARGE NAME OF FACILITY 531 California AvP.nllA 1.5 & TAFT HWY NPDES NUMBER AGENCY STREET FACILITY STREET 9601 R2 Rakp~fip..ld CA . 933n4 Rakp~fipld, CA (YY) (MM) (TYPE) AGENCY CI1Y AND STATE FACILITY CITY AND STATE SCHEDULED INSPECTION DATA RANOY ARROTT, Vit"..P. Pn:!!'IidP.nt 1 OlliE TORRFS, Sill'. ForP.man AGENCY CONTACT PERSON ONSITE FACILITY CONTACT PERSON 960228 (YYMMDD) (805) 631.8967 (805) 392-5925 ACTUAL INSPECTION DATE AGENCY PHONE NO. FACILITY PHONE NO. S Inspection agency (State = S, State I EPA Joint = J) If this inspection is a Compliance Inspection of an NPDES facility, send a copy of this report to SWRCB's Division of Water Quality, Program Support Unit. INSPECTION TYPE (Check One) A1- "A" type compliance - Comprehensive inspection in which samples are taken. (EPA Type S) B2 -!- "B" type compliance - A routine nonsampling inspection. (EPA type C) 02- Noncompliance follow-up - Inspection made to verify correction of a previously identified violation. 03- Enforcement follow-up - Inspection made to verify that conditions of an enforcement action are being met. 04- Complaint - Inspection made in response to a complaint. 05 --- Pre-requirement - Inspection made to gather info. relative to preparing, modifying, or rescinding requirements. 06- Miscellaneous - Any inspection type not mentioned above. If this is an EPA inspection not mentioned above, please note type. (e.g. - biomonitoring, performance audit, diagnostic, etc.) (Type) y Were VIOLATIONS noted during this inspection? (Yes/No/Pending Sample Results) - N Was this a Quality Assurance-Based Inspection? (Y/N) - N Were bioassay samples taken? (N = No) If YES, then S = Static or F = Flowthrough. - INSPECTION SUMMARY (REQUIREDU100 character limit) USER VIOLATES WRRS FOR ALLOWING EFFLUENT TO DISCHARGE TO NON-FARMED AREAS & FOR NOT SUBMITTING SMRS. INSPECTOR'S DATA: INITIALS KDL SIGNATURE /4~~ f) toy DATE 3/29/96 . . For Inlemel U.., Rev;"'" b'~ (2) (3) WDS Data Entry Date: Reg. WDS Coordinator Regional Board File Number: ,J -' FACILITIES INSPECTION . . , REPORT " I I SWRCB 001 (REV, t-M) I . ,. (~.21 .. VIOLATION (IF APPLICABLE) VIOLATION TYPE? (A-G) -E- (See pages IKOS.O and IKOS.1 of the Micro Waste Discharger System Users Manual) DATE OF VIOLATION (YYMMDD): 96 02 28 DATE OF VIOLATION DETERMINATION (YYMMDD): 96 02 28 DESCRIPTION (200 CHARACTER LIMIT): USER VIOLATES SPECIFICATION B.2. AND PROVISION C.2. OF WRRS ORDER NO. 88...172. EPA SUGGESTED INSPECTION CHECKLIST (S= Satisfactory, M= Marginal, U= Unsatisfactory, N= Not Evaluated) -8- Pennit ..N.- Flow Measurement .tL Pretreatment -L Operations & Maintenance ..U- Record/Reports ..N.- laboratories .tL Compliance Schedules -H- Sludge Disposal -8- Facility Site Review lL Eff./Recelving Waters !L Self-Monitoring Other - ~Overall Facility Operation Evaluation (5= Very reliable, 3= Satisfactory, 1= Unreliable) HISTORICAL INFORMATION: MOST RECENT ORDERS: MOST RECENT INSPECTIONS: MOST RECENT VIOLATIONS: Q.BQ.EB HQ. QAIE ADOPTED :rœE J2AIE Jtjaf.:rœE VIOLATIONS? W2L. IXf.E QAIE 94-366 941209 REC 941221 81 N 88-172 8809 23 REC 85-139 , 85 05 31 REC ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS, ITEMS FOR FOLLOWUP ON FUTURE INSPECTIONS, NOTES, ETC. (Atta~h additional pages, if necessary) On 28 February 1996, I visited the Valley Communities, Inc. (VCI) wastewater reclamation site to ascertain compliance with Wastewater Reclamation Requirements Order No. 88-172 (WRRs). I was accompanied by Louie Torres, vcrs foreman and on-site field manager. VCI receives up to 9 mgd of treated effluent from the City of Bakersfield Wastewater Treatment Plant No.3, and reclaims it by irrigation on about 4000 acres of farm land. Because of problems VCI experienced in 1994 in managing its wastewater, the Board adopted Special Order No. 94-366 which amended WRR's Order No. 88-172 by requiring that VCI observe setbacks from the Alajandro Canal when using or storing reclaimed effluent. The Board also requested, in June 1994, that VCI submit a work plan for sizing and constructing an effluent storage reservoir to store excess wintertime effluent for summertime irrigation use. In July 1994, VCI submitted an irrigation management plan which demonstrated that, given the irrigation demand of its winter fiber and grain crops, as well as constructed improvements in the water distribution system, vcrs existing storage reservoir was already sized large enough to meet its winter storage needs and properly manage its wastewater year-round. The inigation management plan did ~ . ~'-" " FACILITIES INSPECTION . . . , r REPORT ~" . SWRCB 001 (REV. t-14' (page 31 not account for precipitation (there was significant precipitation just prior to my inspection). With vcrs assurances that it would properly manage its wastewater in the future, the Board informed VCI, in September 1994, that no further action on the request for a work plan would be necessary. When I visited the reclamation area I observed that vcrs 90-million gallon storage reservoir was full, despite the fact that the inspection occurred only about half-way through the rainy season, and that VCI was having difficulty managing all the wastewater coming from the City. For example, VCI was having to flood-irrigate Section 1, T31 S, R25E, MDB&M, in addition to the alfalfa, hay, grain and pasture in Sections 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, and 18, T31S, R26E. Section 1 has not been laser-leveled or developed for flood irrigation, and consequently water collects in shallow swales in some areas, and runs off from the higher spots. Because Section 1 has not been fully developed, there are no tail water recovery systems in place to prevent wastewater from moving into, and flooding, Section 12, T31 S, R25E. Although it's covered under the WRRs, Section 12 is an undeveloped, virgin wildlife habitat area which has not been farmed and is currently not suitable for reclamation/reuse by flood irrigation. Consequently, the Discharger was observed to have violated Specification B.2. of the WRRs. Specification B.2. states that "Use of reclaimed water shall be limited to irrigation of orchards, vineyards, and fodder, fiber, and seed crops." Another example of the difficulty VCI was having managing the wastewater was demonstrated by its flooding of checks in Section 6, T31 S, R26E. Most or all of the 280' wide, 3000' long checks in this section had from 6 inches to two feet of water in them, and it appeared that VCI was just trying to dispose of excess water by percolation/evaporation. When I discussed this concern with Mr. Randy Abbott, Vice President of VCI, he indicated that VCI was flooding the section in order to leach salts from the soil. However normal salt-leaching practices do not require two feet of water to accomplish this, and the application of water for salt-leaching purposes appeared to be excessive. The City of Bakersfield owns storage reservoirs with at least one month of storage capaCity. These reservoirs are available for vcrs use as the need arises. It was unclear from my discussion with Mr. Abbott why VCI did not avail itself of this water management resource before problems arose at the site, although I suspect the reasons were probably financial. Under City Agreement No. 85-142, the City is obligated to pay VCI $27 per acre-ft (about $500 per day @ 6 mgd average flow) for water delivered to the site and used for reclamation. Other examples of problems VCI was experiencing in managing effluent and stormwater runoff on-site are documented by video tape and photographs taken during the inspection. MONITORING REPORT REVIEW A review of monitoring reports submitted by VCI indicates that the last monthly report was submitted on 27 October 1995. The User is currently five months overdue in submitting its reports. The failure to submit the required monthly reports is a violation of Provision c.2. of the WRRs and Section 13268 of the California Water Code. . - - .. ,'ii. 11 --~~. ""- " / ':¡', 'i . VALLEY COMMUNITIES, INC. 531 California Avenue Bakersfield. California 93304 (805) 327-7912 ~ ~cmßwm [Q) April 8, 1996 APR 1 0 1996 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Mr. Gene Bogart WATER RESOURCES Manager Department of Water Resources City of Bakersfield 1000 Buena vista Road Bakersfield, Ca. 93311 RE: valley Communities, Inc. Notice of Violation, CRWQCB Dear Mr. Bogart: The enclosed California Regional Water Quality Control Board Notice of Violation (NOV) was received at my office on Monday, April 8, 1996. A copy of the NOV is being provided to you pursuant to the requirements of Amended Agreement No. 90-78. The subject notice came as a surprise to me as we were told by CRWQCB staff, after completion of the February 28, 1996 site inspection, that the temporary problem created by excess rainwater run-off did not constitute a violation of the Wastewater Reclamation Order. In any event, we are prepared to comply with the requirements of the NOV and address all issues in a timely manner. Moremrer, I quarterly reports for October through February will be provided to Board staff by Friday, April 12, 1996. Administrative changes have been made to our internal reporting procedures that will provide for all future reports on a timely basis. It is my intent to provide the requested "work plan" by July 1, 1996 as required by the NOV. However, I believe it is in the best interests of both VCI and the City of Bakersfield to draft a "work plan" that meets both the short term, and long term needs of both VCI and the City of Bakersfield. Therefore, I recommend that VCI - draft a.preliminary "work plan" addressing the effluent disposal capacity of the entire VCI ranch, provide the ,draft plan to the City ~or review and comment, meet with City staff, and provide,a mJ,ltyally agreéd upon final "work plan" to the CRWQCB. \ ~~~{ ~ ~"."~..-"_'r~ ; ~ ;Ii ; As you know, VCI has been prevented from utilizing the full capacity of the effluent disposal ranch due to the land use restrictions caused by the actions of the U. S. Fish & wildlife Service. However, a "Settlement Agreement" has just recently been signed by all parties that will make the entire ranch available for increased effluent disposal capacity. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. If you have questions, please call me, or Mr. Abbott, at any time. Sincerely (' . c- ;;;::;8 ~ 'TR~G'RO . President cc: Randall Abbott Colleen Marley Kevin Long ."'-' ., I - /;{ . - B A K E R S F I E L 0 Alan Tandy. City Manager April 10, 1996 Mr. Jack Caldwell Fruitvale Properties P.O. Box 3006 Newport Beach, CA 92659-0530 RE: Riverlakes Ranch Dear Mr. Caldwell: The purpose of this letter is to put forward a positive proposal that allows Riverlakes to move forward as quickly as. reasonably possible. This follows up and formalizes the verbal suggestions I have made to you at our last two meetings. The basic problems for Riverlakes at this point in time would appear to be as follows: 1 ) You have maps expiring and you don't agree with the conditions required to extend those maps. Such conditions predominately revolve around the issue of transportation impact fees. We have reason to believe that any action the City might take at this point in time to afford you a program without mitigation of transportation impact fees or otherwise will be subject to a CEQA challenge. We do not believe we could prevail in such a challenge. 2) You wish to have the development agreement extended and to pay no traffic development fees. The bankruptcy court has ordered us to repay the last $200,000 paid on the development agreement, because such agreement was not assumed as a part of proceedings in bankruptcy court, and, therefore, it no longer (in the opinion of the court) exists. You disagree with the bankruptcy court and seemingly wish us to ignore, defy, or appeal their order. We do not believe such an action is likely to prevail and, in any event, not in a reasonable time frame. City of Bakersfield. City Manager's Office. 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. California. 93301 .<- -¡; Jack Caldwell April 10, 1996 Page 2 3) You admit that you cannot comply with the Specific Plan and General Plan on items such as the golf course and lakes, among others, and that you have an alternative vision on how to best develop Riverlakes. These plans can only be amended through the appropriate planning processes and hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. We have told you that neither we, nor the NOR Parks District, can preapprove such changes. Your ability to process such changes will be dependent on how well you work with the neighborhood in the General Plan and Specific Plan amendment processes, and, in the end, whether your revision proposals satisfy the City Council. It is impossible, and not legal, to bypass this process. 4) We both agree, I believe, that traffic problems in and around Riverlakes are not currently being addressed quickly enough. Due to an absence of available funds, even if we could overcome legal challenges and the bankruptcy court, the City does not have available revenue adequate to install such improvements in a timely manner. Given these issues, our positive proposal follows and is, of course, subject to City Council approval. 1 ) Agree that Riverlakes will be developed under the same standards and conditions as are prevalent throughout the City. For parcels that did not have final map approval as of the date of the bankruptcy, it does mean transportation impact fees would be paid. 2) Work with us, NOR, and area residents to structure General and Specific Plan amendments which would substitute reasonable amenities in lieu of the golf course, lakes and other infeasible "extraordinary amenities". You must get through the public hearing processes for an eventual City Council decision on the appropriateness of these changes. We agree to work with you in good faith to attempt to bring successful resolution. The practical decision will, in all likelihood, be based on your ability to satisfy interested property owners on the suitability of your proposal. If you listen and work with them, you can succeed! 3) The soon to be updated revisions to the transportation impact fee ordinance can be amended to include arterial and collector links in Riverlakes which afford you over $1.8 million in credits that reduce the fees. We do not believe your analysis of the cost of accepting community standards has included this offset. An analysis in table form is enclosed. . s I Jack Caldwell April 1O, 1996 Page 3 4) We will offer to have fees paid from within Riverlakes go back into projects in Riverlakes, and we will work with you on the prioritization of those improvements to better match the pace of development in the area. We believe it can address the concerns over timeliness of the pace of construction of needed improvements. 5) We agree to work out reimbursement agreements for those arterial street segments, where, due to the pace of construction, you must install improvements when the "opposite side" of the street is not ready to develop. This, for streets, would also be unique to Riverlakes. 6) Since the development agreement is no longer in place, the $275,000 would no longer be due. Summary This proposal contains no costly or lengthy legal delays. It allows for development to occur under the same conditions as exist everywhere else in the City. It affords the opportunity for an amendment to the transportation impact fee ordinance which can give Riverlakes $1.8 million in offsets to fees paid, and it accelerates the pace of doing needed street improvements. It also sets in motion a cooperative "best efforts" program to approach a General Plan amendment and the amenities. In short, we believe it is an offer you shouldn't refuse. Sincerely, ,//' '1 :, -" , ;; / /~ ,;/ -r/~L- / ~ :AÎan Tandy / City Manager ,I AT: rs cc: Judy Skousen, City Attorney ~ ." ~ w ~ w j ~ ~ ~ CD a:£r "" Z "8 0 NO" Õ a: a: E E E ~ a.a.", """ ~ COg g8' 8 ~~c CQ f/)I- ~ c( c( -c "C-c ~I~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ -.s: ""ä ~~ 0;: 8_- 22 Z W W 0 ~ ~ ~ a:u-u-Q CQ ~~~~~~"5~.5.5~ ~~!3t-~~~!3~~!3 mOOwzz",O"""O c:a:a:w-ëë Sa: 5 Sa: 0 a. a. Z ~ :E .~ a. "~ "'" a. .200Sww~0~~0 .- t- t- N a: a: ¡¡¿ t- ¡¡¿ ¡¡¿ t- !8888888888 0 Uc(c(c(c(c(-c(--c( N 0000000000000 O~ 00000000000 0 ~ 000000000000 02 ~_°ìñ°~~oooooooo ~~ mu o~~oooooooo Nm ~~~o~~ooooooo~o ~~ ~u~~~~~mmNNNNN ~~ W a. ::.:.'<I'tf'ttf'ttf'ttf't.....~~.....~ N~ C ~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~E <ß tf'to ~ ~ ~ > ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~øggggggggggg ~ 0 U .~ ~ goo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ Zw ~ ~'~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~..J ~ IXm 000000000000 ~~ ø~ o~oooooooooo ø= u 000000000000 ~E w~ m-oo~~ooooooog (Dm ~..J ~f/)00~~0000000,~, - <C Q. 0 °Llio~~oOOOOOON W ~ ..J^ ~O'<l'~~~mmNNNNNW w~ .... !2'<1'tf'ttf'ttf'ttf't.....~..........~~ ~c: 0::« ~tf't tf'ttf'ttf'ttf'ttf'tN Oïñ wø ~ ~~ ~ 0 o£ 0::- 00000000000 o~ .... _00000000000 ~f/) IX~ ~ooooooooooo o~ 00 uggggggggggg ~~ ~Z =~~~~0000000 ~.~ 1-« ~"""""~""'NNNNNNN z= I- ~~NNN""""""""""~~~ ::J'~ ëø ~tf'ttf'ttf'ttf'ttf'ttf'ttf'ttf'ttf'ttf't Of/) ~.... ~~~~ ~~ ""'" Z ;;;::"_._"- ...... Ow =..:;~~~ --.J.. ~ 5~~~~ ~~ We ææææ~~~~~~~ 00 æ~ --.J--.J--.J--.Jwwwwwww ~z <C..J ":>~N~~~~~~~~~ ..J W :Èí NN~~ - > c: 0000 <cw g¡ ~ 0 a IX f/)N'<I'~~ W "~ 0 ~æ Z --.J :::J .c-~~~~ g"";ONN c: 00 ~ --.J .~ ~~w ~.!!! -¡:: ~ 0 c: t:~:t:o 0 0 .- 0 ~ +> zo:::u~ m g c_~- c:- --.JEm1íj.::¿"cõ m¡g oE~..!]!~f/)f/) Em Lt I ~ g Qj g "E "E ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m m "~ moo = = = m ~ :r:Oo:::ozZOOO:r:~ ~Q)mm m------Q) =ci"¡:;;"¡:;; .¡:;;mmmmmmg ¡¡J .> ~ ~ Q) ~ ::; ::; ::; ::; C:-C LL ~ -e -e 1::.~ .~.~"~.~ .~"¡:;; ~~ ~(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(/)(D ~Q)ð~ c: ~ N = E [j "¡:;; ~ [j ~ .::¿ [j! ~ g;! ¡¡Jm~O E~~~..!]!~~~--.J ~ LLZOQ) 90~0~~00~ ~ m~ m~~~~~~~offi 00 :r:oooo:::ooo~ ~ a: .. .. . -'. o. , ..' . :" _. . -' ~ ~:"....:,,;.r.i~~'Y.:.~. -~~"'f\ \ ':7 ~~ if¡ April 9, 1996 ~ ~~ '-¥ )'J For more info,.",ation: lJtnJid L)1f7IQn ~- City of Ba/cersfle/d tv ,;.¡--/ 801 326 3765 /2.-1'~ -- 0----- Unification bill passes first hearing SB2023 (Costa) passed its first legislative hearing today when the Senate 'Governmental Operations Committee approved the bill on an 8-0 vote. Voting in favor oCthe bill were Senators Dills (chair), Maddy (vice-chair). Alquist, Beverly. Greene, Hughe~ Lewis. and Rosenthal. Absent were Senators Calderon, Mello) and Thompson. At the hearing. the bill's author) Senator Iim Costa (D-Fresno» presented an overview of ' the benefits ofunitication. Additional witnesses were David Lyman (BakersfieJd). Leslie Mcfadden (Los Angeles). and Roxanne Miller (San Jose). No one spoke in opposition to ~~ The next step for SB2023 will be the Senate Appropriations. Committee. ! r- RECEIVED- I \ ;\PR \ I \996 J ~ ~ CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE L...~~ \ :-'" " ~ I "k . - B A K E R 5 F I E L 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301 (805) 326.3724 April 12, 1996 RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR. CITY ENGINEER Lamppost Pizza 2104 North Chester Avenue Bakersfield. CA Attn: Olen W. Arnold Re: Regional Traffic Impact Fee Gentlemen: We have reviewed your letter of March 12, 1996, regarding the Regional Traffic Impact Fee for a retail facility located at the comer of Gosford Road and McNair Court. You evidently received an estimate of fees for this project tiom the Building Department on September 13, 1995. This estimate shows the Public Works Department fees (traffic and sewer) at $64,806.24. It is not clear how many plumbing fixture units or what traffic generation factors were used by the Building Department for calculating this estimate. We have contacted them and they have no records of how the estimate was detennined. Therefore, the following presents a new estimate for the Regional Traffic Impact Fees for this project Your letter identifies the project as a retail facility having an area of 9200 square feet. As you represent Lamppost Pizza, it is assumed that the entire project will contain a pizza type eating establishment. which is classified as a "high turnover (sit- down)" type of restaurant facility (turnover ofless than an hour). As shown on the attached Chart A, this type offacility is listed as generating 205 average daily trips (ADT) per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This traffic generation value is taken from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, and is based upon compilation of previous traffic studies perfonned for this type of use. The fee per trip (Chart B) for a retail commercial facility having an area under 10,000 square feet is $39.00. The calculation follows: 9200 Sq. Ft. x 205 ADT x $39.00 = $73,554.00 1,000 Sq.Ft. ADT As previously stated, this calculation assumes that the entire building will be a pizza type eating establishment As shown on Chart A, this type of use is one of the higher traffic generators. If a portion of the building has a different use, then the traffic generation and resulting fee could be significantly lower depending upon the use and the corresponding square footage of that use. If you believe the amount of traffic generation calculated for detennination of this fee is higher than what actually exists with similar facilities you operate, then additional data and infonnation could be presented to City staff to support the use 'of a lower traffic generation value for this building. Niagara Car Wash recently did this type of submittal when they contested the traffic generàtion projected for a new car wash facility they were proposing. Their submittal consisted of their certified accounting records which indicated the number of car washes, employees, etc. at their existing facilities. Based on this submittal, a revised lower traffic generation value was detennined for their new facility. The sewer fees would be additional and would be dependent upon the amount of plumbing fixture W1Ìts shown on the plans tor the building. We would be happy to provide you with an estimate of the sewer fees if you could provide us a plumbing plan for the proposed facility. The Regional Traffic Impact Fee has been in effect since June of 1992. The Bakersfield City Council and the Kern County Board of Supervisors both have found that payment of the Regional Traffic Impact Fee mitigates the impacts to the regional traffic circulation system, within the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan area, caused by a specific r' ',; Lamppost Pizza - Reg. Trans. Impact Fee Page 2 . project. Otherwise, to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, regional traffic impact studies would have to be perfonned by all prospective project applicants to detennine their project's traffic impacts to the regional transportation system. and then the applicant would have to mitigation these impacts. As you state in your letter, the City and COWlty are cUITently in the process of proposing revisions to this fee. The revisions are being proposed to accomplish two primary goals: 1. Allow elimination of many localized traffic studies that are required to be perfonned for various types of projects (residential subdivisions, parceling of large commercial projects, etc.). 2. Include in the fee payment for a portion of the construction costs of major (i.e. arterial) streets required to complete the "regional transportation network." This would then allow those properties ftonting these major streets to receive a credit towards their fee when they construct these major streets. It would also require those properties that do not ftont the major street to help share in the cost of constructing the street through payment of their fee. We Wlderstand and share your concern about the continuing high costs associated with developing property. However we must also be concerned about the transportation network needed to provide adequate circulation for the movement of people and goods throughout the metropolitan area. The CUITent fee only provides for the partial funding of "big-tic1œt" improvement items such as bridges over the Kern River, traffic signals, and the purchase of right-of-way for future fteeways. As stated above, the proposed revision would include some "major" street construction to the list. You should also Wlderstand that the collected fees are being used for projects mny. The Calloway Bridge over the Kern River is a cUITent project being constructed with these fees. The widening of five bridges over the Arvin Edison Canal is another project that is using these funds and which will be bidding during May. These proposed modifications to the Regional Traffic Impact Fee were developed over the past year by a committee consisting of City staff, COWlty staff, Building Industry Association, Board of Realtors, and other representatives of the commWlÌty. The intent was to have the committee consist of members representing a cross-section of parties and industries affected by the fee and any proposed modifications. An infonnal request was circulated for interested parties to take part in these discussions. We are sorry you were evidently not a part of these initial discussions. However, we encourage your input at the upcoming public hearings for the proposed modifications to the fee. Prior to the public hearings, City staff would be pleased to meet with you and more throughly explain and discuss the proposed modifications. A public hearing regarding the fee was already held before the Planning Commission on April 4, 1996. Another public hearing is scheduled for the City CoWlcil on April 17, 1996. The Board of Supervisors is currently scheduled to have a public hearing on this item at their May 20, 1996 meeting. Should you have any questions, need further infonnation or wish to arrange a meeting with staff, please contact Marian Shaw of this Department at 326-3724. Very Truly Yours, Raul M. Rojas Public Works Director By: d ~4¿~ ~ J "es R. LaRochelle ngineering Services Manager tdw:m:\LenenILAMPPOST.L T A J. -- "-' .. TO: Alan Tandy - City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas - Public Works Director DATE: AprilJ, 1996 S UBJE cr: Traffu: Impact Fee - Lamppost Piua - Council Refe"ai No. WFOO08216/ 001 ***************a*****..*..*....*...........a.a.a.aaa.aaaa.aa..a.a.a*.*.a_____._----....._...- A complaint was recently received by Councilperson DeMond (Ward 2) regarding the Regional Traffic Impact Fees estimated for a retail building located at the comer of McNair Court and Gosford Road (Ward 4). The complaint was sent by Mr. Olen W. Arnold, President ofLamppost Pizza (see attached letter). Evidently, Mr. Arnold received an -mnllt~ of fees for this project 1ÌOIJl the Building Department on September 13, 1995 which estimated Public Works Depanmcnt fees (traffic and sewer) at $64,806.24. It is not clear how many sewer fixture units or what traffic generation factors were used by the Building Department for calculating this estimate. We have contacted them and they have no records or explMlIdirœ for how the estimate was determined. Therefure, the following presents a new estimate for the Regional Traffic Impact Fees for this projc:ct. Mr. Arnold's I- 0 identifies the project as a retail facility having an area of 9200 square feet A:J Mr. Arnold represents Lamppost Pizza, it is assumed that the entire project will contain a pizza type eaùng establishment, which would be classified as a "high tI.JrDo\Ia' (sit-down)" type offacility (turnover ofless than an hour) which is listed (on attached Chart A) as gc:nc:rating 205 m:rage daily trips (AD1) per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. This traffic generation value is listed in the ITE Trip Galaation Manual. and is based upon compilation of previous traffic studies pertonned for this type of use. The fee per trip (Chart B) would be $39.00 for a square footage less than 10,000. The calculation follows: 9200 Sq. Ft. x 205 ADT x D2.QQ = $73,554.00 1,000 Sq.Ft. ADT This calculation assmnes that the ~ building will be a pizza type eating establishment As shown on Chart A, this type ofuse is one of the higher traffic generators. If a ponion of the building has a different usc, then the traffic a-atiœ aad resu1ùng fee could be significantly lower depending upon the use and the corresponding square footage oftbat use. If Mr. Arnold believes the amount of traffic generation calculated for determination of this fee is higher than actually exists with similar facilities he operates, then additional data and information could be presented to support the use of a di1fereat traffic generation value tOr this building. Niagara Car Wash recently did this type of submittal when they contested the 1raðic generation projected for a new car wash facility they were proposing. Their submittal consisted of their certified a~nttÎDg records which indicated the number of car washes, employees, etc. at their existing facilities, Based on this submittal, a revised traffic generation value was determined for their new tàcility. The sewer tees would be additional and would be dependent upon the amoWlt of plumbing fixture units shown on the plaos for the building. ---~--- ---- Revie", A 0 i g est 0 f L 0 c a lISt ate And Fed era I Act ¡vi tie s A f fee tin g 0 u r Pro per t y Rig h t s . COUNCIL VOTE REALTORS@' PUBLIC MEETINGS CANDIDATES IN AP~L: . RE S TR U C TURE S WIN LOCALLY Bak~;{f::d~ f;J:ncU ASS E S S ME NT S Political Survival w= =~ W.:m. Support Helps Pro- City Planning Property Rights Commission Hearings Approval of City Manager's Plan Ending. April 4th and 18th "Double Taxation" Begins with 96-97 Budget Candl~ates Win . 5:3°.y-m. . . . Property nghts supporters cel- City COunCi Chambers - - ~ Th~ CIty CoUl1cll vot~d March_~Q to r.e~tructw:.e the 'Yay m - ebr:aJ:!!<Las the electio.n reÍl!!llß- - - - - - .Kern.County .-. - - -, w~ch property own~rs 3!e assessed for park ~d landscape came in ITO!? local, state and Board of Supervisors . maIntenance, after hstenmg to a proposal by CIty Manager federal elections on March 26, Mondays at 2 p.m. Alan Tandy. The new method, which the Council voted 7-0 Most:allRl':ALTOR@-endorsed Tuesdays at 10 a.m, & 2 p.m. to prepare as part of the fiscal year 1996/97 budget, is thought candidates ill the greater Bakers- . to bring equity to the current, widely criticized way in which field area, won .the seats ~ey term, receiving 85 percent of assessments for maintenance districts are collected. ~ere seeking, w~th ~o making the vote, it to run off electlOns ill Novem- Currently, taxpayersmostlyinnewerEartsoftownmustpay ber. A~ th~ County le,:el, Fourth add.ti al rty t t th ' t f Distnct Supervisor Ken 1 on prope ax assessmen s or e mall enance 0 "We are very happy that these P tit d t th . k did' al d d' e erson was e ec e 0 a sec- elr par s, an extra an scapmg ong roa s an center candidates' penormed so well d £ t .th t d. Th .. f d dd' on our-year erm Wi ou a me lans. e maJonty 0 taxpayers are not assesse a 1- tonight", said James Vaughn, runoff by capturing 71 percent tional property taxes for maintenance costs, and live in areas President of the Bakersfield As- of the vote For the open First that have parks, but little street or median landscaping that sociation of REAL TORS@. District Se~t Bob Addison led must be maintained. "The clear message ITom local a crowded field of candidates d th 1 th C. 11 d . th b 1 1 f voters was that they want their with 30 percent of the vote For Un er enewp an, e ltyWl etermme e ase eve 0 taxes cut over zealous regula- th Fifth D' tri t 't AI . fì k k . dbh .dth' eopen Iscsea sery¡ces orP3! ~p eeprecel~e y °J?~ownersoutsl e e tory agencies controlled, and Gutierrez bested five compet- mamtenancedistncts, and proVlde that nnrumum.level through- an end to unnecessary govem- ing candidates by receiving 46 outtheCity, Areasthathave.1þ.eex~ralandscapmgwouldpay ment intrusion. into their most percent of the vote, Both assessments only for the additlOnallmprovements they enJoy. fundamental nghts". Addison and Gutierrez will face "Weare glad that a serious effort is being made to solve this In the City ofBakersfield,Mayor the second place candidates in very difficult problem", said James V aughn, President of the Bob Price was oveIWhelmingly a November run-off election. - Bakersfield Association of REAL TORS@. "Defming the re-elected to a second, four-year (Continued- Page 2) (Continued - Page 2) I~I VIRTUAL ACTIVISM '1J Government Sites on the World Wide Web U S. House of Representatives: http://www.house.gov/ Us. Senate: http://www.senate.gov/ .. I Federal Executive Branch: . ~~r~ I http://lcweb.loc.gov/gl 0 baV executive! executive.html ;, California State Assembly: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/ KERN REALTORS@ WIN CLEAN SWEEP California State Senate: http:www.sen.ca.gov/ A Summary Fro m The L G R Com m i t tee - "L 0 0 kin 9 Fro m T 0 day To Tom 0 r row" / ---= ----' ! / A Digest of Local, State and Federal Activities Affecting Our Pro-perty Rights (Assessments-C~ (Elections-Continued) HIGH SPEED KHSD TO RE... base ~evel of servIce to be For the 32nd D~strict State As- RAIL TO. DD ... '" 1997 99 provIded as part of a sembly seat bemg vacated by ~,.,. ... homeown~r's general prop- TriceH~ey, three-term County FO LLO W BOUNDARIES erty taxes IS key to tax eq- SupervIsor. Roy ~hb~ w~>n..¿-' . uity", he said. the Repubhcan nommation WIth ROUTE 99 Centennial Areas .. . a comfortable 57 percent of the . . C'fL Mt' t Oth It IS esTImated by the CIty vote. Ashburn is virtually as- State CommISSion ¡,JTll.J.lng 0 er Manager that as ~ res~t, sured electi<;>n in ~ovember ~o Eliminates I-5 As High Schools to prop~rtyownerswillreali~e repre~~ this heaVIly Repubh- Al' t 0 tie Ease Overcrowding a savmgs of $350,000 m can distrIct. Ignmen 'P on their annual mainten'!flce In contrast, freshman Assem- TheCaliforniaHighSpeedRail Projec~g th~t enrollment ~t assessments.. The savmg.s blymanBrian Setencichlost by a Commission has decided that CentennIal HI~ Sch?Ol WIll wouldnotgomtoefIectuntil marginof52-48percent. Seten- the state's fIrst "bullet" trains exceed capacIty dur~g ~e after the new budget is ap- cich was defeated for the Repub- will follow a route along High- ~ext schoo~ year, a redistnct- proved by the Council some- lican nomination by Robert way99. Commissioners cited m~ conumttee .r°~ the Kern time this summer. Prenter, an unknown challenger their belief that the 99 route HIgh School DIStnCt appears Th C' b . who spent heavily on medi~ in would be the most conducive headed toward drawing new, ~ Ity e~~ creatmg the fmal weeks of the campaign. to use by travelers. more compact attendance maIntenance dist:n.cts to s~p- As no Democrat candidate filed boundaries for the school. port these addluonal"lm-- -fortheseat;Prenterwillbeunop----The-action-narrows-the-spe------ - -- -- - -- - prov~ments in 1 ~81. Since posed in the November election. cific alignment options to three Area parents upset ~th the that tIme, councIlmembers. within the "Highway 99 corri- plan protested at a public hear- have routinely criticized the Rep.. BIll Tho~~ won the Re- dor": the Santa Fe, the South- ingMarch21. Students~hose method and refer to it as publIcan no~ation for a lOth ern Pacific, and the rural Route homes are placed outside of "double taxation" a label term ~epreIDs~~g thfinie. 2hinl.st C~nth- 99 base alignment. The align- the Centennial attendance . . .' gresslOna IStnct s gWl th S b d. b th I uld WIth which CIty Manager 79 t f th ' t H. ment chosen to serve e an oun anes yep an wo . percen 0 e vo e. e IS " d th h I . I d Tandy agrees t d t. I t. t Joaqum Valley will eventually atten 0 er sc 00 s me u - . expec e 0 wm re-e ec Ion 0 .' h S kd I ... this safe Republican seat. connect to ~ndete~mmed mg N ort , . toe a e .or . .. routes that WIll semce Los Bakersfield High Schools m- The LGR Review With row: candl~ate.s m the 20th Angeles and the San Fran- stead. James E. Vaughn CongresslOnaIDlstnct,five-~nn cisco Bay Area. Association President, LGR State Assemblyman Tnce Under the proposed changes, Review Founder-Cartoonist Harvey becanle the Republican The Commission's now turns Centennial's current northern Polly I!-- Hamm nominee with 40 percent of the to working with local govern- and southern boundaries ExecutIVe Officer vote. Harvey with face Demo- ments on environmental im- would be drawn closer to the Karen E. Wass, t. b tC C I . LGR Committee Chair cra mc~ en ongressman a pact studies and permit acqw- school campus. Brian J. Todd Dooley m November. sition. . . Government RelationslEditor "These victories are a great illus- . .. The conumttee IS expected to - tration of what can be accom- Thermal ahgnmentopbon WIll develop a fmal plan and sub- Have an Idea? Se?d!ttoBrian plished when REALTORS@ be announced during work-mitittothe district's Board of Todd at the AssocIatIon office: make their $26 annualcontribu- shops to be held throughout Trustees for approval some- FAX (805) 635-2317 orE-Mali tion Political Survival. the Valley this fall. . time within the next 60 days. 103650.3677@compuserve.com ... ... ... . ... .1D1l~~,~!,~~. -- -.- --- -.. u~:l~!:E BAKERSFIELDASSOCIATIONOFREALTORS@, INC. Bakersfield, CA P.O. Box 9338 . Bakersfield. CA. 93389-9338 (805) 635-2300 IN THIS REVIEW: \ CounciltoEnd"DoubleTaxation" ...... 1 ( REALTORS@'CandidatesWin......... 1 Þ1 r. Ala~ T an~~ t Manage r Vi alA'. h I 1 Bakersf~eld ~ y Jrtu ctlVlsmont e ntemet........... ' tun Avenue HighSP.eedRailt~FollowRo~te99... 2 ~~~~r:~~:ld CA 93301 --~-þ ChangemCentenmalBoundanes........ 2 -~~~~~~~-~~~O~~~~.. ~---~=o~~ --