Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/93 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM ~ January 22, 1993 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL~/ FROM' ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. In follow-up to a Council referral of Wednesday evening, I have met with Joe Drew. We are scheduling a meeting of City Managers throughout Kern County, with Joe Drew, to plan a symposium for the purpose of calling attention to the proposed actions of the State on the budget. On a separate, but related level, the League, through the Regional City Manager's group, is beginning a process of planning meetings that will be held with legislators to call their attention to the consequences of their proposed actions. We will have a representative at a planning session next week. There is a tentative schedule for a session which would involve at least a couple of our legislative officials with the members of the legislature, on March 19th. That date, however, is subject to confirmation later. 2. Enclosed you will find some water supply information, which you may find to be of interest. 3. You will find enclosed, from the Public Works Department, a listing of capital improvements which can be frozen for the current fiscal year. Although exceptions can be made to this freeze, it would be most desirable if Council did not initiate very many. Otherwise, of course, it defeats the purpose of trying to accrue cash. 4. One of the ideas.which has arisen, with regard to the budget problem, is to use Asset Forfeiture Funds for funding of the DARE Program. A sinking fund would be set aside, where it would be funded for two or three years from that source. If, over that two or three year period, more money came in, the program could be extended. Otherwise, its life expectancy could be anticipated to expire when the funds ran out. Asset Forfeiture money is not a guaranteed recurring revenue source, but there is a high probability that it will be, until such time, at least, as the Federal government changes the law relative to its distribution. Also on the budget front, our negotiators will be bringing forward, at the next Council Meeting, a recommendation to cancel the contract for lease of the Mesa Marin Complex for softball. The property owner appeared willing only to negotiate tax payments and none of the basic terms. We need to get this done early, if we are going to cancel, in order to make arrangements for other fields and to notify the softball community. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL January 22, 1993 Page -2- Finally, on the subject of the budget, the City has several contracts and donations to community organizations. They include the SPCA and Symphony, among others. It is not reasonable to expect that their levels of support from the City would be continued at historic levels when we are taking down all General Fund operations, including public safety, by a substantial amount. Perhaps Council should begin thinking, where we do not have binding contractual obligations, about reviewing these, either in part, or in whole. 5. You will find enclosed a copy of a summary of the Councilmembers' responses to the questionnaire with regard to the Retreat. You will note that there was very little clear direction given from the survey. We will plan to place this on the next Agenda to narrow down the scope of options. 6. My best guess is that over the next thirty to sixty days, we will have some form of decision on the hotel before you. It may be a complicated decision, not a simple one. We continue into rather key phases of discussions with both prospects, at this point. 7. I should probably remind you that Larry Lunardini is to be evaluated sometime in February. I would appreciate some direction from Council as to which meeting you would prefer. Also, an early reminder that I am to be evaluated sometime in March. Larry and I may have some recommended format for you to consider. 8. I have been advised that the assessment district which was delayed at the Council Meeting before this last Wednesday night will go away, as the developer has decided to terminate the creation of the district. 9. Our City crews, on nights and on their own time, are doing some work to prepare the new Development Services Building for occupancy. 10. A letter is enclosed dealing with an issue you could hear about regarding Christmas lighting. It is for background information only. 11. Two supermarket chains are, at least, doing research into a southeast Bakersfield location 'in response to citizen and Council expressions of interest. AT.alb Attachments cc: Department Heads Carol Williams  January 14, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy SUBJECT: Water Supply Information Packet ~ ~/ The attached "Water Supply Information Packet" has been prepared for distribution to the City's Contractors and other Kern River users. You may want to pass this on to the Mayor and council for their information. WATER SUPPLY INFORMATION PACKET Distribution List C.H. Williams North Kern Water Storage District· John L. Jones Cawelo Water District C.W. Bowers Kern-Tulare W.D. - Rag Gulch W.D. Robert K. Bellue improvement District No. 4 Mary Collup Rosedale Ri° Bravo Water Storage District Gilbert Castle Kern Delta Water District Alan Tandy Paul Dow Florn Core Thomas Stetson Scott Slater Lawrence Lunardini G. Bogart 01-14-93 C~T~ OF .~' ~, DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION PAUL DOW, Manager GENE BOGART, Director of Water Resources FLORN CORE, Assistant Director of Water Resources MIKE SIDES, Sanitation Superintendent January 14, 1993 RE: WATER SUPPLY INFORMATION PACKET The 1992-1993 Water Year marks the seventeenth year in the term of the Basic Contract agreements for the sale of Kern River Water between the City of Bakersfield and North Kern Water Storage District, Cawelo Water District, Kern-Tulare Water District, Rag Gulch Water District and Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District. Since contract water deliveries commenced in 1977, we have experienced flood years (331% in 1983), average and extremely dry water years (24% in 1990). The wide range in water supply availability over this time period has enabled the City to establish operating criteria and guidelines regarding the projection of City's Kern River supplies and the delivery of this water to its Contractors. In recent months, decisions have been rendered by the State Water Resources Control Board which greatly impact the exportation of State of California project water from the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta through the California Aqueduct for delivery to State contractors within Kern County. Furthermore, conditions have been imposed upon the Federal Central Valley Project which may substantially reduce the amount of water which could be introduced to Kern County via the Friant-Kern Canal. The uncertainty surrounding the State and Federal water projects in California and their ability to deliver contracted water to Kern County agricultural and urban water users places much importance on the timely and accurate knowledge of Kern River operations. The attachedWater Supply Information Packet is prepared at this time to assist the City's Basic Contractors in their water supply decision processes. The 1992-1993 winter snowpack accumulation in the Kern River drainage basin is progressing above the normal rates as of this date. With this information it is projected that full contract amounts will be delivered by City to North Kern, Cawelo, Kern-Tulare and Rag Gulch in accordance to the normal contract delivery schedules of each District during the months of March to August of this year. Water deliveries to Rosedale RBWSD are currently ongoing and it is now anticipated that the 1993 Rosedale basic contract will be delivered prior to February 15 of this year. If you have any questions or want to further discuss the attached information, please don't hesitate to contact our office at 326-3715. Sincerely, PAUL DOW Manager Dir~tor of W~ater Resources 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD ,, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93311 ,, (805) 326o3715 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WATER RESOURCES DIVISION KERN RIVER SUPPLY FORECASTING Averages The State of California Deparm~ent of Water Resources ("State") uses a 50- year base period (currently 1941-1990) in determining Kern River runoff averages. The base period is moved forward every five years. The State forecasts Kern River inflow to Lake Isabella and publishes these results in Bulletin 120. Current State averages for the Kern River at Isabella are: April- July snowmelt period; 461,000 acre-feet, Water Year; 716,000 aCre-feeL The City of Bakersfield ("City") on behalf of the Kern River Watermaster, records Kern River runoff as measured at First Point of Measurement. Averages are based upon all years of record (commencing September 29,. 1893) and are adjusted each year. Current averages for the Kern River at First Point are as follows: April-July snowmelt period; 464,311 acre-feet, Water Year; 725,514 acre-feet. The 'City also utilizes the March-October runoff period (595,124 acre-feet average at First Point) as a tool in determining the quantity of City Kern River supplies which may be available for delivery to Cawelo Water District, Kern-Tulare Water District, Rag Gulch Water District (collectively "District"), Rosedale Rio Bravo Water Storage District ("Rosedale") and North Kern Water Storage District ("North Kern") during the irrigation season and/or contract delivery period. Measurements of the Kern River at First Point include all accretions to the stream occurring below Isabella Dam. For the period of 1954-1986, average annual accretions to Kern River below Isabella Dam were 37,238 acre-feet. The maximum month on record was April of 1969 with a total of 40,391 acre- feet. The potential impact of accretion activity on water operations can be illustrated as follows: On February I0, 1978, during the midst of a three-day rain flood on the lower Kern River, a mean daily flow of 3,419 cubic feet per second ("cfs") was measured at First Point while the daily release from Lake Isabella was only 33 cfs. The peak instantaneous discharge resulting from this storm event was 8,280 cfs. State Forecast - Snow Sensor Experimental Forecasts The State issues forecasts of runoff for the Kern River and other Central Valley streams as of the first day of February, March, April and May of each year. The forecasts are based upon snow depth and water content measurements obtained from long-established snow courses in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Forecast of runoff assumes median weather conditions (rain, snow, temperature and wind) subsequent to the date of forecast~ This assumption of future conditions is the immeasurable portion of the forecasting "science". Mother Nature seldom, if ever, produces "median conditions". The most efficient forecast of any season occurs on August 1, after the runoff has taken place. Throughout the years, the April 1 and May 1 forecasts have proven to be the most reliable when compared to the actual flows experienced. The City, in cooperation with North Kern, Kern Delta Water District, Buena Vista Water Storage District and the State, has been involved in the construction and maintenance of snow sensor sites in the Kern River drainage basin for better than twenty years. Since 1987, an experimental forecast model, using only snow sensor data, has been maintained by the City. This computer generated model can be initiated as early as November 1 of each winter season and has the ability to update snowpack conditions and predict future 'runoff on an hourly basis, if needed. The experimental model has demonstrated a correlative value of better than 85 percent when compared with State forecasts, which rely heavily on manual snow course measurements and are not available until after February 1. The model is dependent upon the accuracy of field instruments situated high in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains and failure of mechanical parts associated with these instruments can result in erroneous data entry and less accurate forecast results. Entitlement The City's Kern River entitlement is estimated by City's hydrographic section on the basis of the State forecast and snow sensor forecast model, combined with historical records. Chart 1 graphically depicts the ranges of City entitlement versus Kern River March-October runoff. In general, entitlement yields that exceed 85,000 acre-feet during the March-October period would allow for City to deliver full normal Basic Contract Water ("Contract") amounts to District and North Kern (see Charts 2-5). Factors Affecting Runoff and Entitlement There are several naturally occurring factors which may affect the volume of City entitlement yield to the Kern River runoff subsequent to April 1 2 estimates of such. The most important of these factors is the amount of precipitation actually received on the watershed after April 1. Another critical factor is the pattern or rate of snowmelt. In years of below normal snowpack in the Kern River basin, a cool spring, accompanied by gradual snowmelt tends to favor City Kern River entitlement yields. The bulk of City entitlement in below normal years is accrued in the natural flow range of 300- 750 cfs. The 1992 snowmelt season, for example, began rather abruptly with much above normal temperatures beginning on April 1, 1992. Runoff was "quick" and "clean" with a flow peak on May 13th. The recession in natural flow from the maximum of 1,584 cfs was rapid and flows were under 300 cfs by the 27th of June. It is estimated that City 1992 Kern River entitlement yield was reduced from historical levels by as much as 5,000 acre-feet due to the abrupt and unusual snowmelt. Water Rights for power Generation (Power Flow), Borel Power Plant The flow of the Kern River above the South Fork (North Fork) up to 605' cfs ("Borel entitlement")must be made available to the Southern California .Edison Company for diversion through theft Borel Power Plant. In addition, water released from Isabella Reservoir storage for purposes other than power will be made available for diversion through the Borel Power Plant. At times, during the period of March to August, the Kern River Watermaster may request the minimum release from the reservoir necessary to satisfy Borel entitlement. Under these release conditions, the City may be obligated to divert up to two-thirds of such Borel water that is in excess of 300 cfs. This "power flow" obligatign of the City results from City Kern River entitlement accruing above the first 300 cfs of natural flow and within the range of Borel entitlement. During dry years,~ much of City entitlement during the period of March to May is not storable in Lake Isabella due to City's "power flow" obligation. Because City's daily "unstorable" entitlement may accrue at rates or volumes that exceed the normal delivery schedule of District, it ~ay be to the benefit of District to divert, to the fullest extent possible, all Contract that may be offered by City during those periods of time "unstorable" conditions exist. Kern River Power Plant No. 1 Southern California Edison Company claims the right to divert the preproject flow (natural flow before operation of Isabella Dam) of the Kern River (including South Fork) up to 412 cfs during the months of 3 October through May for generation of power through their Kern River Power Plant No. 1. KR #1 entitlement increases to 462 cfs during the months of June to~ September for reason of a 50 cfs recreational bypass into the Kern River below Democrat Dam. As is the case with the Borel Power Plant, the City may be responsible to divert up to two-thirds of the KR #1 entitlement that is in excess of 300 cfs during the period of March to August. Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Kern Canyon Power Plant Pacific Gas and Electric Company has preproject diversion fights of 550 cfs under state license, and claims an additional 250 cfs under other rights. The 550 cfs right, however, is subject to upstream storage by irrigation interests provided that an equivalent amount of water in excess of natural flow is made available for power use by release from Isabella storage at a later time. BASIC CONTRACT WATER Delive~ and Transportation The delivery point of District Contract is the diversion point of the Beardsley Canal from the Kern River (Beardsley River Weir). North Kern Contract is deliverable into North Kern Isabella storage during the months of March to August each year or to such other place on the Kern River as is. mutually agreed to between North Kern and City. Rosedale Contract is deliverable at the Rosedale headworks or at any other point downstream of the Beardsley River Weir as is mutually agreed to between Rosedale and City. District Contract may be delivered, at option of District, at other points along the Kern River downstream of the Beardsley River Weir, including the Arvin- Edison Canal turn°Ut, so long as District accepts all transportation losses of such water between the Beardsley River Weir and the other delivery point requested by District. It should be noted here that Improvement District No. 4 of the Kern County Water Agency, pursuant to City/Kern-Tulare Water District and City/Rag Gulch Water District Agreements dated August 31, 1988, is used as the delivery, point for all water under Kern-Tulare and Rag Gulch Water District's Basic Contract with the City. District will be permitted to take delivery of all or portions of its Contract through City's Carrier Canal and/or River Canal system during periods when City determines that sufficient capacity is available; and City and District. mutually agree to the time, place, duration and cost of such deliveries. For example, the 1992 calendar year cost for transportation of District water 4 downstream of the Beardsley River Weir was $2.24 per acre-foot ($1.20/AcFt escalated from 1-1-77) for water delivered via the Carrier Canal and $1.84 per acre-foot ($0.50/AcFt escalated from 9-1-63) for water delivered via the River Canal. Losses Carrier Canal During the period of 1977-1992, seepage and percolation losses associated with the City's operation of the Carrier Canal have amounted to approximately 7,500 acre-feet annually, equating to approximately 15 percent of the total water diverted via the canal. The Carrier Canal is normally operated between March and August of each irrigation season. In normal and above normal years, the Carrier Canal may run year round. Except as set forth in the '1964 Amendment to the Miller-Haggin Agreement, the City is responsible for losses incurred in the Carrier/River Canal system on those days, during the months of March to August, that the canal is being operated for purposes of water deliveries to Second Point of Measurement for Buena Vista Water Storage District, for City uses (i.e., delivery of Rosedale water) or for other First Point canals. District water diverted via Carrier Canal is subject to a loss assignment, as determined by City, which reflects its proportionate share of the total Carrier Canal loss on any given day. Should District water be the only diversion in the Carrier, it would bear 100% of the loss on that day. Kern River Channel 'Losses in the Kern River channel vary greatly, depending on the duration and rate of flow and point of use. During wet years on the Kern, the river channel is operated fully, to encourage percolation losses and to transport the large quantities of water normally present under wet year conditions to downstream canals. During extremely dry years, the river channel below Rocky Point River Weir would not be operated except during periods of time City determines' there to be insufficient capacity in the Carrier Canal. During the period of 1977- 1992, the seepage and percolation losses in the reach of channel upstream of the Calloway River Weir have amounted to approximately 9,000 acre-feet per year. In general, delivery percentages in this reach of river channel, which include waters introduced from the Carrier Canal via the Farmers-Stine-Anderson culvert, have been approximately 75 percent. 5 CHART 1 '~'. COMPARISON OF KERN RIVER RUNOFF TO CI.T¥ OF BAKERSFIELD ENTITLEMENT (Selec ted years for the period of 1 977-1 992) 1 O0 ~_ 90 o o ® I% 60 ................................................................................ ~ .....................................: ........................... o 50 - ' o 30 O. I 20 0 25000 50000 75000 1 00000 1 25000 t 50000 City March-October Entitlement (Ac Ft) City of Bakersfield Water Resourc es January 1993 CHART 2 '~., COMPARISON OF KERN RIVER RUNOFF TO CITY BASIC CONTRACT WATER DELIVERIES TO NORTH KERN WSD (Selected years' for the period of 1 977-1 992) 25000 ._~ '-~-~ 150 0© ........ ............................................................................. {- o t 0000 ............................................................. ~ 5000 ................ ,, ..... ~ .............. ~ .............. ~ .... '. m : o 0 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 O0 March-October Runoff (Eercent of Normal) City of Bakersfield Water Resources January 995 CHART COMPARISON OF KERN RIVER RUNOFF TOCITY BASIC CONTRACT WATER DELIVERIES TO CAWELO WD ~ (Selected years for the period of 1 977-1 992) o 40000 : t53 : o 35000 ...................................................................................................... i ........................... i:: ............. 0 : ._o 30000 ..................................................................................................... : ............................ ~ ............. : .> 25000 20000 o .o_ 1 5000 ~- 1 0000 ' ~ 5000 · ~- 0 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 O0 C) Marc h-October Runoff (Percent of Normal) City of Bakersfield Water Resources January 1993 CHART 4' COMPARISON OF KFRN RIVER RUNOFF TO CiTY BASIC CONTRACT WATER BELIVERIES TO KERN-TULARE WD (Selected years for the period of 1 9.77-1 992) 25000 0 ._~ .> O .o_o~~_~_'2~o~~~®© 100 5000 0 . O ~J 0 0 1 0 20 50 40 50 60 70 80 90 1 O0 March-October Runoff (Percent of Normal City of Bakersfield Water Resources Januar~ 1 993 CHART COMPARISON OF KERN RIVER RUNOFF 'TO CITY BASIC CO qTRACT WATER DELIVERIES TO RAO GULCH WD (Selected years for the period of 1 977-1 992) ~ 5000 o 4000 ................................................................................................................................................ 0 ._> · ~ 1 000 ~ . ~ 0 0 0 1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80' 90 1 OO Morch-OctoberRunoff Percent of Normgl) City of Bakersfield Water Resources January 1993 'CHART 6 KERN RIVER BASIN SNOWPACK ACCUMULATION EIGHT SENSOR INDEX 25.0 , '" 100% of Apr/I,1 Average 20.0 ,.,... ... .."" ~ [Average _ '? 1~1-1~J ~l ..... ~. ~, .l~nH~m Fehrus~ Msreh A~fil Snowpack A~umul~ion Se~on I........ Average 1991-1992 I 1992-1993 I TABLE 1 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Quantities in STATUS OF LONG TERM CONTRACTS acre-feet NORTH KERN WATER STORAGE DISTRICT CAWELO WATER DISTRICT Basic Cumulative Basic Cumulative Basic . Basic Cumulative Basic Cumulative Basic Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Year Amount Amount Delivered Delivery Balance Year Amount Amount Delivered Delivery Balance 1977 20.000 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 1977 27,000 27,000 5,024 5,024 (21,976) 1978 20.000 40,000 20,000 40,000 0 1978 27,000 54.000 35,404 40,428 (13,572) 1'979 20,000 60,000 20.000 60,000 0 1979 27,000 81,000 36,780 77,208 (3,792) 1980 20.000 80.000 20,000 80,000 0 1980 27,000 108,000 30,792 108,000 0 1981 20,000 100,000 20,000 100,000 0 1981 27,000 135,000 27,000 1 35,000 0 1982 20,000 120,000 20,000 120,000 0 1982 27,000 162.000 27,000 162,000 0 1983 20,000 140.000 20,000 140,000 0 1983 27,000 189,000 27,000 189,000 0 1984 20,000 160,000 20,000 160,000 0 1984 27,000 216,000 27,000 216,000 0 1985 20,000 180.000 20,000 180,000 0 1985 27,000 243,000 27,000 243,000 0 1986 20,000 200,000 20,000 200,000 0 1986 . 27,000 270,000 27,000 270,000 0 1987 20.000 220,000 20,000 220,000 0 1987 27,000 297,000 27,000 297,000 0 1988 20,000 240.,000 20,000 240,000 0 1988 27,000 324.000 12.821 309,821 (14,179) 1989 20,000 260,000 20,000 260,000 0 1989 27,000 351,000 22,460 332,281 . (18,719) 1990 20,000 280.000 20.000 280,000 0 1990 27,000 378,000 17.723 350,004 (27,996) 1991 20,000 300,000 20,000 300,000 0 1991 27,000 405,000 29,316 379,320 (25.680) 1992 20,000 320,000 14,381 314,381 (5,619) 1992 27,000 432,000 .28,868 408,188 (23,812) KERN-TULARE WATER DISTRICT RAG GULCH WATER DISTRICT Basic Cumulative Basic Cumulative Basic Basic Cumulative Basic Cumulative Basic Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Contract Year Amount 'Amount Delivered Delivery Balance Year Amount Amount Delivered Delivery Balance 1977 20,000 · 20,000 4.673 4,673 (15,327) 1977 3,000 3,000 449 449 (2.551) 1978 20,000 40,000 23,690' 28.363 (11,637) 1978 3,000 6,000 3,550 3,999 (2,001) 1979 20,000 60,000 24,122 52,485 (7,515) 1979 3.000 9,000 3,550 7,549 (1,451) 1980 20,000 80,000 23,403 75,888 (4,112) 1980 3,000 12,000 3,550 11,099 (901) 1981 20,000 100,000 23,700 99,588 (412) 1981 3,000 15,000 3,550 ,14,649 (351) 1982 20,000 120,000 20,412 120,000 0 1982 3,000 18,000 3,351 18,000 0 1983 20,000 1, 40,000 20,000 140,000 0 1983 3;000 21,000 3,000 21.000 0 1984 20,000 160,000 20,000 160,000 0 1984 3,000 24,000 · 3,000 24,000 0 1985 20,000 180,000 20,000 180,000 0 1985. 3,000 27,000 3,000 27,000 0 1986 20,000 200,000 20,000 200,000 0 ' 1986 3,000 30,000 3,000 30,000 0 1987 20,000 220,000 20,000 220,000 0 1987 3,000 33,000 3,000 33,000 0 1988 20,000 240,000 11,763 231,763 (8,237) 1988 3,000 36,000 1,764 34,764 (1,236) 1989 . 20,000 260,000 16,635 248.398 (11,602) 1989 3,000 39,000 2,495 37,259 (1,741) 1990 20,000 280,000 0 248,398 (31,602) 1990 3,000 42,000 0 37,259 (4,741) 1991 20,000 300,000 20,000. 268.398- (31,602) 1991 3,000 45,000 3,000 40,259 (4,741) 1992 20,000 320,000 9,089 277,487 (42,513) 1992 3,000 48,000 1,363 41.622 (6,378) TABLE 2 STATUS OF CONTRACT per terms of ROSE-'DALE RIO BRAVO WATER STORAGE DISTRICT Service Agreement, dated August 31, 1961. Quantities in acre-feet (1) END of YEAR KERN RIVER KERN RIVER (2) CONTRACT FRIANT- TOTAL BASIC BASIC CARRY BALANCE (3) TOTAL KERN KERN RIVER CONTRACT CONTRACT FORWARD Year DELIVERED DELIVERED DELIVERED DELIVERED OBLIGATION OVER (UNDER) (4) 60,000 1976 0 0 0 0. 10,000 (10,000) 50,000 1977 2,199 0 2,199 2,199 10,000 (7,801) 42,199 1978 76,365 4,371 71,994 10,000 10,000 0 42,199 1979 14,568 9,921 4,647 4,647 10,000 (5,353) 36,846 1980 70,790 4,167 66,623 10,000 10,000 0 36,846 1981. 773 0 773 773 10,000 (9,227) 27,619 1982 88,374 40,595 47,779 10,000 10,000 0 27,619 1983 134,534 1,440 133,094 10,000 10,000 0 27,619 1984 38,654 0 38,854 10,000 10,000 0 27,619 1965 20,694 0 20,694 0 10,000 (10,000): 17,619 1986 87,761 5,209 82,552 20,000 10,000 10,000 27,619 1987 6,000 0 6,000 0 10,000 (10,000) 17,619 1988 7,645 0 7,845 0 10,000 (10,000) 7,619 1989 4,500 0 4,500 0 10,000 (10,000) (2,381) 1990 0 0 0 0 10,000 (10,000) (12,381) 1991 9,076 0 9,076 9,076 10,000 (924) (13,305) 1992 1,117 0 1,117 1,117 10,000 (8,883) (22,188) (1) Not less than 5,000 acre-feet for any consecutive 5-Yeer period. (2) Limit 30,000 acre-feet during any One year. (3) Gross limit of 60,000 acre-feet. (4) Pursuant to Article 3.2 of 1976 Agreement No. 76-80; City of Bakersfield carryover credit was 60,000 acre-feet as of January 1, 1976. BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 15, 1993 SUBJECT: ESTIMATED REVENUE SHORTFALL/BUDGET ALTERNATIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1992-93 As we recently discussed, the revenue picture for the remainder of this fiscal year indicates a substantial shortfall for our General Fund. To address a portion of this problem, I have submitted a prioritized list of Capital Improvement Projects that could be deferred and rebudgeted in the next fiscal year. Some of the projects are complete and savings have been realized, but most of the projects are not in the design stage yet and therefore could readily be deferred without having incurred any expense. The attached list of projects labeled CATEGORY ! are the projects which could reasonably be deferred and rebudgeted. The Gas Tax which is assigned to these projects (approximately $1,100,000) would then be available to fund a portion of our operations costs which are eligible for Gas Tax funding, but which currently are supported by the General Fund. I am therefore on this date requesting staff to suspend all work on the above uncompleted projects for the remainder of this fiscal year and to rebudget the same as a high priority in Fiscal Year 1993-94. D9 1R~'v~N%TE. 93 Attach. 743 73008 COFFEE ROAD RESURFACING - STOCIQ:)ALE HWY TO WESTFIELD GT $107,516.80 $78,442.61 $29,074.19 0-30-02 Unencumbered balance aveJleble 743 73004 CHESTER AVENUE RESURFACING - K.I. CANAL TO MING GT $17,e00.00 $1,448.69 $16,153.31 9-19-.~2 Unencumbered balance available 743 73031 KERN RIVER FWY RT-OF-WAY WEST OF RENFRO ROAD GT $61,500.00 $61,500.00 Payment due by November 25, 1003 743 83018 COFFEE ROAD & TRUXTUN AVE.BRIDGE.APPROACHES.~ A.E.& K.R. CANAL GT $50,000.00 $50,000.00 Project will not be do~e. 743 83016 CHANNELIZATION - STOCKDALE MEDIAN NARROWING ASHE TO GOSFORD GT $45,000.00 $45,000.00 Rebudget project, will need mo~e funds. 743 8,.'.'.'~28 HUGHES LANE EXTENSION - MING TO BELLE TERRACE GT $125,000.00 $125,000.00 Co-operative pro)ect with County. 743 87201 MONTALVO DRIVE STORM DRAIN - ELISO CT. TO KROLL WAY GT $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Add~onaJ funds may be required. 743 83054 WA'Frs DRIVE REBURFACING - UNION TO MADISON GT $66,000.00 $41.52 $65,958.48 PS&E approved by Council 11-4.-~2 743 83034 MANNING STREET RESURFACING - MING TO LaHAINA GT $15,000.00 $15,000.00 743 83050 TAYLOR STREET RESURFACING - DBdARET TO BELLE TERRACE GT $33,000.00 $262.00 $32,738.00 743 83021 DEMARET STREET RESURFACING - NEW STINE TO TAYLOR GT $11,000.00 $11,000.00' 743 83030 HUNTER AVENUE RESURFA(31NG - TAYLOR TO LANSING GT $11,0oo.00 $11,000.00 743 83043 PLANZ ROAD OVEROROSSING - DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS GT $58,000.00 $58,000.00 743 87202 STOCKDALE HWY STORM DRAIN EXTENSION AT MONTCLAIR GT $48,000.00 $48,000.00 743 83058 WIDEN INTERSECTION - STOCKDALE AT CALIF(PHASE 2 & 3) GT $100,000.00 $100,000.00 Appr=iea] in procee~ 754 88502 WIBLE ROAD LANDSCAPING - NORTH OF PANAMA LANE GT $75,000.00 $75,000.00 Deeign complete 754 78601 EAST TRUXTUN LANDSCAPING GT $6,000.00 $5,000.00 TOTAL PROJECTS FUNDED WITH GAS TAX ONLY $678,610.80 $80,102.82 $0.00 ~118,423.08 dwh:gtg3only 15-Jan-93 I 743 ~ ~'! ST BTHELmr HESURFAOING - UNION TO B~E A~NUE ~P ~,~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~3 21~ ~E~ RE~RF~ING - UNION TO B~E A~NUE GT ~0,~.~ ~.~ ~,~.~ ~budg~. nm ~ ~P r~e 7~ ~t7 CHINA G~E L~P BRIDGE REP~C~ENT & B~S~ CAN~ BRF ~,~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~17 CHINA G~E L~P BRIDGE REP~C~ENT & B~RDSL~ C~AL GT $1~,~.~ $1~,~.~ 7~ ~10 BEdE ~R~CE RE~RF~ING - N~ ~INE TO FIORITO ~P ~,~.~ ~.~ ~.~.~ 7~ ~10 BEdE TERSE RESURF~ING - N~ STINE TO FIORITO GT ~,015.~ ~1.52 ~,973.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~ncil 1 7~ ~ ~E ~ R~N~.- O~ RI~R TO RI~R C~ ~A $1~,~.~ $1~,~.~ 7~ ~ ~ H~ R~ON~.- O~ RI~R TO RI~R CANAL GT ~.~.~ ~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~ ~E~RESURF~ING-CHE~ERA~NUETOUNIONA~UE ~P $1~,~.~ ~.~ $1~,~.~ 7~ ~ ~ ~E~ RESURFACING - CHEWER A~NUE TO UNION A~NUE GT ~5,~.~ ~1.~ ~4,~.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~ncil 1 7~ ~1 18TH ~R~ RE~RF~ING - 'A' TO 'H' ~RE~ GT $11 ,~.~ ~.~ $11,7~.~ P~ ~r~ by ~ncl111~ 7~ ~1 1~ ~R~ RE~RFACING - 'A' TO 'H' ~ ~P ~1,1~.~ ~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~24 'F' ~ RE~RFACIN~ - 24TH TO GO~EN ~ATE ~P ~,~ ~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~24 'F' ~R~ RE~RF~ING - 24TH TO GO~ ~ATE GT $12,~.~ ~1.~ $12,~.~ ~pr~ by~nci111~ 7~ ~ TRU~UN A~NUE RE~URF~ING - ~FF~ TO ~' E. OF QUAILRIDGE GT ~,~5.~' ~1.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~ TRU~UN AVENUE RESURFACING - ~FFEE TO ~' E OF QUAILRIDGE ~P ~,~.~ ~.~ ~,274.~ 7~ ~ B~E A~NUE RE~RFAClNG - SPRR TO C~RNIA A~NUE GT ~.1~.~ ~1.~ ~,123.~ P~ 7~ ~ B~LE A~UE RESURFACING- SPRR TO C~I~RNIA A~NUE ~P ~,~.~ ~.~ ' ~,514.~ 7~ ~ MT. ~RNoN A~NUE RE~URFACING - UNI~RSI~ TO P~O~A GT $13,110.~ ~1.52 $13,~.~ ~p~ by~ll 7~ ~ MT. ~RNON A~NUE RESURFACING - UNI~RSI~ TO P~O~A ~P $1~,~.~ ~.~ $1~,~.~ 7~ ~ HUGHES ~NE RESURF~INQ -.WIL~N TO P~NZ ~ ~P ~,~.~ ~.~ ~.~4.~ 743 83029 HUGHES ~NE RESURFACING - WIL~N TO P~NZ RO~ GT $12,~5,00 $41.52 $12,~.~ P~E 7~ ~ COLUMBUS ~R~ RESURFACING - HAL~ TO MT.~RNON GT ~,~.~ ~1.~ $19,~.~ P~ 7~ ~ COLUMBUS STRE~ RESURFACING - HAL~ TO MT.~RNON ~P ~,~.~ ~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~ MT. ~RNON A~NUE RESURF~ING - COLUMBUS TO UNI~RSI~ ~P ~,~.~ ~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~ MT. ~RNON A~NUE RESURFACING - COLUMBUS TO UNI~RSI~ GT $12,~.~ ~1.~ dwh:gt93multi 15-Jan-93 1 ::': :::i. :. i i:::: ','/::.i: ::i':i:i ::i~=i!~ ~:.~i~::~ ~:: ~ i::::, ::i! ::i:. i:: ': '.', :. :.:: :,i ::': :~. :: :: ~i :i: i!':~/. ',i':i:.:::: i',i :: i::':':::ii iii::':~i'.i::i :i:: ', ':i'::.:::,:?i:,i :.i'.::'.:.':ill' :,:. :: ::::~:i:, ::,:,i:: :: ::'.i::ii~::~ ': '~',i ': ', ',':i',:,i:~i::ili~:!i:~ii':':i: ',:.ii:: ::i?: ~::: ::::::'::::: ':ii::i i'.':: !'::::.::i :: ':,: '::/, ':/:?. ':ii': iiii:/, i::,:: i:: :.i'::i:.:: ':~','.',::::?::: ?,!?:ii':?,?//i :,'?,:i:::~',::',~:ii ii ', ~:::i::i'::: ':~,i',! ':'. ~:i~:?:ii::ii':ii:~:: i :~':';::~': :.'.':iii:, :/:i'/:'.i!!i',iii?, i:::.:: 7~ ~ "H' ~ESU~F~IN~-O~I~NIATO 14TH ~P ~,125.~ ~.~ ~1,~04.52 7~ ~ 'H' ~ ~SURF~ING - C~I~NIA TO 14~ GT ~.~75.~ ~1.52 ~,~.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~ncil 11~ 7~ ~12 BU~NE~ OE~ ~ESU~FAOINO - O~I~RNIA TO DUN~UI~ ~A ~14,1~.~ ~14,~.~ 7~ ~12 BU~NE~ CE~ RESURF~ING - C~I~RNIA TO DUN~UIR GT $1,8~.~ $1 ,~.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~ncil 1~ 7~ ~ NILES ~E~ RE~RF~ING - UNION TO S.P.R.R. GT ~,910.~ ~.~ ~,~.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~ncil 1~ 7~ ~ NI~S ~E~ RE~RF~ING - UNION TO S.P.R.R. ~A ~,0~.~ ~,~.~ · 7~ ~ P~Z ~ RESURF~ING - GRIMM TO WIL~N ~P ~,270.~ ~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~ P~Z~RESURF~ING-GRI~MTOWIL~N GT ' $11,7~.~ ~1.~ $11,~.~ P~pr~by~nci111~ 7~ ~ WH~ ~E RESURF~ING - WIBLE TO R~ ~P ~.~.~ ~.~ ~,8~.~ 7~ ~ WHI~ ~E RESURF~ING - WIBLE TO R~L GT $15,~.~ ~1.~ $15,7~,~ P~ ~pr~ by ~ncil 11~ 7~ ~ ~ A~NUE RESURF~ING - ~RGINIA TO WIL~NS RRF ~,~.~ · ~,~.~ ~TPP REIMBURS~ ~GE ~ - ~ 7~ ~ WENATCH~ A~NUE RESURFACING - PANO~A TO UNI~RS~ ~P ~8,7~.~ . ~.~ ~,~.~ 7~ ~ ~NA~H~ A~NUE RESURF~ING - PANO~A TO UNI~RSI~ GT ~10~.~ ~.~ ~10,1~.~ P~E ~pr~ by ~i111~ 7~ ~7 ~E H~ RESURF~ING - GOS~ TO 1 ~' E. EL RIO ~P ~2,~.~ ~.~ ~2,~.~ 7~ ~7 ~E H~ RESURF~ING - GOS~ TO 1 ~' E. EL RIO GT ~,~.~ ~1.52 ~.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~ncil t 1~ 7~ ~1 'K' ~R~ RESURF~ING - 18~ TO 21~ GT ~,105.~ ~.~ ~,~.~ P~ ~p~ by ~il 1~ 7~ ~1 'K' ~ RE8URFACING - 18TH TO 21~ ~A ~3,8~.~ ~3,~.~ 7~ ~ DI~RICT ~UL~A~ RESURFACING - ASHE TO GRIMM GT ~1,~.~ ~1.~ ~1,~.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~nci111~ 7~ ~ DI~RICT ~UL~ARD RESURFACING - ~HE TO GRIMM ~P $1~,~.~ ~.~ 7~ ~ B~ ~RE~ RESURF~ING - E.TRU~UN TO C~I~RNIA GT ~,8~.~ ~1.52 ~,7~.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~ncil t 1~ 7~ ~ B~ ~RE~ RESURF~ING - E.TRU~UN TO CALI~RNIA ~P ~,~.~ ~.~ 7~ ~ ~NG DRI~ RESURFACING - ~. MO~ C~IR TO HUN~R ' RRF ~1,~.~ ~1 ,~.~ 8LTPP REIMBURS~ENT ~NGE ~ - ~ 7~ ~ ~HER~ ~R~ RESURF~ING - PRINC~ON TO ~ACIA RRF ' ~1,~.~ ~1,~.~ 8LTPP REIMBURS~ENT ~GE ~ - ~ 7~ ~ WE~HO~E BL~. RESURFACING - WIL~N TO MING A~NuE RRF ~1,~.~ ~1,~.~ SL~P REIMBURS~ENT ~GE ~ - ~ 7~ ~2 P~ ~RE~ RESURF~ING - R~ TO O~ GT ~1,725.~ ~1.~5.~ P~ ~pr~ by ~nci111~ dwh:gt93multi 15-Jan-93 2 743 83042 PALM STREET RESURFACING - REAL TO OAK STP $13,275.00 $13,275.00 743 83041 ' P" STREET RESURFACING - 4TH TO 8TH GT $4,370.00 $262.00 $4,108.00 P~&E approved by Council 1--~-~2 743 83041 ' P' STREET RESURFACING - 4TH TO 8TH TDA $33,630.00 $23,630.00 743 83037 MONTEREY STREET RESURFAOING - BEALE TO VIRGINIA GT $24,400.00 $41.52 $24,358.48 PS&E ~oproved by Council 11.-4.-~2 743 83037 MONTEREY STREET RESURFACING - BEALE TO VIRGINIA STP $97.~00.00 $320.48 S97,279.52 743 83038 MOHAWK STREET RESURFACING - GALIFORNIA TO TRUXTUN RRF $118,000.00 $118.000.00 SLTPP REIMBURSEMENT RANGE 20% - 30~ 743 83014 CALIFORNIA AVENUE RESURFACING - STOCKDALE TO OAK RRF $439,000.00 $573.57 $438,426.43 SLTPP REIMBURSEMENT RANGE 20% - 30~ 743 83013 CALIFORNIA AVENUE WIDENING - REAL TO STOCKI)ALE RRF ~.000.00 $97.68 $264,902.32 SLTPP REIMBURSEMENT RANGE 20~ - 30~ 743 83059 WILSON ROAD RESURFACING - SO. 'H° TO WIBLE GT $21,000.00 $41.52 . $20,958.48 PS&E npproved by Counoil 11.-4-~2 743 83059 WILSON ROAD RESURFACING - SO. °H' TO WIBLE STP $84,000.00 ~320.48 $83,679.52 743 83048 STOCKI)ALE HW'Y RESURFACING - KERN RIVER TO OLD RIVER ROAD GT $19,200.1)0 $19,200.00 PS&E approved by Council 11 ~ 743 83048 STOCKDALE HWY RESURFACING - KERN RIVER TO OLD RIVER ROAD STP $76,800.00 $'78,800.00 743 83002 21ST STREET RESURFACING - 'Q' TO CHESTER AVENUE GT $14,400.00 $41.52 $14,358.48 PS&E approved by Council 11 .-4-g2 743 83002 21ST STREET RESURFACING - 'Q' TO CHESTER AVENUE STP $57,~X).00 ~320.48 $57,279.52 743 83011 BROWN STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT & EASTSIDE CANAL GT $28,000.00 $28,000.00 PS&E approved by Council 1--6-~3 743 83011 BROWN STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT & EASTSIDE CANAL BRF Sl 12,000.00 743 83035 MANOR DRIVE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BRF $215,000.00 $215,000.00 743 83035 MANOR DRIVE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GT · $55,000.00 $78.76 $54,921.24 Cunently under design. 743 83027 HARRIS ROAD CANAL CROSSING & FARMERS CANAL DEV $77,000.00 $53,789.53 $40,181.51 ($16,971.04) 9-30-92 Currently under oonetn~tion. Additional ~opfietion required. 743 83046 STINE ROAD CULVERT WIDENING - ~i~ STINE CANAL RRF .$18,000.00 $77.22 $18,000.00 ($77.22) $LTPP REIMBURSEMENT RANGE 20~ - 743 73006 COFFEE ROAD BRIDGE AT CROSS VALLEY CANAL GT ~0.00 $4,939.95 ($4,939.95) Currently under =on~'uclion. 743 7300~ COFFEE ROAD BRIDGE AT CROSS VALLEY CANAL CIF ~;30,000.00 $30,000.00 743 63024 PLANZ ROAD OVERCROSSING WIDEN AT FWY 99 CIF ~423.90 $17,589.56 ($17,165.116) pto)ect completed 743 ~3024 PLANZ ROAD OVERCROSSING WIDEN AT FWY 99 GT ~0.00 $3,582.80 ($3,582.80) dwh:gt93multi 15-Jan-93 3 743 43016 GORDON'S FERRY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT BRF $3,256.80 $3,256.80 $3.00 743 43016 GORDON'S FERRY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT GT $0.00 $128.83 ($128.83) 10-3-00 3-11.-~2 project completed TOTAL MULTIPLE FUNDED PROJECTS $4,56~,~0.70 $89,522.95 $61,438.31 $4,306,719.44 dwh:gt93mulfi 15-Jan-93 4 ~ :~ ~ COFFEE RON) WIDENING R/W - .RIMHALL TO ROSI=nALE GT ~55,835.00 $5,000.00 ~,83.5.00 De,,ign in prncem to a~emodete 4 lanel 14 743 83019 COFFEE ROAD WIDENING - BRIMHALL TO ROSEDALE GiT ~$350,000.00 $41.70 ~349,958.30 DeMgninpro~emtoncncmodate41ane. · 12 743 83051 TRuXTUN AVENUE WIDENING ~ A-E & IQ3:IN RIVER CANALS GT $5,000.00 $5.000.00 De~dgn complete, Change Order with Coffee bridges. 09 743 73015 PANAMA LANE SUBSTATION RIGHT OF WAY - GT $20,120.00 $20.120.00 08 743 73011 HAGEMAN BRIDGES ~ CALLOWAY & FRIANT - KERN CANALS GT $599,310.00 $5,106.93 $396,203.07 . Waiting f~x reqx)nan from USSR on eigcel 07 743 73003 60.CHE~'ER AVENUE CROSSING PROTECTION ~ SPRR GT $5,000.00 $5,000.00 743 83005 4TH STREET RESURFN~ING - o P' TO UNION AVENUE GT ~ $59,000.00 $41.52 $88.958.48 , PS&E approved by Council 11-.4-~ 06 743 63016 FAIRFAXROAD~PRR-ClTYPORTION GT $77,800.00 $77,~00.00 WaitJngfo;immiceefromKemCounty. 05 743 83053 UNION AVENUE CULVERT WIDENING (t~ KERN ISlAND CANAL GT $18 000.00 $187.34 $18,000.00 ($187.34) ~ Project currently under 03 743 73007 COFFEE RD BRIDGE ~ KERN RIVER & RD WIDENING (HUMMEL) GT ~52,430.40 $30,722.40 $21,708.00 SO.iX) Currently under 03 743 73007 CO~-P.J= RD BRIDGE ~ KERN RIVER & RD WIDENING GT $1,341,327.13 $805.392.44 $~15.941.90 $289.992.79 Currently under ~ ~ help with projected deficit and ~ the balance in the project. TOTAL PROJECTS FUNDED WITH GAS TAX ONLY $3.118,622.53 $~t4,492.33 ~i5,649.90 $1,786,480.30 dwh:gt93only 15-Jan-~3 1 Priority Listing PUBLIC WORKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS GAS TAX FUNDED TRAFFIC DIVISION CATEGORY I (100% GAS TAX FUNDED PROJECTS) 309,100 CATEGORY 2 (DEVELOPER, COUNTY, FEDERAL PARTICIPATION) 113,000 CATEGORY 3 (APPROVED PROJECTS AND/OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION) 1,138,400 SU B-TOTAL . $1,560,500 DESIGN DIVISION CATEGORY I (100% GAS TAX FUNDED PROJECTS) 798,420 CATEGORY 2 (DEVELOPER, COUNTY, FEDERAL PARTICIPATION) 1,498,100 CATEGORY 3 (APPROVED PROJECTS AND/OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION) 1,786,480 SU B-TOTAL $4,083~000 'TOTAL $5.643.500 p~IO~ITY,CIP Il-Jan-93 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM January 21, 1993 TO: DEPARTMENT HEADS FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CONTRIBUTIONS, DONATIONS AND CONTRACTS WITH OTHERS REGARDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1993-94 BUDGET In several instances, the City provides aid or assistance to other entities, or has contracts for services with other entities. With us facing scenarios of between a 5 to 15% cutback in General Fund activities, I encourage all of you to look at any such contributions or contracts you have. If we are not already bound into funding levels through some contractual obligation, it would seem to me that either such grants of assistance and/or contracts for services need to be looked at seriously, in their entirety,, or they need to be looked at with respect to decreasing them by the same amount that other General Fund activities will be decreased. I recognize that this may be a complex series of issues, and such grants in aid and contractual services may differ fromone to another. I would like to make it clear, however, that each needs to be reviewed. We should not enter into the budget preparation process anticipating that there would be continued support for outside entities in comparison to General Fund functions. AT.alb cc: Melanie Dunwoody General Information RESULTS PRELIMINARY QUESTIONNAIRE CITY COUNCIL RETREAT 1. Do you want totry to set up a retreat in: January or February E1 March or April E2 B Pi After the permanent new D* S*' B Sa Member to replace Ken is on board - June/July Additional Comments: D* June S* If at all. 2. Do you prefer a team-building component, (i.e., how to work better together - understanding personalities, etc.) or a practical approach, such as setting specific goals for the next year, dealing with specific problems, or some combination of the above? Team Building E D Pi Goals/Future Direction. E D S B Sa Concrete, pre-identified E D B Pi specifics, (e.g. How to expedite council meetings or brainstorming budget shortfalls, etc.) 3. What kind of time frame do you feel is most appropriate, and is feasible, given your schedule? 1 day only E D S Sa 1-1/2 to 2 days D B* Pi more than 2 days Additional Comments: B* If one is a weekend day. 4. How do you feel about having an outside facilitator? Unnecessary D* Essential S B Unsure/mixed feelings E Sa Pi Additional Comments: D* Mixed Feelings 2 · 5. Do you prefer to be: Out of town B* Pi In town E D S Sa Additional Comments: B* Somewhere practical, yet a reasonable distance away. 6. Do you feel that'the schedule should be primarily structured, or should leave some time for social activities? Structured E D S Sa Include sOcial activity B* Pi Additional Comments: B* Some social activity. 7. Comments/suggestions on any aspect of a possible retreat: E I support having a retreat as soon as possible to schedule. I believe it is important that it is held prior to budget sessions. Also, at our last retreat, we (majority) indicated we needed to follow up. The setting should be in a relaxed atmosphere (Rio Bravo, Arvin Golf Club, etc.). The Manager can get a fix or sense of what the "Group's" goals are or our vision for the future. S Very Candidly: I'm very pessimistic about any real constructive results. I'm always willing to try anything, though. B The Mayor's' participation in this is crucial. Before we do budget brainstorming and/or goal setting, 'we need a concrete list of each and every service we provide to our citizens and the real costs thereof. Otherwise, we're just reshuffling our house of cards. Pi A facilitator would be valuable for team building and goal setting. It might be good to have a block of time for just conversation without facilitator. Some social time is a good way to get a personal view. 3 BAKERSFIELD 1990 January 21, 1993 Mr. Bill Burton Advance Beverage Co. 5200 District Boulevard Bakersfield, CA 93311 Dear Mr. Burton: This letter is in follow-up to our recent telephone conversations. You have outlined for me the circumstances under which downtown private interests gathered money for, and arranged for the construction of the electric improvements which are used to serve holiday, decorations in downtown Bakersfield.' You further indicated that the group was unable to collect enough money to pay off all of the contractor's fees, or at least you have been unable to do so', to date. I have checked into the legal ramifications. The City was not directly involved in the purchase or the installation, however, the improvements are now on public property. It is the City's position that those improvements cannot be removed, as they are now in our possession. Further, you have asked me about the possibilitY of the CitY subsidizing the shortfall on the ability to pay off the contractor on the installation. You may have read in recent newspaper articles, the Governor has proposed taking around $4 million from the CitY of Bakersfield in an effort to heal the State budget crisis. This Will put us in a ~ery uncomfortable position relative to the ability to fund desirable, but non-critical services. I would, therefore, consider it unlikely that we would be in a position to be able to help contribute to the shortfall. We do stand ready, however, to help work with the downtown business interests, relative to the annual installation of these materials, in an effort to make the continuation of the decoration project feasible. It is my understanding that you will write me, separately, on that issue. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. ~cl-~yn MT:r~gYer . AT.alb City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 325-9162 City & State, December 14, 1992 THE CITY REPORT UP & COMING CITIES 3RD ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT Economic slump slows growing cities gven fast-growing cities ~ome- onomie problems have taken their t~ ~.. ~o~ o. ~..; ~h~ ou~om~ ~ mo~ Fiscal 1992 budgets Most notable in Cit~ & State's ~ple, f~er )o~ ~d 1~ mon~. O[ the & ~ities ~ ~UM Up & ~ ~ City & State ch~ the 25 Up & ~ aUw n~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ that measures various aspects of General fund revenue General fund ex~nditums ~ve ~U~ on ~e ~t ~ d~ ~d ~ pm~ v~ue. ~e ~ ~5.52 billion $5.66 billion lng, Texas; Oxnard, Calif.; and ~. ~her I0~ t~es All other ~o, M~ ~d ~ide ~ ~ ~ ~ new~m~ ~m taxes ~ expenditures. Califo~a -- had ~emases ~ job four states on this year*s Up & Cities su~ey, which studied em- mona ~d ~ ~ ~ ~ffor- 0.~ plo~ent dung 1988-19~0. nia; ~eaumont and Pasadena in Fu~s from Fo~ Up & Co~g CiU~ saw d~ Texas; Virginia Beach, Va.; and federal ~ ~ gener~ f~d ~ue for ~tUe. the period 1991-1992. Portland, ~ Vega, Ney., r~ ~o. 1' for Ore., and the California cities of the second consecutive year. Las Human * Ol~d~e, ~s ~g~ ~d Pomona Vegas mainta~ its lead with a Sa[oS solids lost ~ue w~e ~ ~n~u~ ~ ~mb~ation of ~g ~p~a- Funds from state ' t~es grow in population, employment tion ~d job ~. ~e city's pop- government Public ~d pm~ v~ue. ~ation mc~a~ 22.6% d~g ~e 11.4% safety Losses of jobs and gove~ment period 1988-1990. Employment 24.~ General ~ ~ by l~g ~ti~ grew at a 12~ rate in the years ~11 other government Eduction 3 ~u~lo ~910 (2) 11.12 (9) ~ (3) 1.~ (19) 8,~ (10) 17~ (15) ~7.0 (4) 3.13 (1~ 8.42 (24) 4 6~lff. ~,~ (12) 11.~ ~) 8Z~ (13) 2.~ (?) 10,1~ (8) 11~700) ~.7 (14) (3.~1) (~) ~ (14) 5 ~~lff. 110,~2 (24) 15.~ (3) 4~ (25) ~ (12} 7,1~ (13) ~ (1) ~.4 (24) 17~ (1) 10.75 (~) 7 ~, ~. ~19 * (4) 4~ (21) ~,412 · (4) 3~ (6) 1~410 (4) 24~ (10) 1~.2 ~ (L~) (24) ~.~ (6) 10. ~mlnH ~ch, Va. 393,~9 (6) 7.60 (18) 167,~ (7) 3.~ (5) ~6,~ (6) 5.05 (24) 4~.6 (2) 8.~ (~ 51.~ (2) ~2 ~ff. ~ (10) 7~ (19) 1~,~ (9) ~ (17) ~"(15) 13.~(18) 92.3" (12) 5.49 (14) 10.~ (~) 13' ~N.g. ~,~1 (11) 11~ (8) 119~1 (11) 2.m (18) ~9 (9) 10~(~) 1~.4 (10) 7.41 (8) 51~ (3) ~4 ~, ~. 1~ (15) . 5.61 (~) ~ (12) ~ (13) 7,~ (12) 1~.~ (12) 1~7 (8) 721 (O) ~.~0 (8) is ~~ff. ~ (5) ~7(~) 1~ (5) u~ (8) ~,.1 (3) 17~(14) ~.7 (5) ~ (1~) ~ (15) 16 ~~ff. 17~ (13) 1~ (10) ~ (18) ~ (14) ~ (14) 17~ (16) NP NP NP 17 ~T~ I1~ (~) Z12(~) ~ (10) ~7 (4) Z~ (~4) ~16 (S) ..7 (~) 1~12 (4) 18 ~T~ 11~ (~) 10~(14) ~mS (21) 7.16 (2) Z~I (25) 3.~(~) 6~ (~) ~ (11) ~ (16) 24 ~lff. 14~216 (18) 9.~ (~6) 67,918 (1~ (1.~) (22) 5,~6 (19} 25.~ (9) 59.6 (17) '1.~ (18) ~.01 (10) ~ ~ 61~ (3) ~(24) ~1. .(2) ~ (~) ~ (2) m(21) ~ (3) Lis 02) lm (1~