HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/96 BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
August 23, 1996
TO: ~{[1 HONORABLE MAYORAND CITY COUNCiL
SUBJEC~T: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. The "remedy" on the Police Building construction has not worked. Old sub-contractors still
aren't paid, no reasonable work effort is underway. A faxed letter from American Construction
Group is attached which attempts to explain the current delays in the project. We are again
processing default documents. The City Attorney's correspondence is also attached.
2. I am having Lee Andersen's staffresearch events, participants, dollars, etc. that other expanded
convention centers with arenas generate, so we can compile an economic impact report on that
proposal here.
3. Stan Ford has accepted the position of Director of Recreation and Parks. He will start on
October 7th. Mr. Ford comes to Bakersfield fi.om Rio Rancho, New Mexico where he held the
same type of position for the last seven years.
4. Enclosed is an analysis on Proposition 218, the "Fox Initiative", as prepared by the City
Attorney. This proposition could create serious financial impacts for the City.
5. Development Services has prepared a report (attached)summarizing the general and specific
plans that have been developed by the County in the northwest Bakersfield area.
6. We will be sending a form to all employees to allow them to select their choice of a city
physician for workers' compensation injuries or illness under the new two provider system.
7. The tentative timeline for the FY 1997-98 CDBG Draft Action Plan is attached for your
information.
8. A status report on the renewal process for the parking services contract at the 18th and Eye
Street structure is also enclosed.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
AuguStpage 2 23, 1996
9. The Graffiti Update for July is enclosed. There were a total of 246 Hotline calls received last
month.
10. Responses for Council inquires are attached, as follows: · Inspection/condition of streets at mobilepark at 1500 Pacheco Road in response to
residents' request to dedicate streets to City;
· Investigate sighting of City vehicle at Sycamore Canyon Golf Course;
· Update on left turn traffic signal at Centennial High School on Hageman Road;
· Status of manhole raising for 24th Street resurfacing project.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, Acting City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
American Construction Group, lnc,
Aug. 22, 1996
City of BakezsEle].d
1501Truxton Ave
Bakersfield, GA 93301
Attention; Alan Tandy
Clty Manager
Regarding: Pellet Station Addl£iou
Bakersfield, CA
Project NO. 40503
I underetand there ie 8omc concern Xnregard~ to progrega on ~he above
mentioned proJeet.~ For the size of project there ia only so much Man-
power you can apply at tertian stages of the project. For example uadar-
around electric that has been in prograaa since the new electrical
eomtraetor wa~..approved hy thm ~ity. It vas th~ only activity tiiat could
~o don~ at thio tim~. Tho undar~r°uud plumbing wa~ already com~lsta as
woll a{ other ac~iviCto0. The cur'r~nr d~lay ia.due to somO special, in
slab, elo~tri~al ~oxoo that w~re {hnrtod duo to £he original electrical
contractor, Ua had to roaubmi~ a different brand name and approval from
time electrical engi~oO~ which wa racieved. Wa ]lad to special ord~r
those boxe~, which are ~h~dal~d fo~ dolivo~y on Iu~. 23. 1996. At that
~im, w, ~lll ~ehedule tho al. ab concrete to bo placed,
?lea~e understand that due to the size of vhJs project there are only
~o many work~m yea can have on ait~ during eertta~l ~hames of tho
project. Once all the concret~ ig placed at all lavel~, you will see
more proar~aa, as tho motel stud traming will ~tart. A~ for tho Stop
Hotices, we are working with our bondin8 company, Fro~ltier, aa I write
thio letter ~o get them paid and released. I will advise you as f~gthar
detatl~ are available.
If yon have any queatton~ do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank yo~,
AMERICAN CONST1HICTION GROUP, 1NC.
Mike W, Ils, Project Superintendent
conw~t~o~'* t icons, ~. ~,a3~3 P.O. Bo~ 2000
Lunc~sler. CA 935~9 "
CITY A'I'I'ORNEY
Judy K, Skou..
CHIEF ASSISTANT CITY A'VFORNEY
Robin M. Shcrfy
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS
Alan D. Darnel
Laura C Marino
Allen M. Shaw
Walter H Port, Jr.
Michael G. Allford CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
OE.vr~ cI~ ^TTORNEVS
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Janice Scanlan 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
Carl Hemandez III BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
Virginia Gennaro
LAW OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR TELEPHONE: 805-326-3721
Frances E Thompson FACSIMILE: 805-325-9162
--' '~ August 23, 1996
AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. wa Certified Mail
ATTN: Project Manager & Return Receipt Requested
P. O. Box 2080
Lancaster, California 93539
RE: Agreement No. 95-275
NOTICE
TO: AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.
The City of Bakersfield hereby notifies American Construction Group, Inc., that it
is again and still in default under Agreement No. 95-275. Agreement No. 95-275 is a
project commonly known as the Bakersfield Police Station Addition at 1601 Truxtun
Avenue, Bakersfield, California ("Project" herein). The Agreement was entered into on
November 8, 1995.
The Stop Payment Notices filed with the City, of which you were previously notified,
have not been paid nor withdrawn. The litigation over the Stop Payment Notices has not
been resolved. In fact, none of the promises made by American Construction Group, Inc.,
after the last Notice of Default, have been kept.
The City was provided a new construction schedule but is already behind and
appears unable to meet that schedule. We are informed and believe that because so
many subcontractors have not been paid for the work they have already done or the
materials they have supplied, that the subcontractors are refusing to return to the job. We
are also informed and believe that suppliers have and continue to refuse to provide
additional materials. .:
!CITY ~v'tANAGEiR~S OFFtC~
AMERICAN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.
August 23, 1996
Page 2
Additional Stop Payment Notices have been field with the City since the last Notice
of Default was rescinded. We are in the process of supplying you with a complete list of
all the Stop Payment Notices received by the City. You have previously been served with
copies of these Stop Notices and we will continue to provide copies to you.
The contractor, American Construction Group, Inc., has persistently and repeatedly
refused and failed and continues to refuse and fail to supply enough properly skilled
workers and materials to the Project; has failed to make payments to subcontractors for
materials or labor in accordance with the respective agreements between the contractor
and subcontractor; has failed to meet any construction progress schedules. In addition,
the contractor is substantially behind the original schedule, the revised schedule and the
second revised schedule.
This list of causes for the declaration of the contractor being in default may not be
comprehensive.
Failure to cure all of the above-listed default items immediately, as required in
Agreement No. 95-275, will cause the City to exercise any and all of its rights under the
Contract, including, but not limited to, requesting the bonding company complete the
Project.
Please note the Contract calls for liquidated damages of $1,000.00 per day in the
event contractor fails to complete the Contract in a timely manner. The City of Bakersfield
hereby demands contractor cure each and every default and complete the Project in a
timely manner as set forth in the Agreement No. 95-275. The City of Bakersfield hereby
reserves all rights and remedies allowed under the Contract or at law, and does not waive
or otherwise relinquish any remedy available to it under the Contract or at law.
Very truly yours,
N D. DANIEL
Assistant City Attorney
ADD:dlr
cc: Frontier Pacific Insurance Company
William J. Allard, Esq. (escrow agent)
Alan Tandy, City Manager
Judy K. Skousen, City Attorney
Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
Jacques LaRochelle, Civil Engineering Services Manager
Nelson Smith, Accounting Supervisor
S:~IT~GES UPPLY~CORRVUVl E RICAN.LT2 ~
MEMORANDUM
August 19, 1996
TO: ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS,.~-~_-L~ ~/) ~'~~//~/~
FROM: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, City Attorney ..) .- v
SUBJECT: Analysis of Proposition 218
This November, California voters will have an oppodunity to vote on a measure
referred to as the "Fox Initiative" or Proposition 218.
This proposition is designed to close perceived loopholes in Proposition 13 and
Proposition 62. Basically, Proposition 218 will require voter approval of all local taxes and
dramatically change the law relating to special assessments and property-related fees and
charges. This memorandum is a short analysis of Proposition 218 and the effects it will
have on Bakersfield.
A. TAXES
The Fox Initiative specifies that all taxes imposed by a local government are
deemed either general taxes or special taxes.
1. General Taxes: No local government may approve a general tax
without a majority vote.
2. Special Taxes: No local government may approve a special tax
without a two-thirds vote.
A local election for the imposition of general taxes may be held only at the same
time as a regularly scheduled general election. Special elections may only be held in
cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body.
Furthermore, any local revenue source is subject to the threat of reduction or repeal
through an initiative by the people. Therefore, bonds which have been previously
approved by the voters and used to support capital facilities may be subject to repeal or
reduction. Although it is unclear at this time, it is generally thought that all types of'
revenue generation, possibly including development fees and fees for purposes
other than property, related service, are subject to potential repeal or reduction by
initiative measures.
ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS
August 19, 1996
Page 2
B. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
A special assessment is a charge levied on real property to pay for benefits the
property receives from local improvement. For some time, the courts have traditionally
applied a deferential standard to review of actions of local government in forming
assessment and levying districts.
If Proposition 218 is passed, it will define a special benefit as a "particular and
distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the
district or the public at large." The City of Bakersfield will be subject to assessments and
will have the burden of proof if a legal action is brought to challenge any assessments.
One of the most detrimental aspects of Proposition 218 is its provisions relating to
majority protest of assessment district formation. Under Proposition 218, the local agency
must conduct a mail ballot election with respect to the proposed assessment. The agency
must mail-a ballot to each property owner of record. A majority protest exists if, upon
conclusion of the hearing, the ballots submitted against the assessment exceed the ballots
in favor of the assessment. Under the Fox Initiative, ballots are to be weighted
according to the value of the assessment. As such, a small minority of owners who are
interested in property, but who are assessed more to pay for improvements, may block an
assessment favored by numerically more property owners of less intensely used property.
In addition, and as mentioned previously, even if an assessment district is
successfully implemented, the proposition will allow for a local initiative to revoke or
terminate the assessment after it is formed. As further policy considerations, this new
assessment formation would allow for out of state property owners to have more of a "vote"
and would not allOw ranchers to have a vote.
In terms of landscaping and lighting maintenance districts, the Fox Initiative is
unclear. A literal reading of the measure leads to the conclusion that a local agency
must obtain affirmative approval of every annual assessment. The proposition
specifically exempts assessment districts existing on or before November 6, 1996 only if
they were formed exclusively to finance sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control,
drainage systems or vector control.
C. PROPERTY-RELATED FEES AND CHARGES
Proposition 218 creates stringent procedural requirements for new and increased
fees and charges. It is very difficult to interpret how the initiative will affect the notice and
hearing provisions which currently exist in state law. However, the initiative defines a
"property-related service" as one having a direct relationship to property ownership.
ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS
August 19, 1996
Page 3
Under this definition, it appears that all fees and charges, including those for water,
sanitation, storm drainage and sewer, must be based on actual use or immediate
availability and not potential or future use. Fees and charges for general governmental
services such as police, fire, ambulance or library services are, specifically prohibited if the
service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to
property owners.
Any new or increased fees or charges will require a local agency to give mailed
notice to every record owner of each parcel stating the amount of the proposed fee and
giving notice of the required public hearing. The public hearing will be in the nature of a
majority protest hearing, and if written protest against the proposed fee or charge are
presented by a majority of the owners of the affected parcel, the fee cannot be imposed.
It is anticipated that mailing costs, especially in regional special districts, will be
extraordinary. Although unclear, it appears that the protest will be based upon the
number of owners and not the acreage of property. Again, the public agency will have
the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of Proposition 218. Sewer, water
and refuse collection fees can be imposed unless a majority protest exists. All other fees
and charges will require a majority vote.
D. CONCLUSION
This is a very serious proposition that will have dramatic fiscal effects on the City
of Bakersfield, as well as other cities. It is unclear what the actual financial impact will be
and whether the initiative will withstand a constitutional challenge if passed.
It is important to note that City officials may not "take sides" in this ballot measure
or use public resources for promotion of the ballot measure one way or the other. Any
publications must be clearly informational and present a "fair presentation of the facts."
Should you require any further details about this proposition, please let me know.
JKS:GG:Iaa
S :~ATTY~VIE MOS',PR OP-218.ANA
MEMORANDUM
August 19, 1996 ~/v
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER _ ~-'"3//~
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRE~,~,
SUBJECT: COUNTY GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS IN NO~,~I>HWEST BAKERSFIELD---
The City a~exed Rancho Laborde and the inte~ening area along Coffee Road in 1986, the area along
Bri~all Road in 1989 and the Polo Grounds in 1990. The City approved the Polo Grounds project with 4,443
dwelling units and a population of 12,171. The o~er significant project approved by the City was between
Coffee Road and Calloway Road to convert from industrial to 4,248 dwelling units with a population of 8,729.
There is a map attached delineating the county projects outlined in this memo.
Kern County has developed ~ree general plans and three specific plans in the nor~west Bakersfield area no~
of ~e Kern River and west of SR-99. They are as follows:
Year Population
1. Northwest Bakersfield General Plan 1977 10,200
2. Rosedale Area General Plan 1980 48,400
3. Laborde Development General Plan 1980 20,000
4. Rancho Laborde Specific Plan 1986 * overlaps above
5. Western Rosedale Specific Plan 1994 45,587
6. Rosedale Ranch 1996 65,712
In addition the County and City adopted the 2010 General Plan in 1990 which included previous plans and
some expansion in no~hwest Bakersfield. Development within each of the plan areas, eider developed or with
the potemial for developmem would generate additional traffic volumes. Within the not,west area, Kern
County was primarily responsible for initiation of growth and resultam traffic congestion via the Coumy
general and specific plans.
Within these plan areas, two population concemrations developed prior to and a~er ciW a~exation efforts.
One concemration is located south of Snow Road, between Coffee Road and State Route 99 within the
No,west Bakersfield General Plan boundary. The other concemration is generally located between Hageman
Road, Shellalbarger Road (extended), Coffee Road and Allen Road within the Rosedale General Plan. O~er
scattered population pockets exist west of Allen Road.
AUG
: :'.T';' '.~ :~a,'~AGER'S OFF~C~~
Alan Tandy, City Manager
August 19, 1996
Page 2
Northwest Bakersfield General Plan
The Northwest Bakersfield General Plan, located directly east of State Route-99, consisted of 5.75 square miles
or 3,680 acres. A purpose of this plan was to provide an environment for a population of 15,000 by the year
2000 (within the same general plan text, population projections show a population of 10,200 by the year 2,000
with 3,390 dwelling units).
FEIR Circulation-Transportation Impacts and Mitigation
Impacts - Existing and proposed circulation design appears to be adequate; no access to community
transportation; and street deterioration without maintenance.
Mitigation - community transportation service should be made available; a deliberate disorder of local
streets may be created to discourage through movement; installation of traffic signals when intersection
volumes rise above 750 vehicles per hour; and local streets in industrial and commercial areas should
be widened to 90 feet.
"Irreversible Environmental Changes" - Circulation-Transportation not addressed.
Rosedale Area General Plan
By contrast the Rosedale Area General Plan consisted of 74 square miles. This plan area was to have a
population of 48,400 residing in 11,000 dwelling units. These dwelling units would produce an estimated
110,000 ADT.
FEIR Circulation-Transportation Impacts and Mitigation
Impacts - Increased road activity; increased demand for public transportation; and increased traffic will
cause a problem with at-grade railroad crossings.
Mitigation - Encourage bus service to Rosedale area; to permit minimum road maintenance and
maximum water runoff control, curbs and gutters should be required on all future streets; pedestrian
safety by use of sidewalks; and implementation of trail plans.
Significant Environmental Effects - Increase in average daily traffic and vehicle miles traveled and
increased demand for bus service.
Laborde Development General Plan
Riverlakes Ranch Specific Plan, previously known as Laborde Development General Plan and Rancho Laborde
Specific Plan, occupies portions of both the Northwest Bakersfield General Plan and the Rosedale Area General
Plan. The Laborde Development had a residential area of 1,373 acres of the total area of 2,096 acres with
7,543 dwelling units and a population of 20,000 (FEIR adopted March 31, 1980. Rancho Laborde was
reduced in size and had a residential area of 1,297 acres with 7,229 dwelling units. The total Rancho Laborde
area was 1,902 acres (adopted August, 1981). Both Laborde projects were approved under Kern County
jurisdiction.
Alan Tandy, City Manager
August 19, 1996
Page 3
FEIR Circulation-Transportation Impacts and Mitigation
Impacts, Mitigation and Significant Effects - none stated.
Rancho Laborde Specific Plan
"Supplemental EIR" - Circulation-Transportation, Growth and Cost
Impacts - Over 200,000 additional vehicle trips daily to be distributed over a relatively underdeveloped
roadway system; the potential to induce significant further growth in Northwest Bakersfield by
establishing a growth center of commercial, industrial and employment opportunities; and substantial
increase in government costs to meet new public demand for services.
Mitigation - Widening and construction of roadways and installation of traffic control devices; and
homeowners association maintenance of common areas.
"Unavoidable Adverse Effects" - Government costs attributable to the proposed project may or may not
be offset by direct and indirect revenues generated by development of the planned community.
Western Rosedale Specific Plan
The Western Rosedale Specific Plan was adopted by Kern County in September 1994. This specific plan had a
total area of 57 square miles with 14,427 dwelling units housing 45,587 people to be located on 7,331 acres.
Traffic projection for this specific plan was 1,292,600 ADT.
DF. IR Circulation-Transportation Impacts and Mitigation
Cumulative Traffic Impacts - In the Year 2010, the cumulative impact of the project in conjunction
with other projects would have an impact on 57 roadway segments. Calloway Drive between Hageman
Road and Stockdale Highway is one of the identified affected segments. Upon mitigation, Calloway
Drive between Hageman Road and Stockdale Highway would have a LOS of "D" or worse. For the
Year 2020 and upon mitigation, the project in conjunction with other projects would impact 21
roadway segments including Calloway Drive between Olive Drive and Hageman Road. For the
"build-out" year 13 roadway segments would be affected. Calloway Drive is not mentioned as one of
the affected segments.
(Note: The DEIR was based on a "worst case" scenario feature entitled the "Broad Utilization Plan"
which had a build out period of 50 to 60 Years. This scenario was later changed to the "Modified Low
Density Infill Plan". The city has not received the revised "Low Density Infill Plan" with a build out
period of 20 to 25 years. All discussion in this Memo is based on the "Broad Utilization Plan").
Mitigation - "Legal/Regulatory" requirements (participate in Regional Transportation Fee Program
(Chapter 17.60 Kern Co. Ordinance); Specific Plan implementation (primarily provide traffic analysis
with improvement requirements, require new development to provide additional right-of-way, traffic
analysis to address traffic impacts for the Years 2010, 2020 and build-out year). Calloway Drive is one
of the roadway segments to need potential improvements by the Years 2010 and 2020: Year 2010 -
Alan Tandy, City Manager
August 19, 1996
Page 4
Calloway Drive from two to six lanes between Hageman Road and Stockdale Highway, Year 2020 -
four to six lanes between Olive Drive and Hageman Road.
"Significant" Impacts
The DEIR states 13 roadway segments will be significantly affected. Calloway Drive is not one of
these.
Rosedale Ranch
Rosedale Ranch Specific Plan located within the boundaries of the Western Rosedale Specific Plan had a
residential area of 5,445 acres and a total area of 6,537 acres. The residential area would have a total of
20,759 dwelling units, housing 65,712 people.
DEIR Circulation-Transportation Impacts and Mitigation
A traffic study was prepared for this project. Calloway Drive/Old River Road were identified as
needing the following improvements:
7th Standard Road to Hageman Road - from 2 to 4 lanes divided;
Hageman Road to Brimhall Road - from 2 to 6 lanes divided;
Brimhall Road to Stockdale Highway - 6 lanes divided;
Stockdale Highway to Ming Avenue - 4 lanes to 6 lanes divided;
Ming Avenue to White Lane - 6 lanes divided, no change;
White Lane to Pacheco Road - 6 lanes divided;
Pacheco Road to Panama Lane - 2 lanes to 6 lanes divided;
Panama Lane to I-5 - 2 lanes to 4 lanes divided.
Based upon increased traffic volumes and project generated traffic certain segments of Calloway Road
(sic) would be the recipient of the following percent contributions:
Norris Road to Olive Drive - .90%;
Olive Drive to Hageman Road - .90%;
Hageman Road to Highway 58 - 10.00%;
Brimhall Road to Kern River Freeway - 1.40 %;
Kern River Freeway to Stockdale - .60%.
The traffic study identified other roadways in both the northwest and southwest as needing
improvements.
Mitigation - Prior to recordation of a final map, the developer shall enter into an agreement to
contribute on a fair share basis to improve off-site roadway facilities that are projected to experience
deficient traffic operations due to the Rosedale Ranch project; for subsequent discretionary
applications, applicant shall prepare a traffic study; implement Transportation Management Actions
such as ride sharing, vanpooling and parking restrictions.
All traffic impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.
Alan Tandy, City Manager
August 19, 1996
Page 5
POPULATION GROWTH IN THE NORTHWEST
In 1990, the Federal Census showed the following population and housing statistics in the northwest area
(bounded by 7th Standard Road, State Highway 99, Kern River, and Nord Avenue) as follows:
* Kern County: * City of Bakersfield
Population - 21,435 Population - 894
Housing Units - 7,229 Housing Units - 359
Based on the statistics used for preparing the ward reapportionment in 1995 and estimates received from the
Kern Council of Governments of final building permit data for both the county and city, the following is the
population and housing estimates as of January 1, 1995:
* Kern Coumy * City of Bakersfield
Population - 24,850 Population - 12,084
Housing Units - 8,875 Housing Units - 4,316
RED:
m\mat8-16
COUNTY APPROVED GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS
NORTHWEST METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD
· ' ',, I ~
I !
I
i
.n" , '.-r" ~"'--
LEGEND
'° " '~ FEIR 1980 SPECIFIC PLAN - 1986
'~° J SPECIFIC PLAN - 1994 SPECIFIC PLAN - 1996
'x ~ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD FUTURE ARTERIAL PER
I I '- I
...... ',- .... -.'~,~ AS OF 7/12/96 2010 GENERAL PLAN CIRC.
· ' ' I I O. 1
~ I :~ ~ = a4 ~ DATE: 8/16/96
I | I SCALE IN MILES 89609.DWG
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
~ August 21, 1996
TO: Alan
Tandy, City Manager ~/
FROM: John W. Stinso~, Al~ssistant ity Manager
SUBJECT: City Physician - Notice to Employees
Attached please find the notice we are sending to employees regarding their choice of
physician for workers compensation injuries or illness. The letter will be included with
their pay stub on Friday, August 23rd. They will have until September 27th to respond
to Risk Management with their selection.
I
BAKERSFIELD
August 23, 1996
To All City Employees,
Effective in August 1996, the City changed to a two provider system for City physician services. The two
providers are:
W. B. Christiansen M.D. Inc.
Bakersfield OccupatiOnal Medical Group
The City is offering all full-time regular emploYees a one time oppOrtunity to choose one of the two
providers listed above as their pre-selected City physician (for workers' comPensation only). You are not
required to make_ a selection. If you have a workers' compensation related injury or illness and have not
made a selectiOn, you will be sent to a City physician designated by the City.
If you Wish to pre-select 'a City physician for treatment..of.~ work_~rs' compensation related injury or illness,
you must complete the information below and return to the Office of Risk Management at City Hall
(1501 Truxtun Avenue) by Friday, September 27th.
As an alternate to'the above, prior to any injury or illness, you may request to pre-designate your personal
physician' for workers' compensation treatment. Information and the required pre-designation request forms
may be obtained from the Office of Risk Management.
Please note that if you have previously Pre-designated your personal physician for workers' compensation, ..
that designation will not change, unless a pre-selection of one of the above physicians is made at this time.
If there any questions regarding the above, please contact the Office of Risk Management at 326-3738.
SincerelY, .
John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager
ONLY SUBMIT TI:lIS FORM IF YOU WISIt TO PRE-SELECT A CITY P}IYSICIAN
I wish to pre-select the following City physician in the event of a workers' compensation injury or illness:
W. B. Christiansen M.D. Inc Bakersfield Occupational Medical Group
Employee Signature Social Security Number"
Name (Please Print) Department/Division Date
" ' '-'" '. City of Bakersfield · Office of'Risk Management :- 1501 Trdxtun Avent~e ...... .
-. -' . Bakersfield.. California- 93301 - '*- '
~ : - ~. ~-::-" (805) 326-3738 .'~FAX (805) 32529162 -' ; '
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
August 20, 1996
TO: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director
FROM: George Gonzales,~"~mmunity Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Tenative Timeliffe for FY 97/98 Action Plan (CDBG).
Below is the tentative timeline for the 1997-98 Action Plan of the Consolidated Plan 2000
(CDBG application). We have yet to receive a entitlement for FY 97-98, however for planning
purposes we will use 1996-97 amounts of $2,874,000 - CDBG and $1,062,000 - Home.
As part of our public review process, we will be conducting a non-profit application workshop
and a public meeting on September 21, 1996. In addition, we have included a review of the Draft
Action Plan by the Budget and Finance Committee per their recommendation.
I
-DRAFT TIMELINE for PUBLIC REVIEW-
FY 1997-98 Consolidated Plan 2000 Action Plan
9/15/96 Notice Published in Newspapers and mailed to Agencies to announce
Public Workshops and Meetings
9/24/96 Non-Profit Application Workshop - Convention Center, Grape Room -
3 P.M.
9/24/96 Public Meeting - Convention Center, Grape Room - 5:30 P.M.
11/27/96 DEADLINE to receive applications for funding
*2/24/97 Submit DRAFT Action Plan to Budget & Finance Committee for
review
*3/20/97 Submit Draft Action Plan to Council and Request to Publish
30-Day Notice
3/24/97 Publish Summary of Draft FY 97-98 Action Plan and Notice of Public
Meeting
4/16/97 Final Public Meeting - Location to be announced
4/26/97 Complete Final FY 97-98 Action Plan
*5/8/97 Request City Council to approve Final FY 97-98 Action Plan
5/16/97 Absolute Deadline to have FY 97-98 Action Plan to HUD (must be to
HUD 45 days prior to new fiscal year - July 1, 1997)
>repared 8/19/96 97timeli/budget.2/j f
* Tentative - City Council Meeting dates not yet established for 1997
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
August 21, 1996
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directo
SUBJECT: Status on Renewal of the Parking Services Contract to Operate, Manage and
Market the 18th and Eye Street Parking Structure
The City currently has a contract with Five Star Parking to operate, manage and market the 18th
and Eye Street Parking Structure. Existing terms of the contract state that it is a two year
contract with a two year renewal option which can be exercised by the City. The City exercised
this option with Five Star, Inc. who currently has this contract. The current contract is due to
expire December 31, 1996.
On July 26, 1996 we sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to parking management firms
regarding the opportunity to bid on the contract to operate, manage and market the 18th and Eye
Street Parking Structure. On August 16, 1996 we received proposals from the following parking
firms interested in the project: Allright Management Services, AMPCO System Parking,
Executive Parking, Five Star Parking and Zee Parking Service.
Currently staff is in the process of reviewing the proposals and anticipates to complete this review
by September 13, 1996. After that, interviews will be scheduled. Staff anticipates a
recommendation to City Council on October 23, 1996. A special focus of the RFP is attention
to marketing to increase the visibility of the parking structure to potential users.
Economic and Community Development Department ~
MEMORANDUM
August 22, 1996
TO: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director
FROM: Myra Mc. Arthur, Planning Technician-'M~ '
SUBJECT: Graffiti Update
A total of 246 HotLine calls were received in July. The distribution is:
CDBG areas 68 calls 27.6%
South West 86 calls 35%
Other areas 92 calls 37.4%
Community Participation
Since June, fourteen individuals have joined the Adopt-A-Wall program, 2 from CDBG areas,
8 from the South West, and 5 from other parts of town. Up to July 31, 1996, a total of 189
people are helping eradicate graffiti. In addition, five community groups participated in Paint-
Out Days. The activities involved about forty five people.
Positive Reaction to Proposed Graffiti Program Modifications
After the media announcement of the proposed graffiti program modifications on July 24, 1996,
at least a dozen citizens expressed their support and made very positive comments about the
possible increased program effectiveness.
Billboard
The news about the future program changes also influenced Martin Outdoor Advertising. Mr.
Todd Hansen, General Manager, met with the graffiti ad hoc committee on July 29, 1996 to offer
the possibility of using billboards to promote the graffiti program. Martin Outdoor Advertising
will wave the monthly service charge of about $500 per board. The company has from 12 to 60
vacant billboards throughout the year, those billboards will be made available for the Graffiti
program. The ad hoc committee plans to place about 12 billboards ~ :'~-,~,, ,~, '~
graphic designs to be used.
2 I.°,9
Summer School Presentations
On July 19, 1996, Graffiti Program staff conducted a presentation at Harris Elementary School.
More than 533 students learned about the City's program and the ills of graffiti. Teachers and
students enthusiastically expressed support for the program and committed to help eradicate
graffiti.
xc: Vince Zaragoza
Larry Jamison
Ed Kuehn
MEMORANDUM
August 9, 1996
TO: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: ALAN D. DANIEL, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: Council Referral from Mark Salvaggio
1500 Pacheco Road Mobilehome Park
Mark Salvaggio has asked a question concerning the dissolution of the
homeowners' association at 1500 Pacheco Road, a mobilehome park, and the shifting of
street responsibility back to the City of Bakersfield. I spoke with Jacques LaRochelle and
he informed me that the Public Works Department is currently examining the street
condition at this mobilehome park.
Jacques LaRochelle informed me that before the City will accept the streets they
must be brought up to City standards. Most mobilehome park streets, (and 1500 Pacheco
Road is no exception), are narrower than required by City standards, may have smaller
sidewalks, or no sidewalks, and the pavement itself may be in poor condition. All this must
be fixed, at the expense of the homeowners in the area, (mobilehome owners in this case),
before the City will accept the streets into its system. Normally, the streets are in such
poor condition and the expense is so great that the homeowner associations cannot afford
to bring them to City standards.
At 1500 Pacheco Road, the initial Public Works inspections disclose the streets are
narrower than required and the pavement is not in good condition; therefore, the expense
in bringing the streets up to City standards will be large. It is expected the homeowners'
association will not be able to bear the cost of bringing the streets to our standards. If the
homeowners' association does go.forward and improve the streets, the City Council can
accept the streets into our system by passing a resolution to that effect. The homeowners'
association can dissolve by their own rules and regulations. We will not be involved in the
dissolution of the homeowners' association because it will be a private matter not
controlled by the City of Bakersfield. The homeowners' association may choose not to
dissolve when they learn of the large expense they will have to undertake to bring the
streets to City standards.
ADD\bsb
$ :'~PUBWORK$~,IEMOS~PACHECO.MMO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
FROM: Luis Peralez~ Street Maintenance Superintendent
DATE: August 9, 1996
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL - WF0010925 / 002
COUNCILMEMBERMAKK SALVAGGIO, WARD 7
SALVAGGIO REQUESTED CITY ATTORNEY RESPOND TO THE CITIZENS
RESIDING AT THE MOBILEPARK AT 1500 PACHECO ROAD WISHING TO
DISSOLVE' THEIR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DEDICATE THE
STREETS TO THE CITY.
- PUBLIC WORKS TO SURVEY STREETS ANDKEPORT THEIR CONDITION
PRIOR TO THE DEDICATION INTO THE CITY IS CONSIDERED.
I have inspected (8-9-96) the streets inside the Mobile Village
Estates area, located at 1500 Pacheco Road.
There are areas in the street that are in need of section repairs
(Dig-Outs) and all the streets need to be crack-sealed. If these
two maintenance procedures are performed, street resurfacing will
not be needed for.at least five years.
My main concern is that the entire area has asphalt curbs &
gutters. The asphalt curbs are deteriorating rapidly and while I
did not observe any drainage problem in the gutter, an asphalt
gutter is going to require maintenance on a regular basis.
In addition, asphalt gutters are a problem when a street is
resurfaced. Proper drainage in the flowline is hard to maintain.
The speed-bumps on the street will have to be removed before
sweeping service can be implemented. The Speed-bumps are to high
and narrow.
cc: Joe Lozano, Public Works Operations Manager
Jack LaRochelle, Engineering Operations Manager
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raui M. Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: August 21, 1996 l:48pm
SUBJECT: Council Referral WF #0010925/002
Tract 3495 - City Acceptance of private street.
Lot 65 of Tract 3495, which is a private street, was not constructed~to City standards. Per the
attached engineers estimate, the cost of constructing City standard curb and gutter to replace the
existing asphalt berm and removal of the speed bumps for street sweeper access on the private street
is $55,600.
The Conditions of Approval and the Final Map state that the City of Bakersfield shall not be called
upon to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of any part or portion of the improvements placed
or to be placed on said lot. The condition of the paving is considerably cracked. There are 63
asphalt and concrete driveways which may have to be reconstructed due to drainage concerns. The
file indicates that there are drainage problems, and that dry wells may have been installed which are
not in conformance with City standards. The curb returns do not have the standard 30' radius and
there are not standard knuckles constructed. The grades of the street and the cross slope are
unknown. There were no construction plans or grading plans on file with our department. The
driveways and drainage concerns are not addressed in our estimate.
'f=NC INEER'S ESTIMATE Tract 3495
lot 65
Project Type:- Curb & Gutter
Estimate by Jamie Meszkat
i ITEM ~:..':: i.!:":i :::!i:~:::~i-.'; '::,: i ..... ,'.. !!:.:. ,:?..:':.::':i::... ;' '.' · '. ..':';':'V::ROUND:;:?-:i :v . UNIT
NO~::. 'DESCRIPTION~: ::': · "... ~ ":?'::;:;::i'::QUANTIT~:;iUNIT PRICE ' : AMOUNT
i 1 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 2 227 TON $25.00 $5,675
2 ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE B, 3/8" MAX. MED. GRAD.) 0 0 $22.00 $0
3 ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE B, 1/2" MAX. MED. GRAD.) 122 TON $50.00 $6,100
4 t ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE B, 3/4" MAX. MED. GRAD.) ~ 0 TON $22.00 $0
i 5 MINOR STRUCTURE (TYPE A CATCH BASIN) 0 EA $2,000.00 $0
6 MINOR STRUCTURE (TYPE A MANHOLE) 0 EA $2,000.00 $0
i 7 I REMOVE SPEED BUMPS 6 EA $700.00 $4,200
]
i 8 18" CLASS III RCP-RGJ 0 LF $30.00 $0
! 9 MINOR CONCRETE (CROSS GUTTER) 0 SQFT $5.00 $0
i 10 MINOR CONCRETE (C&G TYPE B) 3,362 LF $11.00 $36,982
! 11 J MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) 0 SQFT $2.501 $0
i 12 MINOR CONCRETE (DRIVE APPrOaCh) 0 !SQFT _ $4.00! $0
i 13 MINOR CONCRETE (M-1 CURB) 0 i LF $10.00 i $0
i 14 MINOR CONCRETE (MISC. CONC.-ABANDON PIPE) 0 SQFT $4.00 $0
i 15_ MINOR CONCRETE (W/CHAIR RAMP) 0 SQFT $2.50 $0
! 16 SURVEY MONUMENT & ENCASEMENT 0 EA $228.00 $0
SUB-TOTAL $52,957
CONTINGENCY (5%) 2,648
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $55,605
TR3495,WK4 '
MEMORANDUM
August 22, 1996
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: LELAND ANDERSEN, COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER_~
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0010934/001
On August 7, 1996, Councilmember Rowles indicated a city vehicle was seen
parked at the Sycamore Canyon Golf Course on or about June 27, 1996. After
investigating this matter, it was determined that this vehicle was assigned to the
Recreation Division. The vehicle was checked out to a temporary employee who
normally uses the vehicle on Sunday to transport equipment for the summer band
concerts held at Beale Park. The employee exercised very poor judgement in using
this equipment for personal reasons and violated City policies regarding use of city
vehicles.
The use of the vehicle, in this case, was unauthorized and should not have been
used for personal reasons. While the individual has been a temporary employee of
the City for 15 years, the employee's actions are highly inappropriate and as such,
has been terminated. In addition, staff has been directed to eliminate future
assignments of this nature and procedures have been put in place so this will not
occur again.
cc: John Stinson, Assistant City Manager
Henry Shipes, Acting Recreation Superintendent
Linda McVicker, Recreation Supervisor II
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director/~'~//~___~
DATE: August 23, 1996
SUBJECT: Status of Hageman at Centennial High Turn Signal;
24th Street Manhole Raising
Councilmember Kevin McDermott requested an update to the status of the left turn traffic
signal at Centennial High School on Hageman Road.
Per the City's Construction Inspection Section, the signal work began on August 19th and is expected
to be completed by Friday, August 30th. This will be about 20 working days ahead of the contract
time allotment. Until the signal is operational, the canal signal will operate as was done in the
previous school year to artificially create gaps in traffic for turn movements.
Councilmember DeMond inquiry into status of manhole raising for Caltrans resurfacing
project on 24th Street.
Staff contacted Christine (395-3804) at Caltrans local construction office to determine the status of
the manhole raising project. She indicated this is a night time job and that half the work was
completed last night (August 21st) with the remainder scheduled to be finished the night of August
22nd).
MEMORANDUM .
August 9, 1996
TO: JUDY K. SKOUSEN, CITY ATTORNEY
FROM: ALAN D. DANIEL, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
SUBJECT: Council Referral from Mark Salvaggio
1500 Pacheco Road Mobilehome Park
Mark Salvaggio has asked a question concerning the dissolution of the
homeowners' association at 1500 Pacheco Road, a mobilehome park, and the shifting of
street responsibility back to the City of Bakersfield. I spoke with Jacques LaRochelle and
he informed me that the Public Works Department is currently examining the street
condition at this mobilehome park.
Jacques LaRochelle informed me that before the City will accept the streets they
must be brought up to City standards. Most mobilehome park streets, (and 1500 Pacheco
Road is no exception), are narrower than required by City standards, may have smaller
sidewalks, or no sidewalks, and the pavement itself may be in poor condition. All this must
be fixed, at the expense of the homeowners in the area, (mobilehome owners in this case),
before the City will accept the streets into its system. Normally, the streets are in such
poor condition and the expense is so great that the homeowner associations cannot afford
to bring them to City standards.
At 1500 Pacheco Road, the initial Public Works inspections disclose the streets are
narrower than required and the pavement is not in good condition; therefore, the expense
in bringing the streets up to City standards will be large. It is expected the homeowners'
association will not be able to bear the cost of bringing the streets to our standards. If the
homeowners' association does go.f.orward and improve the streets, the City Council can
accept the streets into our system by passing a resolution to that effect. The homeowners'
association can dissolve by their own rules and regulations. We will not be involved in the
dissolution of the homeowners' association because it will be a private matter not
controlled by the City of Bakersfield. The homeowners' association may choose not to
dissolve when they learn of the large expense they will have to undertake to bring the
streets to City standards.
S :',~UBWORKSWIEMOS~ACHECO.MMO
MEMORANDUM
T0= Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
FKOM: Luis ~eralez~ Street Maintenance Superintendent
DATE: August 9,1996
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL - WF0010925 / 002
COUNCILMEMBERMA~K SALVAGGIO, WARD 7
SALVAGGIO REQUESTED CITY ATTORNEY RESPOND TO THE CITIZENS
RESIDING AT THE MOBILEPARK AT 1500 PACHECO ROAD WISHING TO
DISSOLVE THEIR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DEDICATE THE
STREETS TO THE CITY.
PUBLIC WORKS TO SURVEY STREETS AND REPORT THEIR CONDITION
PRIOR TO THE DEDICATION INTO THE CITY IS CONSIDERED.
I have inspected (8-9-96) the streets inside the Mobile Village
Estates area, located at 1500 Pacheco Road.
There are areas in the street that are in need of section repairs
(Dig-Outs) and all the streets need to be crack-sealed. If these
two maintenance procedures are performed, street resurfacing will
not be needed for at least five years.
My main concern is that the entire area has asphalt curbs &
gutters. The asphalt curbs are deteriorating rapidly and while I
did not observe any drainage Droblem in the gutter, an asphalt
gutter is going to require maintenance on a regular basis.
In addition, asphalt gutters are a problem when a street is
resurfaced. Proper drainage in the flowline is hard to maintain.
The speed-bumps on the street will have to be removed before
sweeping service can be implemented. The Speed-bumps are to high
and narrow.
cc: Joe Lozano, Public Works Operations Manager
Jack LaRochelle, Engineering Operations Manager
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: August 21, 1996 l:48pm
SUBJECT: Council Referral WF #0010925/002
Tract 3495 - City Acceptance of private street.
Lot 65 of Tract 3495, which is a private street, was not constructed to City standards. Per the
attached engineers estimate, the cost of constructing City standard curb and gutter to replace the
existing asphalt berm and removal of the speed bumps for street sweeper access on the private street
is $55,600.
The Conditions of Approval and the Final Map state that the City of Bakersfield shall not be called
upon to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of any part or portion of the improvements placed
or to be placed on said lot. The condition of the paving is considerably cracked. There are 63
asphalt and concrete driveways which may have to be reconstructed due to drainage concerns. The
file indicates that there are drainage problems, and that dry wells may have been installed which are
not in conformance with City standards. The curb returns do not have the standard 30' radius and
there are not stand~rd knuckles constructed. The grades of the street and the cross slope are
unknown. There were no construction plans or grading plans on file with our department. The
driveways and drainage concerns are not addressed in our estimate.
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE TraCt 3495
project Type.~ Curb & Gutter
Estimate by Jamie Meszkat
'2 ASPHALT CONCRETE (~PE B, 3/8" M~. MED. GRAD.) 0 3 $22.00 $0
3 ASPHALT CONCRETE (~PE B, 1D" U~. MED. GRAD.) 122'TON $50.00 $6,100
4 ASPHALT CONCRETE (~PE B, 3/4" U~. MED. GRAD.) 0 TON $22.00 $0
5 MINOR STRUCTURE (~PE A CATCH BASIN) 0 ~ $2,000.00 $0
6 MINOR STRUCTURE (~PE A MANHOLE) 0 ~' $2,000.00 $0
7 REMOVE SPEED BUMPS 6~ $700.00 $4,200
8 18" C~SS III RCP-RGJ 0;LF $30.00 $0
9 MINOR CONCRETE (CROSS GU~ER) 0~ SQFT $5.00 $0
10 MINOR CONCRETE (C&G ~PE B) 3,362: LF $11.00 $36,982
11 MINOR CONCRETE (SIDEWALK) 0 SQFT $2.50 $0
12 MINOR CONCRETE (DRIVE APPROACH) 0 SQFT ~ $4.00 $0
13 MINOR CONCRETE (M-1 CURB) 0 LF $10.00 $0
14 MINOR CONCRETE (MISC. CONC.-ABANDON PIPE) 0 SQFT ' ' $4.00 $0
15 MINOR CONCRETE (W/CHAIR RAMP) 0 SQFT $2.50 $0
SURVEY MONUMENT & ENCASEMENT 0 EA $228.00 $0
SUB-TOTAL $52,957
CONTINGENCY (5%) 2,648
CONSTRUCTION TOTAL $55,605
TR3495. WK4