Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/96 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM July 12, 1996 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO~~ TO: FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER// SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. We are processing papers to call the performance bond on the Police Building contractor. How · much resistance we get from the contractor and bond company will determine the length of the delay. They are behind schedule - not paying subcontractors and generally failing to perform. We will proceed with correction as expeditiously as possible. 2. Attached is a copy of the County staff's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Citizens' Advisory Committee and the fire study. An unedited transcript of a portion of the July 9th Board of Supervisors meeting that dealt with the fire study and the issue of consolidation of services is also enclosed. You will see a notable difference between what was proposed and what was done. As of this writing, by the way, we have no written proposal of any kind from the County. 3. We recently did a more expanded survey of city physician practices in 10 designated cities and Kern County. The results and recommendations of the survey are enclosed. We believe that the survey, plus meetings we held with three physician groups this week, have given us the information we need to deal with the administrative issues of two physicians. A supplement to the RFP is going out. It clarifies how the dual physician system would be administered and asks for some additional information. We plan to have a recommendation on the two physicians ready for the first meeting in August. 4. Even though your goals aren't done, where you gave clear direction in your goals sessions, we are already starting work. White papers and studies on various "strategies" for downtown are included. 5. We took County Health Department officials on a tour of City owned property - we believe we can offer them a better site than the Federal building at favorable terms - up near NAPD and the KGET projects. 6. A status report on the conversion to automated refuse collection is enclosed. 7. Our latest correspondence to the group interested in purchasing the property at Akers Road for construction of a church is enclosed. Honorable Mayor and City Council July 12, 1996 Page 2 8. Our staff had another meeting with the County LEA regarding problems and concerns. The LEA has agreed to produce biweekly reports to summarize issues and recent actions. Our meeting report is enclosed. 9. Regarding the Expedited Remediation Plan, the letter to be sent to Panorama area residents from the DTSC to authorize them to collect soil samples is enclosed for your information, along with other materials provided by the DTSC. They are starting neighborhood meetings. 10. We have been informed of a lease/purchase housing program available through the California Rural Home Mortgage Authority which would allow qualified applicants to lease a home and acquire it at a future date by loan assumption. There would be numerous benefits from implementing this program locally. Detail is attached. 11. We have found that some motorists are moving the recently installed street barriers in the area of Eastbourne Way, Parsons Way, and 17th Street and then driving their cars through the blocked off'street. We're working to identify a barrier that will serve the purpose, yet still allow for quick public safety access. 12. Enclosed for your information is the CDDA budget for FY 1996-97. 13. To update you on the Coffee Road grade separation project, Sunland Refining Company, by directive of a court order issued today, must either remove their flare or shut down facilities to it so it can be safely removed by July 26th. Either way, we will have 100% of the right of way by August 8th for our contractor to proceed with the project. 14. An old legal battle between the North Kern and Kern-Delta water districts has been renewed and has escalated to where they are legally threatening our water rights. It is really a dispute between them - we are letting each party know we are unhappy and want out. More will develop on this. Costs just to defend have been estimated at up to $500,000. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, Acting City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst JOEL A. HEINRICHS scott JONES COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Assistant CounT Admimst~ative Officer WILLIAM C. DOUGLAS Employee Relations Officer KERN COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE july 9,1996 Board of Supervisors Kern County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD FIRE SERVICES STUDY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS In August 1994, your Board approved a joint City of Bakersfield/County fire services study to be performed for the metropolitan Bakersfield area, confined to that area designated as the Fire Services Joint Powers Agreement area, As a part of this agreement, a Citizens Advisory Committee was to be formed, composed of three members appointed by the Board of Supervisors and three members appointed by the City Council, The charge of the Citizens Advisory Committee was "to evaluate the recommendations contained within the report for implementation feasibility and prepare a report of the Committee's findings for the Board of Supervisors and the City Council." The report published in February 1996 by Tri-Data Corporation recommended consolidation of the two fire departments under the County Fire Department. Also recommended within the study was that if the consolidation of the two departments was not politically feasible, then a number of functional areas should still be addressed for consolidation, integration, and enhanced cooperation. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) began meeting in late February and concluded its work on June 28,1996. The majority of the CAC has voted to endorse the recommendations contained within the Study as shown on the attachment. IT IS RECOMMENDED that your Board hear the presentation from the Fire Study Citizens Advisory Committee, and receive and file the final report of the Committee. Sincerely,  Joel A. Hei~ffrfchs County Administrative Officer Attachment JAH/ACK/i:firecac/finrPt.bos cc: Members, Citizens Advisory Committee City of Bakersfield Kern County Fire Department 1115.Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 {805) 861-2371, FAX {805)325-3979 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD FIRE SERVICES STUDY CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT June 28, 1996 The Metropolitan Bakersfield Fire Services Study Citizens Advisory Committee endorses the recommendation contained within the Study that the Bakersfield Fire Department consolidate with the Kern County Fire Department. Support: Oppose: Les Clark Conni Brunni Louis Cox Ken Witte Steve Smoot Cathy Prout The Citizens Advisory Committee recommends that should consolidation not be approved by the governing bodies of the County and City, then the following actions are to be taken. 1. Consolidate the functions and management of the Emergency CommuniCation Center under one entity. Transfer City employees to County. 2. Consolidation of all training programs and functions under one entity and with one training officer. 3. Integrate the functions of fire prevention, fire safety education and arson investigations between the two entities. 4. City and County Hazardous materials response teams establish like protocols and train together frequently. 5. Develop standard operating procedures to be used for joint response incidents. 6. Develop a method to jointly plan for the purchase equipment to incur savings due to economies of scale. Support: Oppose: Les Clark Conni Bnmni Louis Cox Steve Smoot Cathy Prout Ken Witte ~I/NEDITED TRANSCRIPT OF A PORTION OF KERN COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING 7-9-96 LES CLARK GAVE THE MAJORITY REPORT OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD FIRE SERVICES STUDY, CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. HE INTRODUCED CONNI BRUNNI, WHO GAVE THE MINORITY REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE. SUP. PATRICK ASKED WHEN THIS WOULD BE COMING IN FRONT OF THE CITY COUNCIL--LATE AUGUST OR EARLY SEPTEMBER WAS MR. CLARK'S ANSWER. MR. HEINRICHS REFUTED THE MS. BRUNNI'S STATEMENT THAT THE HIGHER RETIREMENT FIGURE WAS FACTUAL. HE STATED, "WE HAVEN'T DONE THE COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS." HE CLARIFIED FOR SUP. ASHBURN THAT THE DOCUMENT SOURCE FOR THAT STATEMENT CAME FORM FIGURES "PUT TOGETHER BY CITY STAFF." WHEN SUP ASHBURN ASKED ABOUT TRI DATA'S FINDING WITH REGARD TO COST, MR. HEINRICH STATED, "THE STUDY BASICALLY SAID...THAT THEY'RE ROUGHLY COMPARABLE, SO IT REALLY FOCUSED ON THE SERVICE DELIVERY ISSUES. IT BASICALLY INDICATED THAT A CONSOLIDATED SYSTEM WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT, MORE EFFECTIVE, ALTHOUGH SOME OF THESE THINGS COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT CONSOLIDATION, BUT IT DIDN'T GO INTO A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PAY RATES AND THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE THEY ARE ROUGHLY COMPARABLE. TIM LUKENS, BFLAG SPOKE AGAINST CONSOLIDATION, CITING OTHER EXAMPLES OF BUSINESS MERGERS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON CONSUMERS. THERE ARE MANY OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREAS WHICH HAVE LARGER SAVING TO BE ACHIEVED JUST THROUGH COOPERATION. MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT THOSE AREAS FIRST. KIRK BLAIR, OF BFLAG STATED, "THE MAJORITY OF THE REPRESENTATIVES ON THAT BOARD F~OM THE CITY OPPOSED A MERGER WITH THE KERN COUNTY FIRE DEPT. THEY FEEL IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY." HE POINTED OUT, "WHILE THE COUNTY FIRE DEPT. CAME BACK TO YOU ASKING FOR A MILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE THEY ARE A MILLION DOLLARS IN THE RED, THE BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPT. HAS RETURNED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BACK TO THE (CITY'S) GENERAL FUND OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS." HE CONCLUDED BY STATING THAT CONSOLIDATION WOULD PERSONALLY GIVE HIM BETTER RETIREMENT, BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR ADVANCEMENT, A BETTER DEAL FOR ME PERSONALLY, BUT IT'S NOT A GREAT DEAL FOR THE CITY, IT'S NOT A GREAT DEAL FOR THE COUNTY, OR THE TAXPAYERS... THE CITY DECLINES THE INVITATION FOR A MERGER.. THAT WE CONCENTRATE ON ISSUES OF THE JPA, GIVING IT SOME ENFORCEMENT, HAVING SOME AUTHORITY, PERHAPS AS MRS. BRUNNI SUGGESTED, SO THAT WE CAN RESOLVE ISSUES. THAT'S BEEN THE PROBLEM WITH THE JPA, WHEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM IT JUST SITS IN THE 2 FIRE DEPTS, AND IT DOESN'T GET OUT INTO THE LIGHT AND GET RESOLVED." KEN BLANTON, VICE PRESIDENT OF KERN COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS UNION SPOKE IN FAVOR OF CONSOLIDATION. "WE SPENT $100,000 OF OUR HARD-EARNED DOLLARS, (ON THE STUDY) HARD TO COME BY TAX DOLLARS THAT YOU MAKE ALOT OF TOUGH DECISIONS ABOUT, AND I WANT TO SEE IT USED PROPERLY, AND I HATE TO SEE IT DIE ON THE VINE OR FALL ASIDE." HE STATED HE BELIEVES THIS IS THE BEST LONG-TERM SOLUTION TO "THE RELATIONSHIP PROBLEM". "NOBODY HERE IS LOSIN' A JOB, SO LET'S GET ON WITH IT," HE SAID LATER. HE QUOTED VARIOUS EXCERPTS SUPPORTING CONSOLIDATION FROM THE TRI DATA STUDY. JIM AHL, "LOCAL 13" (KERN COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS UNION). "THE MAJORITY (OF THE COMMITTEE) CHOSE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CONSOLIDATE; THE KERN COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND EVERY MAN IN THE FIELD FEELS WE SHOULD DO THAT RIGHT NOW. IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU SAVE TAX DOLLARS, LET'S DO IT NOW," HE SAID. "THERE IS A MILLION PLUS DOLLARS TO BE SAVED." I HOPE YOU WILL VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE TO CARRY ON WITH A CONSOLIDATION EFFORT." THIS CONCLUDED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THIS ITEM. SUP ASHBURN SPOKE FIRST. HE THANKED THE COMMITTEE. "THIS RECOMMENDATION IS A LONG TIME IN COMING AND HAS A LOT OF HISTORY. THE JPA 1980, REVISIONS TO THE JPA, DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY, CLAIMS BY THE CITY THAT THE COUNTY OWED THEM MONEY FOR ~SHORT CHANGING THE CITY, A THREATENED LAWSUIT WITH THE CITY, AND EFFORT TO OBJECTIVELY EVALUATE FIRE SERVICE, AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT, AGREED TO BY BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, A HIGH LEVEL CITIZENS BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH I HOPE, I HOPE ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY BOTH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND THE CITY COUNCIL. SO WE HAVE A RATHER CLEAR RECOMMENDATION BEFORE US, AND IT AFFECTS ONE OF THE MOST BASIC SERVICES OF LOCAL GOV'T. A COMMENT WAS MADE TODAY ABOUT LOCAL GOV'T AND OTHER LEVELS OF GOV'T, ~ TRULY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CITIES AND COUNTIES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOCAL GOV'T. WE ARE ELECTED AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BY BOTH RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND THE COUNTY OF KERN IN THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA. WE SERVE TRULY THE SAME CONSTITUENTS. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE MOST INTERESTED IN THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO PROVIDE THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF SERVICE TO THOSE CONSTITUENTS. BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A BASIC AND ESSENTIAL SERVICE TO OUR CITIZENS, I BELIEVE THAT WE OUGHT TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES TO MAKE THIS DECISION. WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE, WE HAVE THE TRI DATA STUDY, WE HAVE ALOT OF INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO PLACE THIS ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT, AND LET THE PEOPLE OF THE METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD AREA DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT KIND OF FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO HAVE IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S THE DIRECTION I'D LIKE TO GO. TO MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY TO PREPARE A BALLOT MEASURE . MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO MAKE IT BINDING ON BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY, AlqD LET THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE DECIDE THE FUTURE, AND I THINK THE PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITY CAN CERTAINLY BE ENTRUSTED TO SORT OUT THE FACTS AND MAKE THE BEST DECISION ON THE MOST APPROPRIATE ORGANIZATION TO PROVIDE FIRE SERVICES IN THE FUTURE, SO I JUST LAY THAT OUT AS A SUGGESTION IN GOING FORWARD. SUP PEREZ SPOKE NEXT. IT'S REALLY APPARENT THAT THIS IS A REALLY TOUCHY ISSUE ..... WE'RE ALL OUT THERE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE, AND I WANT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU TO KNOW ONE THING--WHEN I ULTIMATELY MAKE A DECISION ON THIS ISSUE, IT IS GOING TO BE THE PEOPLE'S INTEREST IN WHICH I MAKE THAT DECISION." I FEEL TH_AT THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. (GENERAL CITIZENS). WHEN YOU ASK FOR A STUDY OF SOMEONE'S OPINION, YOU EITHER LISTEN TO THE OPINION, OR DON'T DO IT AT ALL (ASK FOR THEIR OPINION.) SUP SHELL SPOKE NEXT. (DUE TO TIME, I DID NOT TRANSCRIBE HER COMMENTS YET.) I ASSUME THAT A MOVE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AND I NEED TO TURN TO COUNTY COUNSEL ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE PREPARED FOR AN ANSWER RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD TAKE CONCURRENCE WOULDN'T IT? BARMANN ANSWERED, "WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE. IF IT'S PUT ON TO FORM A SPECIAL DISTRICT, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH LAFCO FROM THIS BOARD TO LAFCO THEN BACK TO THIS BOARD WITHOUT--IT DOES NOT NEED THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONCURRENCE TO FORM A SPECIAL DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD CONSOLIDATE. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN REALLY PULL IT TOGETHER, THE TWO DEPTS BY WAY OF A SPECIAL DIST, UNLESS YOU GO BY WAY OF A MAKING ONE DEPT UNDER ONE--EITHER THE CITY OR THE COUNTY. SHELL SAID, "WELL, THAT WOULD NEED A LOT OF RESEARCH THEN BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE INTERESTED IN ANOTHER LEVEL OF GOV'T OF HAVING A SPECIAL DISTRICT. SO AT THIS TIME I WOULD MOVE TO RECEIVE A_ND FILE THE REPORT AND THE MINORITY REPORT .... I'M NOT PREPARED TO VOTE WHETHER TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AT THIS TIME." SUP. PATRICK SAID THE FOLLOWING: "I'D LIKE TO THANK THE COMMITTEE ALSO. I THINK SUP ASHBURN SPOKE ELOQUENTLY TO WHAT WE TRIED TO DO. AS YOU ALL KNOW THIS IS POLITICALLY CHARGED SUBJECT. THE IDEA OF HAVING A CITIZENS COMMITTEE LOOK AT IT IS TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE REALM OF POLITICS AND LOOK AT WHAT OUR MAIN FOCUS SHOULD BE-- THE CITIZENS OF Bi~KERSFIELD AiqD KERN COUNTY. BY HAVING IT COME BACK TO US, A_ND TO THE CITY COUNCIL , IT GETS BACK INTO THE POLITICALLY CHARGED ATMOSPHERE SO I TOO THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT FOR THE VOTERS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT WE DECIDE TODAY, IF WE WERE TO VOTE YEA OR NAY ON THIS, IF THE CITY COUNCIL VOTES THE OPPOSITE WAY, WE ARE COMPLETELY STYMIED ONCE AGAIN, AND WE'VE SPENT $100,000 FOR A STUDY THAT WE MAY AS WELL HAVE SAVED OUR MONEY, OR BURNED IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET. SO I WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE THE ~IDEk OF HAVING IT GO TO AN ELECTION; I WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE IT BEING A BINDING ELECTION, SO WE LOOK TO THE PUBLIC TO DECIDE WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST. WE FEEL THAT THE PUBLIC IS INTERESTED IN COST EFFECTIVENESS IN SPENDING AS FEW DOLLARS AS WE CAN TO PROVIDE SERVICE AND SO I THINK IT'S UP TO THE PUBLIC TO MAKE THIS DECISION. BECAUSE IF WE DISAGREE WITH THE COUNCIL THEN WE'RE BACK TO SQUARE ONE AGAIN. AND SO I THINK IF IT WERE TO BE A BINDING ELECTION, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING VERY HELPFUL FOR US." SHE CONTINUED, "NO MASTER WHAT WE WERE TO COME UP WITH, STRICT CONSOLIDATION OR SOME OTHER FORM IN BETWEEN, I THINK THAT IT COULD WORK BECAUSE THERE'S THE DEDICATION TO MAKE IT WORK...BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT WE WILL BE IN THE PROCESS OF A STALEMATE IF WE WERE TO VOTE ONE WAY AND THE CITY COUNCIL WERE TO VOTE ANOTHER, SO I THINK THAT WE AT LEAST NEED TO EXPLORE THE OPTION OF HAVING THE PUBLIC ADVISE US AS TO WHAT THEY FEEL IS IN THEIR BEST INTEREST AS CITIZENS OF METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD." ASHBURN INTERJECTED, "MJkDAME CHAIRMAN, ONE WAY TO MAKE THIS BINDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WOULD BE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT TO ABIDE BY THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION, SO MR. BARMANN WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO DRAFT SUCH AN AGREEMENT THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE BIND THE CITY COUNCIL, UH AND THIS BOARD TO THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION. I GUESS THE ELECTION TECHNICALLY WOULD BE ADVISORY, BUT BY THE AGREEMENT IN ADVANCE, WE WOULD PLEDGE TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIVES OF THE PEOPLE BARMANN ANSWERED, "YES. THAT COULD BE DONE IF THE CITY WERE TO AGREE THAT AN ADVISORY MEASURE ON THE NOV. 5TH BALLOT WOULD BE BINDING ON BOTH AGENCIES, IT WOULD BE JUST LIKE A REGULAR CONTRACT; THEY WOULD BE BOND BY IT. THAT IS ONE WAY SOLVE THIS NAD DO IT ON NOV 5TH. IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO PUT IT ON IN ANY OTHER WAY. SUP PATRICK ASKED, "WHAT'S OUR TIMEFRAME? BARMANN ANSWERED: "YOUR BOARD WOULD HAVE TO ACT, AUGUST 9 IS THE FINAL DATE TO PUT A MEASURE ON THE BALLOT FOR NOv. 5TH. YOUR BOARD WOULD HAVE TO ACT ON TUES, AUG. 6TH A_ND THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO ACT ACCORDINGLY BEFORE THAT TIME DATE, AUGUST 9. WE WOULD NEED THE AGREEMENT IN ADVANCE OF THE MEASURE GOING ON THE BALLOT." ASHBURN: "JUST A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION, MR. BARMAN-N. DOES THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT THIS MEASURE TO THE VOTERS IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA INCLUDING BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AREAS? BARMAlqN: "WE HAVE LOOKED THIS SINCE 1988, WE HAVE BEEN STUDYING THIS ISSUE.. IT COMES UP EVERY YEAR OR EVERY OTHER YEA_R, AND THE ANSWER IS YES. THIS BOARD CAN BY RESOLUTION ORDER THE FORMATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT, THAT RESOLUTION GOES TO LAFCO, WHICH IN TI/RN IF IT APPROVES IT COMES BACK TO THIS BOARD, FOR PLACEMENT ON THE BALLOT TO FORM A SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR THE ENTIRE METROPOLITAN AREA, INCORPORATED A_ND THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. IT CAN BE DONE THAT WAY. ASHBURN: THAT WOULD BE ONE FORM, THE SPECIAL DISTRICT, BUT THE QUESTION WAS MORE BASIC: CAN THIS BOARD PLACE ON THE NOV. BALLOT A MEASURE TO BE VOTED UPON BY BOTH CITY AlqD COUNTY RESIDENTS IN THE METRO ARE--AN ADVISORY MEASURE. BARMANN: YES, IT'S PURLEY ADVISORY, IT CAN BE DONE. SHELL ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNANCE FOR A SPECIAL DISTRICT. BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CITY FIRE DEPT. BECOMING PART OF THE COUNTY FIRE DEPT. THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE AGAIN... CAN WE PUT THAT ON THE BALLOT? BARMANN: ONLY AS AN ADVISORY ISSUE, OR WITH THE CITY AGREEING TO BE BOLrN-D BY THE ADVISORY ELECTION WHICH WOULD SPECIFY THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY WOULD AGREE ON THE ~I~P~EMENTATION OF THE ADVISORY ELECTION I THAT AGREEMENT. ASHBURN: AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION I'M HEADED. WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION TO CONSOLIDATE , AND IN ORDER TO BRING THIS TO THE VOTERS TO GIVE THEM A SAY IT CAN BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. THIS BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT AND THE WAY WE BIND EACH OTHER TO LIVE BY THE DECISION OF THE PUBLIC IS TO ENTER INTO A CONTR3%CT WHEREBY WE WILL IMPLEMENT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND THAT WILL AVOID THE SPECIAL DISTRICT CONSIDERATION, GOVERNING BOARDS, AND ALL OF THE ISSUES WHICH YOU HAVE RAISED., THAT IS THE DIRECTION I THINK WE SHOULD GO--ASK THE CITY TO JOIN WITH US IN A BINDING AGREEMENT TO LIVE BY THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION AND THAT WE PLACE THIS ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT; AS A MEASURE WHICH WOULD BE ADVISORY BUT BINDING BY VIRTUE OF THE CONTRACT THAT WE WOI/LD ENTER INTO. LET ME ASK YOU (SHELL) IF YOU'LL AMEND YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE THE REFERRAL TO COUNTY COUNSEL TO SPECIFICALLY RESEARCH THE DETAILS OF PLACING AN ADVISORY MEASURE ON THE NOV. BALLOT AND AUTHORIZE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS CONTRACT WITH THE CITY WHEREBY WE WOULD ABIDE BY THE DECISION OF THE VOTERS AND TO BRING THAT BACK TO OUR BOARD ON JULY 30TH, IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO MAKE THE DECISION TO PLACE IT ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. SHELL: I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT BEING INCLUDED IN THE NOTION, BUT I RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DECISION WHEN IT COMES BAK. RECEaV<zE) :;:!TY .~VJANAGER'S OFFICE BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM July 11, 1996 TO: JOHN W. STINSON FROM: CARROLL HAYDEN, HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER SUBJECT: CITY PHYSICIAN SURVEY INTRODUCTION At the request of the City Manager, an updated and expanded survey of city physician practices was conducted. This was to broaden our understanding of community standards involved in all aspects of employee health matters and to supplement the narrowly focused survey recently conducted by Scott Manzer, Kisk Manager. Mr. Manzer was only surveying what choices an employee had who had not predesignated a physician for Worker's Compensation. In addition to our 10 designated survey cities, I added Kern County to give us a local perspective. The results of the survey are displayed in the fol!o~ng five attachments: · General Information - City Physician Survey · Preplacement exam survey · Workers' Compensation Physician Survey · DOT Exams Survey · Drug Screening Survey Overall, the survey clarified that cities are concerned about the necessity of consistency in handling employee health issues in order to avoid any claim of discrimination, be it in the areas of preplacement, workers' compensation, ADA, drug screening, etc. Although the manner in which a city ensures consistency varies, some very clear cut patterns did emerge which could serve as a model for us. DISCUSSION The first attachment, General Information - Ciw. Physician Surve. v, gives general information regarding how many medical groups a city works with and whether or not contracts exist. In the comments section I have included anything pertinent or unusual that I found. The second attachment, Preplacement Exam Survey, details how each City handles physical exams for preplacement purposes. Of the twelve entities surveyed, all but three use only one medical group for preplacement physicals and in all cases, the entity controls where the applicant goes for service. Two of the three entities that have more than one medical group direct applicants to a group based on department, work assignment or job classification. Therefore, eleven of the 12 ensure absolute consistency in their approach to evaluating an applicant's capacity to meet the physical standards of the position. The third attachment, Workers' Compensation Physician Survey, reveals less consistency in approach, with a fairly even split between the entity directing where an employee receives care for an industrial injury or illness in the first 30 days and those where the employee chooses the care giver. However, in eleven of the twelve entities, even when the employee chooses which care giver, the employee's choice is limited to a specific number of groups, therefore allowing the employer to develop a working relationship with the medical group to hopefully ensure appropriate diagnosis, care for the employee, and ease of administration. The fourth attachment, DOTExams Survey, portrays how the legally required DOT exams are handled. The important result of this display is the absolute consistency of all the employers in controlling where the employee is sent for these exams. This is definitely an area where it is vital that an employee not be allowed a choice, as the potential for liability for an employer is so great in this area, if the exams are not of the highest integrity. The fifth attachment, Drug Screening Survey, is virtually the same as DOTExams Survey, reflective of the concern for litigation in this highly contentious area. The need for absolute perfection in the chain of custody dictates that an employer direct who performs these tests, -¢/h~h~i:~h~?'/ii-~-'fii/idcfm ni°ni~bring '°i:"'for~au§~"~' RECOMMENDATIONS · To the extent legally possible, it is essential the City control the choice of which medical group is used for all employee occupational health needs to ensure the consistency necessary for avoidance of outside agency claims, litigation, out of control disability retirements and unjustified workers' compensation claims. · Assignment of work to medical groups should be done by either type of physical exam or by work assignment or job classification, ie, all public safety work to one medical group or all preplacement exams to one medical group. · Selection of additional medical groups should consider compatibility of price and qualifications. · The use of multiple physicians for workers' compensation should be limited to no more than two providers who are able to clearly demonstrate an ability to communicate and work together in a constructive manner. · Turn around time on all medical reports needs to be consistent, prompt and meet labor code requirements. · Annually reaffirm with all employees their right to predesignate a physician for treatment in the first 30 days following an industrial injury or illness. GENERAL INFORMATION - CITY PHYSICIAN SURVEY Fremont No City No contract. Use Occumed for physical standards of jobs. Modesto No City One contract. A PT group does functional capacity testing for PD rather than using physical agility tests. Riverside No City N° contract. Use Occumed for physical standards of jobs, Ontario Yes City Risk controls preplacement. On initial office _ visit for W.C, supervisor chooses M.D. After initial visit, Risk controls. No contracts. Stockton No City City does not control W/C in first 30 days per MOU. One contract. Glendale Yes City Have their own Health Center staffed with 2 R.Ns and 1 RNP for all preplacement exams. The Risk Manager directs W/C cases to 1 of 2 primary care facilities, but there are no contracts. Pasadena No City One contract. Fresno Yes City decides on One contract for W/C. One contract for preplacement, preplacement. fitness for dut7. Employee chooses which one of two groups to see on W/C. City More Than Who Controls Comments One M.D. Choice of M.D. ~, 'i ii!~.' ~.~ iii Berkeley Yes City decides on City ordinance against drug testing, even "for preplacement, cause." annuals and fitness for duty. Employee chooses on initial W/C visit. Kem County yes County on Preplaeement primarily determined by work preplacement, department. W/C in Bakersfield area have employee on choice of a panel of six MDs. W/C. Oxnard Yes City on Limited number of preplaeement. Fire and preplaeement, Police only, who each make their own employee for arrangements. W/C. San Yes City One group does all preplaeement, DOT, Return Bernardino to Work and Drug Screens. Use 3 groups for W/C. W/C assignment based upon employee's department, ie, all PD employees use 1 group. One contract only for preplacement group. C.ltayden 7/i O/96survcy ! 0 PREPLACEMENT EXAM SURVEY ~ ~=~=.~::~::~:~.~ .'one ~D;~?~ ::~::: '.-:: ~. ===================================== :::::::::::::::::::::: ......... ..: Fremont No Ci~ Use Occ~ed for physic~ s~ds of jobs. Modesto No Ci~ A ~ ~oup does ~cao~ capaci~ test~g for PD ~er ~ ~g physic~ a~i~ tests. _ ~verside No Ci~ Use Occ~ed for physic~ s~ds ofjob. Onto Yes Ci~ ~dom ~si~ent to one of fo~ ~ ~oups. Stoc~on No Ci~ One Con. ct. Glend~e - No Ci~ Have the~ o~ He~ Center s~ed ~th 2 ~s .... P~adena No Ci~ One Con. ct. Fresno No CiW One Con. ct. Berkele~ No CiW One Con. ct. Kern Co~ Yes Co~ P~y con. oiled by dep~en~work ~si~en~job cl~s. ~d Yes Ci~ No preplacement ex~ except ~e ~d police, S~ No CiW M~ge= ~e ~ven a ye~ly credit Bem~dino of $175 to spend with ~y ~ for ~ ~ P.E. C. Hayd~ 7/I 0/96su~ey7 WORKERS' COMPENSATION PHYSICIAN SURVEY i F~mont No Ci~ { No con. ct. i Modcsto No Ci~ [ ~vc one co.ct. ~vc~idc No Ci~ [ No con. ct. Ont~o Yes Ci~ [ Refer to fo~ d~crcnt ~oups. No I con~c~. $toc~on Yes Employee [ Ci~ docs not consol for ~t 30 I days per MOU. No con. cts. Glcnd~c Yes Ci~ [ No con~cts P~adc~ No Ci~ ] One con. ct. I ~resno Yes Employee [ M~t ~c one of~o ~oups. No con. cts. Two con~c~. ~cm Co~ Yes E~loycc [ Usc 6 ~ ~oups ~ B~e~ficld aca. No con. cts. ~d Yes Employee [ M~t ~c one oft~ec ~oups. No [ 'con. cts. S~ Yes Ci~ / Use ~cc ~oups. No con. cts. Bem~dino *During first 30 da'~s following injuu or illness. Employees can predesignate a physician to use during first 30 days. Any employee can choose ater first 30 days. C. Hayden 7/i 0/96surve.v6 DOT EXAMS SURVEY Fremont No City No contract. Modesto No City One contract. Riverside No City No contract. Ontario Yes City No contract. Stockton No City One contract. Glendale No City One contract. Pasadena No City One contract. Fresno No City One contract, different provider than other city work. Berkeley No City Contract with group that does preplacement but paid through TPA. Kem County Yes County Oxnard No City One separate contract for just DOT exams. San No City One contract. Bemardino C. llayden 7/10/96survey4 DRUG SCREENING SURVEY · . =. ' Group Fremont No City No contract. Modesto No City One contract. Riverside No City No contract. Ontario Yes City No contract. Stockton No City One contract. Glendale No City Done at City Employee Health Office. Pasadena No City One contract. Fresno No City One contract. Test only Police, Fire and Bus Drivers. Berkeley N/A N/A City ordinance prohibits drug testing, even "or cause." Kern County Yes County No contract. Oxnard N/A N/A' Do not test. San No City One contract. Bemardino C. Hayden 7/I O/96survey i I BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM July 5, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director~'~j~ RE: UPDATE ON AUTOMATION OF REFUSE COLLECTION IN CONTRACT AREAS Staff completed a successful conversion of 3700 homes to automated refuse and greenwaste service in June in the South Side/Price Disposal area. This was done a little ahead of schedule for the fiscal 1996-97 year. An additional 1300 homes will be automa{ed in the Varner Brother service area (near the Polo Grounds) in early September. Price/South Side reports that, just as with the City's program, the greenwaste containers contain a lot of refuse at first. They have therefore taken some of the greenwaste loads directly to the landfill. As the public becomes familiar enough with the program to recycle effectively, the' loads are decreasing in contamination and are being to be sent to the Mt. Vernon Recycling Facility. cc: KB:lis /KBCORMEM/ARCCA .MEM cc: Judy Skousen. City Attorney BAKERSFIELD July 8, 1996 Mr. Fakhruddin Shakir Shakir Enterprises 6261 White Lane, Suite 102 Bakersfield, California 93309 Dear Mr. Shakir: SUBJECT: APN 401-012-19 - Request to Purchase - Status of Disposition Process I am writing you to follow up on Alan Tandy's May 20, 1996-letter. The City is currently processing the General Plan Amendment (GPA) necessary to declare the property surplus. The GPA will be heard by the Planning Commission at their September 19, 1996 meeting. The property's current "P", Public Facilities designation will be replaced with an "LR" designation, consistent with its R-1 zoning. Please note the R-1 zone does not authorize the construction of a church. Per Jack Hardisty's March 29, 1996-letter you will need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a church within an R-1 zone. You would be the applicant for this and would be responsible for all costs associated therewith. For your information, most properties sold by the City are not designated as "Public Facilities" and do not require a GPA. Once the GPA process is complete in October of 1996 we can start the sale process. Normally, the first step would be to ask the Planning Commission to make a 65402 Finding, meaning the sale of the property is consistent with the General Plan. Second, the City Council would be asked to declare the property surplus and authorize its sale. Third, the property would be appraised to establish its fair market value as required by the Bakersfield Municipal Code. Fourth, the terms of the sale are incorporated into a purchase/sale agreement that is executed by the buyer.. Fifth, the City Council is asked to approve purchasedsale agreement and if approved, an escrow would be opened to consummate the transaction. I will be your contact person for this project, so please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Si erely, &Donald M. Anderson ~',~ Real Property Agent ......... cc: Alan Tandv, City Manager Jack Hardi~tv, Development Services Director · Frank Fabbri, Parks Superintendent !C~TY City of Bakersfield · Property Management Division * 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California * 93301 (805) 326-3061 · Fax (805) 324-7483 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~~/4~ DATE: July 8', 1996 SUBJECT: LEA STAFF MEETING TO REVIEW CONCERNS AND ISSUES - Per direction from the Budget and Finance Committee, staff has met With County representatives of the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) to reconcile, if possible, problems and concerns between the City and the LEA. In attendance: David Price and Steve McCalley, representing the LEA, and Raul Rojas, Mike Kelly, Ralph Huey and Howard Morris. From previous meeting, County produced memos and documents explaining their position on: (1) Siting landfill gas probes at the landfill. Staff has stated that the LEA has not given direction. LEA's position now is that probes should be placed at each residential boundary, unles it can be shown that a lower cost alternative can achieve the same objective. (2) Reason for delay in permitting the Mt. VernOn Recycling facility. LEA was involved in other issues; notably the burn dump soil remediation at Panorama Drive. This issue is apparently being resolved also since the Permitting and Enforcement (P&E) hearing is being brought before the Waste Board on July 10th. Permit approval will follow on July 24th, if there are no objections at P&E. (3) Billing problems. Documentation was produced that details billing; costs and descriptions. City staff will review this material. (4) Differences between the Rosedale burn dump and the Panorama Drive burn dump. LEA staff produced a memo outlining these differences, from their point of view. City staff indicated that the memo is misleading because it highlights gas migration as a major difference, though the soil remediation is the key reason the homes are being purchased. LEA's position, however, is that thc gas migration problem was controversial , and that the Rosedale burn dump does not have homes built on it, i.e., less potential for controversy. (5) Major problems to resolve. It was agreed that there are 3 major problems: (a) the need to have agreed upon time frames, (b) communication of standards and guidelines, and (c) communication with the public and the media. Communicating with the public and the media was especially important to City staff. It was agreed that County staff should not talk to the media until the City has a chance to review any information that they are about to release. There should not be any more surprises. (6) There are a total of 7 LEA staff but really only 2 people who are responsible for the Bakersfield Landfill (Bill O'Rullian and Diana Wilson). (7) The LEA will begin to produce biweekly reports to summarize issues and recent actions. These reports are intended to avoid communication problems of the type experienced in the past. Each report will be presented in 'bullet" form and should be only 1 page in length. These summaries should report on BSL, Mt. Vernon Recycling Center, Rosedale burn dump and other burn dumps that may have land use interests for developers and/or citizen groups. HM:hm c: Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director Mike Kelly, Fire Chief LEA meet.mere (916) 255-3545 ~ Addressee date ~~~ Title/Company Address City/State/Zip Code ......... PROPERTY ACCESS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COLLECTING SOIL SAMPLES Dear Mr./Ms: The City of Bakersfield under the direction of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is currently conducting an investigation of the Panorama Burn Dump site. The purpose of the investigation is to determine whether any contaminants produced ag a result of the burn dumD are present on your property. Since your property is located where the burn dump was located, we want to collect soil samples from your yard and send them to a laboratory for chemical analysis. We plan to obtain samples at 8 locations on your Droperty. At each location, a hole, which will be approximately 3 inches across, will be drilled to a depth of about three feet below ground surface. Several samples will be collected from each location at various depths. These most likely will be collected from the surface (0 to 6 inches), 12 to 18 inches, and 3-foot depths. The soil samples will be collected using a 3-inch diameter, stainless steel hand auger. After sampling, the hole will be filled with a bentonite cement grout and the su~'fa¢~ restored to ire original condition. If landscaping or other property is damaged during this work, it will be restored or replaced at the expense of the City of Bakersfield. However, all a~emp~s will be made no~ to disturb your landscaping. Ail work will be limited to daylight hour~, between B a.m. and ~ p.m. If you choose to stay at home during the sampling activities, we suggest that you remain in your house as much as possible. We will close off the immediate work area as a precautionary measure for safety reasons, and we ask that you and your family refrain from entering the area during the sampling procedure~.~"' DTSC would like to perform this work in A:gust or September, at a convenient day and time for you, and requests your 07-10-96 1O:¢OAM FROMD?SC REGION i SAC?O, TO 91805322?503 P003/004 permission to proceed with the above outlined field acuivl~ies. The soil sampling in your yard will take no more than two days to complete. Please read the attached authorization and release and indicate your acceptance by signing the form. I~ yOU should havu any questions or concerns, pleam~ contact DTSC staff A~am Palmer at (916) 255-3669, or Jim Marxen at (916) 324-6544. Sincerely, Mewan Cambridge Chief ExDedited Remedial Action Program Attachment 01-10-96 IO'~OAM FROM DTSC REGION i SACTO. TO 918053227503 PO04/O0~ AUTHORIZATION AND RELEASE Please r=a~ the following authorization and release form. Sign one copy and return to DTSC in the envelope provided or return to the DTSC reDresentative that gave you the letter. I hereby authorize the City of Bakersfield to obtain soil samples from my property at for analysis by an independent laboratory. The sampling will be performed between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. I further understand that the City of Bakersfield will share soil samples' analysi~ results with me and w4th approDriate government officials. Signature of property owner Date SITE CONFERENCE PANORAMA BURN DUMP SITE Bakersfield City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 July 11, 1996 city Hall Conference Room 2:30 p.m. AGENDA I. Introduction of participants Group II. Overview of Expedited Remedial Action Program DTSC o Land Use Designation o Public participation requirements o Basis for identifying Potentially Responsible Parties o Enforceable Agreement III. Review of Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Kleinfelder o Site layout o Site History o Summarize sampling data o Results of Community Assessment IV. Discuss Site Investigation Workplan/Report DTSC o Sampling strategy o Proposed remediation goals o Other agency requirements V. Schedule and future meetings Group California Environmental Protection Agency sp, .g 1996 Department .of Toxic Substances Control Expedited Remedial A ction Reform Act (SB 923) Participants of the Program Regulations In the first year of implementation, theDTSC is seeking to formally adopt regulations al- Expedited Remedial Action Program ter considering all comments and recommendations achieved significant progress, from the public review process. Early in the development phase, DTSC Regulations clarify requirements of the Act by' concentrated on developing program guidelines in the form of policies and > listing specific terms and meanings, procedures. > defining "response costs," Several Workshops were held through- > setting forth mifiimum requirements for completing Preliminary Endangerment out the state to inform and obtain feed- Assessments, back from the public and regulated corn- > specifying requirements for determin/ng mumty, if a site is eligible for the federal National Santa Fe Railway Company and Priorities List, California Steel Industries, Inc. were the )~ describing actions required to stabilize fn'st to apply and were accepted into sites, the program in June and August 1995. > defining the acceptable types of financial assurance necessary for operation and maintenance, As of February 1996, four sites are par- ticipatmg inthe program, with more ap- ~- providing DTSC authority to request and plications being processed and soon to access information regarding historical be considered by the Cai / EPA's Site activities and ability to pay, Designation Committee. ~ providing guidance to determine orphan share cost, and The next page provides general infor- )~ outlining procedures for filing and 'marion about each project, distributing orphan share funds The Remedial Action Plan was released for public LocatiOn: Bandini Boulevard, Vernon comment in March 1996, with an anticipated · General Description certification scheduled for duly 1996. Site was once a trucking operation and contains The Remedial Action Plan (RAP) proposes to place elevated levels of heavy metals in the soil from a an asphalt cap over the contaminated sods and use former founa~ operator in the area. the area as a parking lot. Location: Fontana General Description Current activities include investigating 31 areas -Site was formerly part of Kaiser Steel facility, of concern, preparing a risk management strategy Currently operates as a steel millingfacility. The and identifying those areas needing remediation. site had been managed under a Voluntary Enforceable Agreement under Chapter 6.8 attthority; the program is viewed as a means of expediting the investigation and remediation. Location: Long Beach General Description Site is a former manufactured gas plant. Currently The final remedy will likely involye the removal of owned by the Port of Long Beach and the Los Att- soils containing highly concentrated contaminants. geles County Flood District, where it serves par- tially as a roadway onramp and crude petroleum production facility. Location: Alhambra General Description This couM be the first site where orphan share costs A former manufacturedgasplant which operated are allocated due to the status ofpastfacility own- itl the early 1900's. The location was later devel- ers and operators. The ongoing characteri:ation oped as a residential commnnity, work ~vill determine the extent of contaminatiott. Pag orama Drive Site Public Involvement Activities Department of Toxic Substances Control Np ,, orama Dr ve S te Community Profile · :. Measures community's knowledge of site · :. Outlines location of sensitive populationS · :. Discusses media interest · :. Outlines community group interest Department of Toxic Substances Control rama Dr ve S te Site I'nvestigation · :. Community interviews · :. Public Participation Plan · :. Repository · :. Fact Sheet · :. Mailing List · :: Meeting Department of Toxic Substances Control an'orama Dr ve S te Draft Remedial Action Plan, · :. Public Notice + Fact Sheet · :. 30-day comment period · :. Public meeting Department of Toxic Substances Control · · · Pa rama Drive S te Final Remedial Action Plan · :. Includes changes to Draft RAP · :. Coincides with release of response to comments · :. Public Notice · :. Fact sheet Department of Toxic Substances Control rama Drive S te Community' Interviews · :. Designed to gather information for placement in the Public Participation Plan ,:. Involve half-hour informal conversations ':. DTSC seeks input on community concerns, questions, interpretation needs, history of involvement., media preferences and communicahon preferences Department of Toxic Substances Control .Pa !oram,a r ve Design and Implementation · :- Fact Sheet · :. COmmunity meeting Department of Toxic Substances Control ' S 'te ramaDnve DTSC Contacts · :. Adam Palmer Project Manager (916) 255-3669 · :. Jim Marxen Public Participation and Education (916) 324-6544 Department of Toxic Substances Control 750 .___ \ ~ ~ - Detail A ~ h ~ ~ SCALE: 1" = 100" CL-1'.'.3.S 7~. '>1: '.'.~ ._ ' J '. :' PANDRANA DRIVE PLATE ~1~5IKLEINFELDEI~ PROJECT NO. BAKERSFIELD ..... Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM July 10, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manger FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direc o~~ SUBJECT: LEASE/PURCHASE HOUSING PROGRAM(CALIFORNIA RURAL HOME · MORTGAGE AUTHORITY). ~We have recently been made aware of an additional financing method for homeownership. This newly implemented bond program will add yet another means by which the residents of Bakersfield will be able to purchase a home. Following is a history and overview of the Lease/Purchase Program including pro's and con's: This program was originated by the California Rural Home Mortgage Finance Authority (Authority), an agency representing 28 counties in Northern and Central California, who during the past two years has originated over $100 million of mortgage revenue bond-funded(MRB) loans. Frustrated with the reduction of private activity allocation granted thru the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee(CDLAC) and facing an increasing demand for bond financed single family housing, the Authority contracted with an investment banking firm to structure and implement the new program. The result was a tax-exempt bond financing program issued as a "governmental purpose" obligation which does NOT conflict with, nor compete against, the private activity allocations(Mortgage Credit Certificates, Mortgage Revenue Bonds, etc.). The Program provides for qualified applicants to first lease a home and, at a future date, acquire ownership by loan assumption. The applicant(tenant) must be able to pre-qualify for a FNMA or FHA residential loan in all respects other than the required downpayment and closing costs. If the tenant meets the standard underwriting criteria of a typical residential lender, they will be given the opportunity to occupy a new or resale home for a commitment fee equal toq~%-o:f-zt,~ezTc~--.~-z-&-~ sales property sales price. If they lease their home for a full three years, the remaining 'dg~}'~}~'1-~' payment and closing costs will be forgiven and the balance of the original mortgage initially by the Authority can be assumed by the tenant. The forgiven down payment and closing, I[ Il_ costs(subsidy) represent 7% of the original sales price. The tenants may elect to assume ..: :,~:~',~2q'$ OFF[C?: oWnership at the end of 24 months and receive a subsidy equal to 4.5% of the sales price or after only one year receive a 1.5% subsidy toward the remaining downpayment and closing costs. The tenants failure to complete a lease period and ultimate ownership will result in their forfeiture of the 1% commitment fee. In most cases, the commitment fee will be less than the amount required to lease an apartment(first, last and security deposit). The subsidies are funded by difference between the mortgage interest rate charged to the tenant ((currently 7.5%) and the tax exempt bond coupon rate of 4.5% BENEFITS TO APPLICANTS (TENANTS) * /~ Provides avenue to obtain ownership for those who can afford the monthly payments but ? have been unable to accumulate the required down payment and closing costs. Current bond issue provides mortgages with rates of 7.5% (1% below current market rate) and which are fully assumable at no cost to tenant. During lease period, the tenant can terminate lease for any reason with maximum loSs of their 1% commitment fee. f · No first time homebuyer restriction. ii· No defined income restrictions. THE TENANT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE A MORTGAGE INTEREST DEDUCTION TO OFFSET EARNED INCOME BUT THIS OPPORTUNITY COST WILL, IN MOST CASES, BE LESS THAN THE DOWNPAYMENT AND CLOSING COST SUBSIDY. BENEFITS TO CITY · ~ Stimulate housing sales Increase property tax base ~ No costs to City nor staff time required BENEFIT TO OTHERS Realtors and mortgage lenders will benefit from immediate sales to the Authority The City assumes no financial risk or Program related administrative liability by adoption of a resolution in favor of the Lease/Purchase Program. The resolution would simply be evidence of Program demand for use by the Authority in their future requests for additional bond issuance. Of the $65.5 million bond issue in the latter part of March, 1996, $46 million has been committed to lenders and developers as of this date. For the reasons previously stated, I recommend we pursue the steps necessary to implement this worthwhile housing program at the local level. BAKERSFIELD FIRE DEPARTMENT M E M O RA'N D U M DATE: July 10, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Michael R. Kelly, Fire Chief SUBJECT: Street Barriers The street barriers recently installed on Eastbourne Way, Parsons Way, and 17th Street have created an unusual situation. The Fire Department has worked closely with the Traffic Division to insure these barriers serve their intended need, but still provide secondary access for emergency services. I believe it is important that the residents in the area have the capability of utilizing this secondary egress point in the event of a significant occurrence in their neighborhood. In order to provide Public Safety access and resident utilization of the secondary egress barriers, the barriers have been designed so that one section may be moved in a short amount of time. Some citizens are aware of this capability and evidently ar,e taking the time to stop their vehicles, move the barriers, and drive through the street that has been blocked off. The only way I see to solve this situation, is to make the barriers more of a permanent installation perhaps with the use of a chain and lock. This will afford Public Safety access in a rapid manner, but will likely eliminate the ability of residents in the area to use this secondary egress. We will continue to work with the Traffic Division in attempting to identify some sort of barrier that will serve the needs of both Public. Safety and the residents. MRK/kec cc: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~---' :~.~-~,,-~ Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer .~-~ -.~' JUL I 0 ~;C~ MANAGES'$ BAKERSFIELD / Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANI) UM July 8, 1996 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~x FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directo SUBJECT: 1996-97 CDDA Budget Document Attached are copies of the 1996-97 CDDA Budget. The budget was first approved by the Agency Board prior to approval by the City Council as part of the City's 1996-97 Budget. We think you will agree that the budget cover we chose this year is an appropriate one. c:\alan\cddacvrl.702 } I ~a'~ ' t'O}t City of Bal~ersfielcl Central District Development ACency Reclevelopment Annual Budget FY 1996-97 I I Hohd~y Inn Select Convention Center Hotel Winner of tl~e 1995 Development Partnership Award of Excellence California ~sociation for Local Economic Development CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I CENTRAL DISTRCT DEVELOPMENT I AGENCY MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY ! FY 1996-97 I i Yvonne Cohrs Chairman of the Agency 1 Albert Prince Evelyn Hall · Houghton "Howdy" Miller David Raphael Michael Sceales Evelyn Jenkins I Bob Price - Mayor I Alan Tandy, Executive Director 1 Jake Wager, Deputy Executive Director Judy Skousen, Agency Counsel Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Officer · Carol Williams, Secretary ! The Cover: The City of BakersfieM and Central District Development Agency's efforts to complete the Holiday Inn Select Convention Center Hotel project were named the outstanding example of an economic development project in California by the state's largest economic development association. 1 The California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED) presented its Development l' Partnership award to the City of Bakersfield at its statewide conference. The Development Partnership Awards are given to those projects that exemplify the best of California's current · economic development efforts. CALED specifically recognized Bakersfield for its determination and 1 creativity in making the hotel project a reality. I BUDGET DOCUMENT OVERVIEW I I This document provides a summary of the activities planned for the Central District Development I Agency (CDDA) for the upcoming fiscal year. 1 It is designed to illustrate the various programs and projects to be implemented by staff, and reflects I the fiscal requirements to accomplish the goals of the Agency. The budget presentation begins with the organizational chart for the Agency. This chart depicts the 1 various staff who perform work for the CDDA. This is followed by a map which shows the current boundaries of the Redevelopment Area. This ! includes both the original boundary and additional areas added in 1974, 1975, and 1979. l Following the map are several charts. These charts show the proposed revenue and appropriations 1 for all fund types, and is followed by a further breakdown of revenues and appropriations for the We have also included a chart illustrating the annual tax increment 1 Redevelopment operating fund. to the Agency which is generated by increased assessed valuation (i.e. new construction) over base year assessed valuation of 2% or less can occur without new construction. This information is immediately followed by a brief narrative description of each Redevelopment funding source. I The next section consists of financial summaries for redevelopment agency funds. They show the · specific dollar amounts and provide summary information for the Redevelopment Operating Fund, 1 Redevelopment Housing Fund, Redevelopment Debt Service Fund and Redevelopment Parking Fund. I This section is followed by objectives and performance measures for the Project Development and Public Facilities subprograms for Redevelopment that are included in the City of Bakersfield budget. · These provide the work plan for the upcoming year's redevelopment activity. · The last section includes a description of Agency debt obligations. This is followed by schedules I for Outstanding Debt Service Requirements to Maturity for: 1) Certificates of Participation · - 1987 (Auditorium Improvement Project), 2) Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (1993), 3) General Obligation Note (1990), 4) Property Tax Abatement Contract (1994), and 5) Property Tax I Abatement Contract (1992). 1 I i I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY I PROPOSED ANNUAL BUDGET 1996-97 Organizational Chart ........................................................... 1 Redevelopment Project Area Map ................................................. 2 1 Budget Items I CDDA FY 1996-97 Proposed Budget - All Funds .................................... 3 CDDA FY 1996-97 Proposed Budget - Operating Funds ............................... 4 1 CDDA - Redevelopment Tax Increment ............................................ 5 Redevelopment Area - Assessed Valuation ......................................... 6 1 Tax Increment Assessed Valuations - Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................ 7 Description of Redevelopment Funds .............................................. 8 I Financial Summary - All Funds ................................................... 9 Financial Summary - Operating Fund ............................................. 10 I Financial Summary - Housing Fund .............................................. 11 Debt Service Fund ........................................... 12 I Financial Summary Financial Summary - Parking Fund .............................................. 13 Redevelopment - Operating ..................................................... 14 I ', Description of Redevelopment Long-Term Debt .................................... 15 Debt Service Requirements - Certificates of Participation, 1987 1 (Convention Center) ..................................................... 16 Debt Service Requirements - Tax Allocation 1 Refunding Bonds, 1993 .................................................. 17 Debt Service Requirements - General Obligation, 1990 (17th Street Parking Lot) ................................................. 18 Debt Service Requirements - Property Tax Abatement Contract, 1994 · (Convention Center Hotel Project) ......................................... 19 Debt Service Requirements - Property Tax Abatement Contract, 1992 (Porter-Robertson Office Project) .......................................... 20 I I City of Bakersfield Central District Development Agency 1996-97 Organizational Chart CITIZENS o~ BAKERSFIELD CITY CO~CI:L DEVELOPMENT AG-I~ICY ~ I I I I SECR~ARY I I I ~~11 I I~ll r ~~ ~~~~~¢ ilpr i~l iii ii llli il r~ill~BII Bf]~ ¢ J I IIJllllllJllllll '~~~SJ~~~~'~~~'' '"'"'~~ '~' "'""'"'"'~ CALIFORNIA AVE ' CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT 3 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FACILITIES 9 GET TRANSFER FACILITY ' "EALE "E"ORIAL LI"RARY 10 'STH & lYE P*RKIN6 STRUCTURE SPECIFIC PLAN STUDY AREA NEW COUNTY ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX 12 OLD CHURCH PLAZA ' I City of Bakersfield Central District Development Agency __ $520'65125--.5% $40,000 72.6% ~ $1,485,000 All Funds- Revenues 79.9% ~ 17.3% ~ $308,469 All Funds- Appropriations Housing Set Aside ~ Debt Service ~ Operating City of Bakersfield Central DiStrict Development Agency FY 1996/97 Budget 99.9% -/11111111111111 IIII I!1111111111111~ Interest Operating Funds- Revenues Cost ^llocations 55.2% $88 638 llh~~ ~ 7.4% Housing & St~eetscape ~ 37.4% $60,000 'Operating Funds - Appropriations 4 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMENT TAX INCREMENT PROPERTY TAXES FROM INCREASED ASSESSED VALUE 5,000 4,000 ~ 3,000 2,000 1,000 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 9697* FISCAL YEARS ENDING I~ Redevelopment Agency ~ City, County, Schools * FY 1996/97 is Projected Central District Development Agency Tax Increment Assessed Valuations ~ PROJECTED 1 O0 - ..~. ,..''' i,,,,' ~0 60/- mu= I~' m ..,...,. ~ n n n I~i ~NN~ 0 ~ "" '"' "" "" "" "" ' ' I I I I I I I 91 92 ~ ~ 95 96 97 FISCAL YEARS ENDING S~rce: Kern ~unty Audit~-Contr~ler CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY TAX INCREMENT ASSESSED VALUATIONS I I Fiscal Year Secured Unsecured Total 1984-85 $67,016,232 $12,413,662 $79,429,894 I 1985-86 96,939,848 11,174,455 108,114,303 1986-87 92,956,951 13,770,722 106,727,673 I 1987-88 94,743,891 13,883,502 108,627,393 1988-89 53,268,561 14,025,374 67,293,935 I 1989-90 66,875,218 14,845,596 81,720,814 1990-91 70,736,952 13,814,859 84,551,811 I 1991-92 67,477,184 14,759,130 82,236,314 I 1992-93 63,344,531 14,102,076 77,446,607 1993-94 57,276,860 13,679,281 70,959,141 ! 1994-95 $60,335, ! 09 $16,219,309 $76,554,418 1995-96 Unavailable at Budget Time I SOURCE: COUNTY OF KERN For 1988-89 fiscal year and years thereafter, State Assessed Unitary and Operating Nonunitary values are provided County-side only and are not available by the tax base area. Therefore, this resulted in a reduced assessed value to Agency utility roll. This is a result of State of California Assembly Bill no. 454. The 1994- 95 fiscal year total valuation for the downtown project area is as follows: Secured Unsecured Total Increment $60,335,109 $16,219,309 $76,554,418 Base 29,980,340 2,588,836 32,569,176 Total $90,315,449 $18,808,145 $109,123,594 7 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS Redevelopment Operating Fund - To account for the cost of various capital projects and ProgramS within the downtown redevelopment project area. Financing is provided by the issuance of tax allocation bonds and tax allocation revenues. Redevelopment Housing Fund - To account for the mandatory twenty percent (20%) of Tax Increment Revenue Set-aside for low and moderate income housing. Redevelopment Debt Service - To account for the payment of principal and interest on the RedeVelopment Tax Allocation Bonds, Certificates of Participation (Convention Center Improvements), Notes and Interagency loans. I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL SUMMARY - ALL REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS : ? :::~ .'6.30.96 I I Operating $77,873 $1,485,000 $0 $1,095,000 $160,469 $148,000 $159,404 Housing $889,267 $40,000 $295,000 $0 ' $50,000 $0 $1,174,267 Debt Service $1,215,980 $52,655 $850,000 $0 $1,422,265 $0 $1,164,370 Totals $2,183,120 $1,577,655 $1,145,000 $1,095,000 $1,632,734 $148,000 $2,498,041 ! I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FINANCIAL SUMMARY' - REDEVELOPMENT OPERATING FUND Amended Revised Proposed Actual Budget* Estimates Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Fund Balance - July 1 $94,010 .$55,200 $130,758 $77,873 Revenues Taxes 1,449,640 1,445,000 1,428,000 1,457,500 Intergovernmental Revenue 397 450 450 450 Miscellaneous Revenue 34,419 7.350 9,550 5,000 Total Revenues !,484,456 1,452,800 146,000 1,485,000 Expenditures Operating 439,052 376,770 397,885 308,469 Total Expenditures 439,052 376,770 397,885 308,469 Transfers ~' Transfers out ($993.590) ($1.115.000) ($1.115,000) ($1.095,000) Fund Balance - June 30 $130,758 $16.230 $77,873 $159,404 *As of June 26, 1996 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I FINANCIAL SUMMARY - REDEVELOPMENT HOUSING FUND Amended Revised Proposed I Actual Budget* Estimates Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 ! Fund Balance - July 1 $265,609 $535.610 $574,267 $889.267 Revenues I Miscellaneous Revenue 15,068 20,000 20.000 40,000 Total Revenues 15,068 20,000 20.000 40,000 I Expenditures Operating _0 _o o 50.000 I Total Expenditures _0 0 _0 50,000 Transfers I Transfers in $293.590 $290,000 $290,000 $295.000 Fund Balance - June 30 $574.267 $845.610 $889.267 $1,174,267 I I *As of June 26, 1996 I I I, I I' I 11 I ! I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FINANCIAL SUMMARY _ REDEVELOPMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND ! ! i Amended Revised Proposed Actual Budget* Estimates Budget I 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Fund Balance - July 1 .$1,197,559 $1,177,559 $1,194,983 .$1,215,980 ~ Revenues ,! Charges for Services 402,000 399,000 399,000 402,000 I I Miscellaneous Revenue 56,626 54,000 104,880 119.765 Total Revenues 458,626 453,000 503,880 520,655 I Expenditures . Debt Service 1,161,202 1,307,883 1,307,883 1,422,265 ~ I Total Expenditures 1,161,202 1,307,883 1,307,883 1,422,265 Transfers I Transfers in 700,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 Fund Balance - June 30 I I Analysis of Fund Balance I Reserved for: $1,162,406 $1,162,406 $1,162,406 $1,162,406 Debt service i Unreserved $32,577 $10,270 $53,574 $1,964 ~ ~ ~ $1.164.370 I I I *As of June 26, 1996 12 I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FINANCIAL SUMMARY - REDEVELOPMENT PARKING FUND Amended Revised Proposed Actual Budget* Estimates Budget 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 1996-97 Fund Balance - July 1 $193,617 $0 $0 $0 Revenues Charges for Services 463,694 Miscellaneous Revenue 30,000 Total Revenues 493,694 Expenditures Debt Service 687,311 Total Expenditures 687,311 Fund Balance - June 30 $0 $t21 $0 $0 *There are no expenditures budgeted for the redevelopment parking fund in 1996-97. The parking fund was eliminated in 1994-95 after its debt was paid. The parking fired is shown here only for historical purposes. 13 Redevelopment - Operating Program Service Objective To encourage additional business, retail, and housing activities in Bakersfield's Central Business- District and the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project Area. Adopted 1995-96 Amended 1995-96 Proposed 1996-97 $341,770 $341,770 $308,469 ACTION STATEMENTS · Continue'marketing of city-owned downtown property for development. Complete identification of Housing Set-Aside Project Opportunities to improve housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents. Implement recommendations of an Urban Design Study which focuses on streetscaping, landscaping, and other enhancements to downtown public right-of-way. Provide staff support to the Central iDistrict Development Agency for agenda preparation, representation at meetings, and with the implementation of Agency policies, plans and activities. Continue to foster cooperative efforts with the Downtown Business Association and the Downtown Revitalization Committee of the Future Bakersfield Conference to revitalize the Central Business District. I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY I DESCRIPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT LONG-TERM DEBT I Redevelopment - Certificates of Participation (Convention Center) - 1 $4,780,000 in Certificates of Participation, 1987 - due in annual installments of I $95,000 to $370,000 through February 1, 2012; interest ranging from 4.50% to 6.63% (this issue is being serviced by the Redevelopment Debt Service Fund) I Redevelopment - Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, 1993 - $8,545,000 in I Redevelopment Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds, 1993 - due in annual installments of $215,000 to $715,000 through April 1, 2015; interest ranging from 4.400% to 6.625% (this issue is being serviced by the Redevelopment 1 Debt Service Fund) ! Redevelopment- Parking Lot Acquisition Note, 1990 - $300,000 Parking Lot (17th between F & G Streets) Note, 1990 - due in eighty-four (84) equal l monthly installments of principal and interest January 1996 through December 2002; interest only at 10% through December 1995. l · Redevelopment-Disposition and Development /tgreement, 1994 - $1,000,000 in tax rebates due in semi-annual principal installments of $100,000 commencing January 15, 1996, through July 15, 2000, without interest. Redevelopment - Ownership Participation ~lgreement, 1992 - $23,334 tax rebates due in annual principal installments of approximately $2,100 to $2,570 commencing May 25, 1994, through 2003 without interest. I I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT - CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION, 1987 (Convention Center) Interest Principal Fiscal Year August 1 February 1 Total February 1 Total Requirements 1996-97 126,203 126,203 252,406 145,000 397,406 1997-98 121,853 121,853 243,706 155,000 398,706 1998-99 117,126 117,126 234,252 165,000 399,252 1999-00 112,011 1 ! 2,011 224,022 175,000 399,022 2000-01 106,498 106,498 212,996 185,000 397,996 2001-02 100,578 100,578 201,156 195,000 396,156 2002-03 94,241 94,241 188,482 210,000 398,482 2003'04 87,284 87,284 174,568 225,000 399,568 2004-05 79,831 79,831 159,662 240,000 399,662 2005-06 71,881 71,881 143,762 ' 255,000 398,762 2006-07 63,434 63,434 126,868 270,000 396,868 2007-08 54,491 54,491 108,982 290,000 398,982 2008-09 44,884 44,884 89,768 305,000 394,768 2009-10' 34,781. . 34,781 69,562 330,000 399,562 2010-11 23,850 23,850 47,700 350,000 397,700 2011-12 12,256 12,256 24,512 370,000 394,512 $1,251,202 $1,251,202 $2,502,40_~._4 $3,865,000 $6,367,404 Note: Payments on 1987 COPs are made from the Redevelopment Debt Service Fund. A transfer is made from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund in the amount of the annual debt service, thus the Debt Service Fund acts only as a conduit for payment of the COPs. 16 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1 CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 REDEVELOPMENT - TAX ALLOCATION REFUNDING BONDS, 1993 I Interest Principal Fiscal Year October 1 April 1 Total April 1 Total 1 Requirements 1996-97 259,657 259,657 519,314 235,000 754,314 I 1997-98 253,665 253,664 507,329 250,000 757,329 1998-99 246,914 246,915 493,829 265,000 758,829 1 1999-00 239,495 239,494 478,989 275,000 753,989 2000-01 231,519 231,520 463,039 295,000 758,039 l 2001-02 222,670 222,669 445,339 310,000 755,339 2002-03 213,214 213,215 426,429 330,000 756,429 I 2003-04 202,985 202,984 405,969 350,000 755,969 2004-05 191,959 191,960 383,919 375,000 * 758,919 2005-06 179,538 179,537 359,075 395,000 * 754,075 1 2006-07 166,453 166,453 332,906 425,000 * 757,906 2007-08 152,375 152,375 304,750 455,000 *' 759,750 1 2008-09 137,303 137,303 274,606 485,000 * 759,606 2009-10 121,237 121,238 242,475 515,000 * 757,475 I 2010-11 104,178 104,178 208,356 550,000 * 758,356 2011-12 85,959 85,959 171,918 585,000 * 756,918 l 2012-13 66,581 66,581 133,162 625,000 * 758,162 2013-14 45,878 45,878 91,756 670,000 * 761,756 l 2014-15 23,684 23,684 47,368 715,000 * 762,368 $3,145,264 $3,145,264 $6,290,528 $8,105,000 $14,395,528 Note: 42,750,000 Serial Bonds maturing 1995 through 2004; $5,795,00 term bonds * maturing 2015 deemed to mature in the amounts and years indicated. 17 I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT - GENERAL OBLIGATION NOTE, 1990 Fiscal Year Interest Principal Total Requirements 1996-97 27,006 32,758 59,764 1997-98 23,576 189 36, 59,765 1998-99 19,786 39,978 59,764 1999-00 15,600 44,164 59,764 2000-01 10,976 48,789 59,765 2001-02 5,867 53,897 59,764 2002-03 853 29,029 · 29,882 $103,664 $284,804 $388,468 I 18 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD I CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 REDEVELOPMENT - PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT CONTRACT, 1994 (CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL PROJECT) 1 1 Principal I Fiscal' Year July 15 January 15 Total Requirements I 1996-97 100,000 100,000 200,000 1997-98 100,000 100,000 200,000 I 1998-99 100,000 100,000 200,000 . 1999-00 100,000 100,000 200,000 I 2000-01 100,000 lOO,OOO I $500,000 $400,000 $900,000 1 1 I I I I I I I I CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY REDEVELOPMENT - TAX ABATEMENT CONTRACT, 1992 (PORTER-ROBERTSON OFFICE PROJECT) Fiscal Principal Year 1996-97 2,109 1997-98 2,158 1998-99 2,209 1999-00 2,260 2000-01 2,313 2001-02 2,366 2002-03 2,381 $15,796 I I 20 B 'A K E R.S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~/t/Lv/~.~ DATE: July 12, 1996 SUBJECT: COFFEE ROAD GRADE SEPARATION DISTRICT (S~~ ~Fe~I~G) Granite Construction is ready to begin work on the Coffee Road Grade Separation project. However, Sunland Refining Company is still refusing to remove their flare facility which is located on City right of way. Although this right of way was ordered granted to the City on April l, 1996, Sunland has continued to push vapors through their flare. Judge Robert Anspach today ordered Sunland Refining Company to do one of two things by July 26, 1996 at 8:30 A.M.: (1) either have a guarantee that the flare would be removed by August 8, or (2) that they would have a plan to drain the tank and shut down facilities to the flare so the City's contractor can remove the flare in a safe manner. In either event, we will have 100% of the fight of way by August 8. Contractor Granite Construction indicated that they can work around the August 8 date without penalty to the City or delaying the completion of the project. We will report back after the 26th as to the progress of Sunland's work.