Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/07/93 B A K E R S F I E L -D MEMORANDUM May 7, 1993 · · TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCI~ / FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Your will find enclosed a summary from the Finance Department describing the practical impacts of the now completed refinancing of the Central District Development Agency debt. The bottom line is that it turns an annual deficit into a small annual surplus but does not generate enough money to overcome basic costs such as the required housing set aside. 2. You will find enclosed a memo from the legal department discussing the request from the chairperson of the Parks and Recreation Committee about becoming a commission. The bottom line of it is, it is not statutory issue, It is instead a image issue of the individuals involved seeking more power. There is not apparently a statutory listing of "Commission" authority. I provide this to'you because they have asked for it to be referred to committee. The committee selection and details are up to the Council. 3. There is a letter enclosed from Joe Drew and myself to the three social agencies which were accommodated at the recent meeting between the City and the County regarding block grant funding. 4. Enclosed is letter from the downtown property owners'complimenting us for work on the U.R.M. issue. 5. Enclo§ed is our response to the state agency which.attempts to overcome the LAFCO letter which would have given LAFCO the control of our sphere of influence amendment. 6. You will find enclosed a copy of the MetropOlitan Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation Terminal Study. 7. You will find enclosed a summary of city funds taken by state government over the last several years. It is a rather impressive list. 8. You will find enclosed a response to the 125 Plan that was presented verbally at the last Council Meeting. 9. We had a meeting with Warner Cable TV this week. They did not give us a definitive opinion on allowing the franchise fee increase. They' did, however, request that we consider asking the wireless firm to pay a HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL May 7, 1993 Page -2- similar amount. We are reviewing whether we have a legal option under which to reach that. 10. We had a meeting with Kern Delta Canal this week. It went surprisingly well. We think we can come to accommodation with them on the bike path issue with no significant problems. In fact, a very unique idea may save us some money. The bottom line of it was, they think they can do some canal maintenance cheaper than us. We are exploring the dollar amounts to verify what we think is the case. 11. Members of the symphony group visited me this week and indicated they will be visiting you. Currently we have funding for the symphony at a ten percent decrease from last year's level. They, of course, want more and want it tied to the Convention Center rental rates. In all frankness, you will have a lot of pressures to take away the amount they are still being recommended for. 12. There is a directive to the Fire Chief enclosed on the weed issue about which Councilmembers expressed concern at the last meeting. 13. You will find enclosed a memo from Planning on the next cycle of General Plan amendments. 14. The Council meeting of May 12 will be long and difficult. Unless you can overachieve, I think that a local pizza store owner should have deliveries by 11 or 12! AT/kec Enclosures GENINF.57 MAY 3, 1993 MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ ~ / FROM: GREGORY J. KLIMKO~ FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY - REF ING 1993 In 1983 the Redevelopment Agency issued bonds to construct a parking structure at 18th and Eye Streets and to assemble properties for a hotel site. Additionally, in the mid 1980's, it incurred debt in order to acquire a portion of the hotel site from the City, provide for a ballroom and meeting rooms (public improvements) at the hotel site adjacent to the Convention Center and acquired one-half block from the City for a parking structure adjacent to the City Center building project. The Agency anticipated approximately $250,000 in tax increments and $200,000 in lease payments from the hotel project annually. Further, the Agency anticipated $100,000 in tax increments annually and an $850,000 lump sum payment in 1997 for the City Center office project. Since the hotel project was not completed and the office project defaulted on its construction loan and has since been acquired by a school district, these anticipated revenues were not available to retire outstanding debt. Therefore, in 1989 facing a deficit, the Agency borrowed $1 million from the City's Sewer Fund as a bridge loan. In 1992, the State legislature directed the City to.loan $208,314 to the Agency for its contribution to the County Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. All of the existing debt except for the 1983 bonds was sCheduled to be retired by 1998. The Redevelopment Agency receives approximately $1.3 million in tax increment revenue. The Agency's requirements funded by tax increment revenue prior to refinancing were as follows: Debt Service $1,090,000 Parking Reimbursement 140,000 County ERAF (16%) 208,000 Direct Operating Expenses 130,000 Administrative Cost Allocated 222,000 The above figures include a "one time" payment to the County resulting from State budgetary action, however, At does not include a 20% ($300,000) housing set aside commencing with the 1993-94 fiscal year. The high annual debt service is the result of retiring notes and loans by 1998. ALAN TAND¥ MAY 3, 1993 PAGE TWO The refinancing of the existing debt provides for extending the term and generally reducing the interest rates resulting in reduction of annual debt service to $760,000. Also, by including some of the principal and interest due in the current fiscal year in the refinancing, the Agency should end the current fiscal year with an estimated $200,000 balance instead of a $300,000 deficit which was projected without the refinancing. This refinancing included the payment of existing City notes and loans. The debt outstanding after the refinancing is as follows: 1. Parking Revenue Bonds, $1,560,000 issued, $735,000 outstanding. Annual debt of $130,000 serviced by lease payments from the City's parking fund. 2. Reimbursement to the City resulting from an Agreement related to the Parking Revenue Bonds. Annual Reimbursement of $140,000 serviced by tax increment revenue. 3. Certificates of Participation, Convention Center, $4,780,000 issued, $4,255,000 outstanding. Annual debt of $400,000 serviced by lease payments from the City's General Fund. 4. Parking Lot Note, $300,000 issued, $300,000 outstanding. Annual debt service of $15,000 interest only currently serviced by interest revenue from Banducci/Walker. 5. Tax Allocation 1993 Refunding Bonds, $8,545,000 issued and outstanding. Annual debt service of $760,000 to be serviced by Tax Increment Revenue. krc MGJK.35 EXHIBIT II CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AGENCY DEBT ANALYSIS OUTSTANDING AGENCY INDEBTEDNESS PRIOR TO REFINANCING BONDS, NOTES, AND AGREEMENTS SERVICED BY TAX INCREMENTS PUBLIC FISCAL. RDA BONDS PARKING IMPROVEMENT HOTEL SITE OFFICE PARKING SEWER YEAR 1983 REIMBURSEMENTS NOTE NOTE _NOTE NOTE · SB 844 TOTAL 1993 $608,900 $140,000 $350.000 .. $59.398 $0 $146 860 $0 $1,305,158 1994 $608,900 $140.000 $350,000 $59,398 $0 $139 000 $0 $1.297.298 1995 $607,400 $140,000 $316,890 ' $59.398 $0 $138 000 ~ $0 $1,261,688 1996 $604,400 $140.000 $59,398 $0 $131 700 · $208,314 $1 ~143.812 1997 ' $604.900 $140,000 $59.398 $536,499 $130 400 $1,771,197 1998 $608.400 $140.000 $59.394 $123 800 $931.594 1999 $609.400 $14.0.000 $127,200 $876,600 2000 $612,670 $140,000 $752.670 2001 $618.890 $618.890' 2002 $622.650 $622,650 2003 '$628.950 $628,950 2004 $637.380 $637~380 2005 $642.530 ~ $642.530 2006 $654.400 $654.400 2007 $662,170 $662.170 2008 $670,640. $670.840 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2015 TOTALS· $10,002.780 $1,120,000 $1,016,890 $356,384 $836,499 ~936,960 $208.314 .$14,477,827 Name: CDDA_NK1 Prepared by: N.K. ~mlth Date Prepared: · 03-May-93 City of Bakersfield Central District Development 'Agency Tax Allocation Refunding Bond, 1993 SourceSand Uses Sources / Bond Proceeds ~' '8,545,000 Reserve Available - 1983 Bonds 690,129 AcCrued Interest (04/15/93 - 04/27/93) .~ 17,986 Total Sources ,~ 9,253,115 Uses Tax Allocation Bonds, 1983: Principal 5,345,000 ' Interest 11/01192 - 05/01193 229,450 Call Premium 129,875 ,¢' 5,704,325 Hotel Public Improvements Note: Principal 773,131 Interest (01101193 - 04130193) 17,839 '790,970 Hotel Site Acquisition (City): Principal 246,837 Interest (08/17/92 - 04/30/93) 11,365 258,202 Parking Site Acquisition (City): Principal 455,000 Interest (08/17~88 - 04130193) 190,606 645,606 Sewer Operating Loan (City) Principal 650,000 Interest (01!01/93 - 04130193) 12,783 662,783 General Fund Advance (City) 208,314 Direct Debt 8,270,200 Debt Service Reserve 1993 Bonds 762,369 Accrued Interest Reserve 17,986 Underwriters Discount (1.35%) 115,358 Cost of Issuance 57,202 CDDA Project Fund 30,000 'Total Uses ~' 9,253,115 I FiJe Name: CDDA_NK2 Prepared by: N.K. Smith Date Prepared: 03-May-93 MEMORANDUM April 27, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ALLEN M. SHAW, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY SUBJECT: CITIZENS' PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REQUEST TO BECOME A COMMISSION~ I have worked with Laura Marino on the legal aspect of changing-the Committee's status to a Commission,. because in the past, Laura handled Community Services-and~ participated in the writing of the Ordinance which created this Committee. According to her, this is not a new issue for this Committee. In the past, the Council h~s not wanted to share legislative power with the Citizens' Committee. Rather the Council wanted to maintain the Committee as an advisory committee composed of citizens who can give guidance to the Recreation Department on what the community desired in the.way of recreation programs. Before 1989, Community Services was part of the Sanitation Division of the City. The Citizens' Advisory Committee for the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center had been in existence for some time. However, a majority of committee members did not attend meetings, and it became inactive. In the meantime, Paul Dow wanted some citizen recommendations as to the recreational policy and decisions of the City. He asked the Council to dissolve the existing ~ -- advisory committee and substitute a new committee. comprehensive of all recreational advice. (See the correspondence attached hereto detailing, the history of these changes. In particular see the Auditorium and Community Services Committee Report dated December 8, 1988.) The Council accepted the recommendation of its Community Services Committee, enacted Municipal Code Section 2.60.060, and created the Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee. The substantive portion of Municipal Code Section 2.60. 060 reads as follows: "The Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee shall represent various community groups and interests for the C~TY ~AG~R-~ purpose of advising the City Council as to policies for operations of City parks and City recreation services. Except as Memo April 27, 1993 Page 2 provided in this Section, this Committee has no administrative or other authority." I do not routinely attend this Committee's meetings. I have attended the last two meetings at the request of Lee Anderson, Director of Community Services,. because the Committee placed the issue of commission authority on the meeting agenda. (The Committee is governed by the Brown Act.) Although some of the present membership of the Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee have believed for some time that it did not have sufficient authority, this feeling has grown since January. The City Council made two decisions since January affecting city recreation without consulting its advisory committee. Some Committee members believed the Committee should have been asked to review the subject issues before the Council acted and should have been given an opportunity to make a recommendation to the Council. Their Committee not having been considered as a forum for discussion of these issues before decision, some members came'to believe the Council had no interest in listening to the Committee and had no respect for the Committee. Some members believe they can obtain the requisite attention and respect if they could change their capacity from advisory to compulsory. They asked, staff if such a change could be accomplished. In certain instances, Council can share legislative power with other bodies. (An example, but not a very good one for reasons later explained, would be the Planning Commission.) From at least a superficial level of analysis, it appeared the Council could change the Committee's status by granting~it more authority if the Council so desired. Consequently, I responded to the Committee's request by advising at the March meeting that it request the Council, through the City Manager, to study the possibilities of changing status. As a result, the Committee wrote the aforementioned letter and approved sending it at its noon meeting on Tuesday, April 20, 1993. The first January issue agitating the Committee was the issue of whether the Council should renew the lease of the Mesa Marin softball complex which was set to expire on or Memo April 27, 1993 Page 3 about March 1, of this year. You are already familiar with the financial issues associated with that decision. (Historically, from the analytical point of view of cost to the City treasury, the Operation of the Mesa Marin softball complex had been a loss since the commencement of the lease in 19.86 or '87.) Because City staff did not know the magnitude of the. budget reduction in November and December (when non-renewal of the lease would normally' be-analyzed and publicized sufficiently in advance tQ allow for lengthy economic analysis)!,, City staff thought the lease, would, be renewed during those months,~ and they did not raise the issue. As long as the Council renewed the. lease,~ there would be no controversy. However,-afte~ the first of the year, when staff learned of the budget cuts, staff realized that non-renewal of the lease was a probable budget reducing measure~ and. recommended non-~enewal~ of the lease, at the first meeting in February. The timing of the recommendation did not allow for much "study" time in political terms. At the first meeting, the ¢oune-il d-id not accept the staff recommemdation because of claims that s~ftbali tournaments played at the complex brought 'billions" of tourist dollars, into the Cityand the~County',~ which benefitted, local businesses an~ indi=ec~ty~ %he City treasu~ry in the form o~ sales tax~revenu~e¥ The Co~nc±l deferred its decision u~ntit th~. second ~ebruary meetin~~. Between t~e first February Council meeting and the second, the Citizens' Committee held. its monthly meeting, which I a~tended at Lee knder~n'm request.~ Aec. brought the issue of the cost of operating the softball complex before · the Committee.~ Several-memberswere criti'cat of Anderson's recommendation, again based o-~ a lack of information, about exactly how much revenue softball generate~ amd a gemeral perception that accurate information would show that tournament generated revenue benefitted the community and the City. Some members, but not a majority, wanted to recommend to the Council that either the lease be. ~enewed or the decision postponed until they could gather more information to support their recommendation. However, the timing ~f the expiration of the lease would'not a~iow another postponement of the decision to renew or~ met to renew. At their request for advice, I told. the Citizens' Committee they could make their reeommendatio~ to. the Council at the second February meeting,~ subject to the Memo April 27, 1993 Page 4 Council's rules for public debate. (The Committee was reluctant to write a Committee letter to the Council because of the lack of information. They hoped instead to gain more information at the Council meeting, hold a quick Committee meeting, and make a Committee-approved recommendation.) At the second February Council meeting, apparently other speakers used all the time the Mayor would allow for public comment, and "cut off" the Committee Chairperson from speaking on behalf of the Committee.. The Committee Chairperson thought the City should renew the lease.. The Council voted not to renew the lease. The~-~s'econd de~ision ~gitatingi the Committee waS'the~ council's ~ee-ision-not to,grant a condi~i0nal, use permit to DavidGuinn to operate a-motorcross track,at an _abandoned~ ro~k quarry east of Hart Pack. The Council made this decisiOn arc.the same February meeting where the Council decided not to renew the Mesa Marin Softball Complex lease. Again the timing and the procedure played an important part. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Board of Zoning Adj~ustment considered this. conditional Puse-p~rmit before the Council's review. (The Planning Commission does not review conditional use permits at all. The Board of Zoning Adjustment does not consider large projects such as this one. Large. proj~ects~-go directlyto~he ~it-y Councit,~)~ At the City Council meeting, area residents objected to the noise.~ Many recreational motorcyclists lobbied for the permit. The.City.Planning Director had recommendedvi~favor ~_pf~..~h~p~rmit.. Much~informatiOn was offered at the meeting involving revenue to the City, amount of use,. amount of noise, other uses, and other problems, associated with the use of the land as a motorcross. The Council, following Pat Smith's lead (the property was located in her ward), voted against the permit. (The applicant believes Smith based her decision based on erroneous information.) Mary Sawyer (Chairperson of the Citizens' Parks. and Recreation Committee), speaking on her own behalf, was one of the persons speaking in favor of the' permit. Again, this recreational opportunity had not been brought to her Committee. (In my~view,-this~was a.landruse~issue,~'~not~an- ?operation of City~par~s!' issue. However it could be interpreted to be a "recreation[al] services" issue and, therefore, a subject which the Citizens Committee could have addressed according to the Ordinance.) Memo April 27, 1993 Page 5 (Parenthetically, David Guinn has been back to the Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee selling it on the idea that the property should be used for a recreational motorcycle area. He apparently is seeking a reconsideration of the Council's denial of his application for a conditional use permit. Mary Sawyer is working to have her Committee involved in that reconsideration and favors granting the permit. ) At the two recent Committee meetings, members used these two episodes (the Mesa Marin Softball Complex lease and the motorcross conditional use permit) as illustrations that the Council does not listen to them, and that the Committee commands no respect. Members believe that Commission status will change these attitudes. At the March meeting, I asked the Committee what specifically they wanted in the way of Commission powers. The members were not sure exactly what they wanted at that time, but at least one member wanted a Commission with full · power to make binding decisions on the City as to recreational issues. They wanted to be able to renew the lease and grant the ~conditional use permit. In some ways, they want an independent district with its own budget or at least to make decisions binding on the City's budget. At a minimum, the Committee seemed to be saying (without consciously recognizing it) they wanted to make the Council listen to them when they had something to say. They analogized to the Planning Commission and. the Historic Preservation Commission. I pointed out differences in the functions and legal authority for these two commissions. These commissions both have their source of governmental power in the police power relative to land-use decisions. (Please note that neither-the Planning Commission nor theyJ Historic Preservation Commission make decisions binding .o~n the ~City's budget. ~ The Planning Commission makes both land- use decisions or recommendations depending upon the issue. The Historic Preservation Commission makes only recommendations to the City Council respecting land-uses. ) The kind of P power the Committee seems ~to~want is legislative . ,power~ I explained' that it might be difficult for the Council to delegate any legislative power (including spending power) to them Without statutory authority. Even if such statutory authority was not necessary to the sharing of legislative authority, I pointed out the Council may reasonably be Memo April 27, 1993 Page 6 reluctant to grant such authority to a non-elected board. A~S_a practical matter, I~d0~no~think the~Council~could~ draft~n.~Ordinance~-~hi~h delegates.~only-'a~ port,on of~ ~egislative power,~becauSe~'by~its nature, legistati~epowez~ is .alI o~ Do~hing~ I think at some point in time, two. issues, will arise which we can manage. Whichever Council Committee receives this issue to study will reasonably want to know exactly what kind of power the Committee wants. The Committee may still be. inept at describing~ this point.. On. the other hand, the Citizens' Committee may ~e more articulate by the time they are asked that questio~ by the Council Committee. Regardless, the--CouncilCommittee ~cou-ld use the-opportunity to~.~show~the C£~izens.'.Com~_ittee they a~e ask~ng~-for~th~~ imprackical and the'imPosSible. Second;,~-the.CounCi-t Co~ittee-will need~-to~be educated on the~fundamentai, te~al~ c6hC~pts~-oflegiSlati~e power, so. that they accnrate!.y.~. perceive-what~ the_ C~tizens' .... Committee i~ tiulY~asking for~. AMS:rb Attachments cc: Lee Anderson~ Community Services Manager Laura Marino, Esq. corrIII\citizens.chg memos\CtznsCte.chg MEMORANDUM JanuarS 22~ 1988 TO Paul Dow,. Community Service~ Mana.Qer FROM Jim Ledoux, Recreation S'uperintende . " SUBJECT Citizens' Advisory Committee This is ,to inform you that the 'Citizens' Advisory Committee for Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center is not at present an active body nor have they been for quite some time. The last several attempts to'organize meeti~ngs found response limited',to Lynn Edwards (chairperson), Mrs. Johnnie Mae Parker, and Paul Anderson. Since assuming l~eadership Of the Recreation Division in 1983, attendance at the scheduled meetings was consistent for those three persons, with only sporadic attendance for Robert Bethea, Austin' Bryan, Stephanie Campbell,.Leo Walker, \ and .Evelyn Chatman. The other member, Marry Scott, has not communicated with the division at all, and none of our corres- 'pondence to her ha~ been returned. I have discussed the Advisory Committee with Lynn Edwards, and we 'are in agreement that the committee, as such, is not necessary as a functioning unit due to the fact that the Martin Luther King Community Center has been intergrated into the City-wide Recreation program, and no longer is treated~ as, or operates as a separate' unit. Therefore, it would'be my recommendation t'hat the Citizens' Advisory Committee be officially disbanded. JL:cr '.' cc: Roberta Gafford, Deputy City C'lerk MEMORANDUM ,-,~ ~ December Auditorium and Community S.e~'~Ges'I"~q%tee Jim Ledoux, Recreation Superintendent Martin' Luther Kinq Jr. CO~nity Cfr. Citizen As directed, I attempted to contact the persons who are currently listed as members of the Citizen's AdVisory Committee for the Martin Luther King Jr. Community_..Center" Certified; letters were mailed to .the committee members and o~ the eight letters ma±led, only .three persons responded...:.': requested.. Three receipts'-Were]-:.returhed without;resp°nse zrom the: reaezver:~nd-:two~'~ere retu~ed_ addressee: unk o . Of- the persons responding,--Aust~-Bryan, Lynn Edwards'' and i'~ Leo Walker all indicated th .y are in support of the Recreation Division and that they would be willing to serve if called upon. I'have discussed the. issue of the Advisory Committee with Paul Dow, community services Manager, and we are in agreement in recommending that serious consideration be given to the disbandment:of the existing committee. In addition, we feel that a new committee should be formed along the lines' of the Kern County Parks and Recreation. Commission. It is Our feeling that this committee would not.only be involved in matters pertaining to the Martin Luther King Center, but also act in an advisory capacity on the overall Parks and · recreation function. ~AUDITORIUM AND COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT NO. DECEMBER 8, 1988 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. COMMUNITY CENTER CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE At the August 10, 1988, City Council meeting, the issue of the Citizen's AdvisorY Committee for the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center not holding regular meetings was referred to the Auditorium and Community Services Committee. On September 12,' 1988, the Committee met with,Staff to discuss this issue. After receiving an update regarding the. Advisory Committee from Recreation Division staff, the Council Committee entertained the possibility of disbanding the Advisory Committee as'it exists and creating a new committee Which would act in an advisory capacity, not only on'matters pertaining to the Martin Luther. king Community Center but on all city wide parks and recreation activities. Contact was made with'members of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to advise them of the possibility of disbanding their' committee and forming another. Members were contacted by certified letters for their input.. Of eight letters mailed out, six were receipted with only three persons responding. These three stated they were in support of the proposed new committee and would be willing to serve if called upon. Based on the above information, it is the recommendation of this committee that the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center Citizen's Advisory Committee be disbanded and a new committee be formed to-act in an advisory capacity on matters pertaining to all City of Bakersfield Parks and RecreatiOn activities. Respectfully submitted, Councilmember Ken Peterson, Chair Councilmember James Henry Childs Councilmember Patricia M. Smitl~ MEM.O RAN D.UM ..February'l-, 1989 ME>[BERS, AUDITORIUM 2~ND CO~UNITY SERVICES~COM~[ITTEE TO F~OU SUBJECT_ PARKS AND RECR~TION ADVISORY BOAJtD It is the reco~endation of the Parks and ReCreation Divisions that certain criteria be utilized in the fo~ation of a Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. This criteria I. ESTABLISH~NT That the Board be.comprised of seven (7) members,, one from each Council Ward to be ·appointed by the City Council .. II. DUTIES A. Act in an advisory capacity to the City Council and the Co,unity Se~'ices Manager in all matters pertaining to public recreation, p'~lic p~ks and ...... ~rounds. = B. ~'a!uate existin~ and future recreation pro~r~s to insure that they contribute ~o the attai~en~ of general recrea~iona! objectives fcr all the youth an.d'adu!~s cf the City of Bakersfield. C. Provide ~'~~== for pres=hr ~ future pmrk development ~nd recc~men~ chan~es the Ci:y Council. D. Monitor the Park ~:aintenance. Districts mn~ m~e recommendations .~o :he.Ci:y Counzil- E. Make periodic tours of City parks recreaticn facilities ~nd inspect o~har oDera~ions ~d ~acilities ~.~e ~ercinen: to City.~a-~'=-.~- ~nd recreation. F. Receive operational reportg relative to ~e Parks and Recreation Divisions and record i:s comments cr approval. · Pa~e 2 -~ ~ February ~ 1989 G. - Occasionally act as spokesperson or dgpartmental representative at PUblic ceremonies and recreational programs. ~ H. Aid in coordinating the department pro- grams and activities with ~he programs ' of other governmental agencies and voluntary organizations. I. In general, to cooperate with the Parks and Re~reaCion Superintendents of the- Community Services Department on problems of a~ministratlon when assistance or support is requested, and to keep-the City Council info.~med of the actions of this Board. cr Dale Hawley, City ~anager D~t Saafield, City Attorney Frank Fabbri, Parks Superintenden.t Jim Ledo~x, Recreation Superintendent ORDINANCE NO. 3219 , NEW SERIES AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADDING SECTION 2.60.060 TO THE -~ BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE CREATION OF A CITIZENS~ PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Section 2.60.060 is hereby added to Chapter 2.60 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: 2.60.060 Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee Creation - Duties. A. There 'is created a Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee consisting of seven members, each of whom shall be nominated by a councilmember for his/her respective ward, who shall be a resident of that ward, and shall be appointed by the City Council. The term of office shall be four years, to run concurrently with the term of the councilmember from the same ward; terms of the committee members first appointed may run less than four years and shall expire with the expiration of~ the term cf the counciimember from the same ward. B. The Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee shall represent various community groups and interest~ for the purpose of advising the City-Ccuncil aS to policies for-operations of city parks and city recreation services. Except as provi-ded in this section, this committee has no administrative or other authority. The Parks Superintendent and the Recreation Superintendent shall be ex-officio members of this committee and may be present at any meetings of this committee, but shall have no right to vote. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be posted in accordance wiLh the Cisy charter prowisions and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. odo I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on Aoril 26. 1989 , by the following vote: ,~'ES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ~ DeMf~NU. SUI1H. P~A'Y~'. P[Tr-'~SOk. W, cDERMOrl SAL¥'AGG[O NOES: COUNCILMEMSERS: Nolqe ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ~olqe AgSTAINING: COUNCItMEMBERS' .~one ~ · -.~.._._.~__ /s/ CAROL WILLIAMS. CITY CLERK and Ex officio Clerk of t~ne Council of the City-of BakerSfield APPROVED April~26. 1989 /s/ CLARENCE E. 5~EDDERS CLARENCE E. MEDDERS MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: /s/ ARTHUR J. SAALFIELD ARTHUR J. SAALFIELD' CITY ATTORNEY of the City of Bakersfield AJS/meg 0 ORB 7 PARKSBD.'! 4./3/89~ County of Kern city of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1415 TrUxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3751 _ (805) 861-2371 .May 3, 1993 .. Mr. Edward B. Velasquez KCEOC 300 - 19th' Street · Bakersfield; CA 93301 Mr. Stephen W. Schilling Clinica Sierra Vista, Inc. P. O. Box 457 Lamont, CA 93241 Ms. Sandy Spencer Kern Adult Literacy Council, Inc. 401 - 18th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 At a meeting. that took place on Thursday, April 8th, it became clear that we had three agencies who were concerned about joint funding applications from Housing and Community Development Funds between the City and the County. After discussion, it was decided that the staffs would propose to their respective legislative bodies a budget package which clarified for each of the three agencies the status of their application. This is to avoid uncertainty and differing actions between the City and the County, which could cause problems for the continuation of projects. The decisions were as follows: Clinica Sierra Vista - City staff will be making a recommendation to the City Council to fund the full $300,000 originally requested of the County and the County will acknowledge that the City had already donated land and granted $100,000 in prior year CDBG funds. While sixty-five percent of the beneficiaries of this project may be County residents, because the project is located in the City, no further Board of Supervisor's action is necessary. May 3, 1993 Page -2- ' KCEOC - County staff will be making 'a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to fund the $175,000 requested of the City and the $250,000 requested of the County. Because fifty-five percent of the beneficiaries of this project may be. County residents and it. is located in the City, the City Council will acknowledge, as required by HUD, that it has no objection to the Board of Supervisors spending CoUnty CDBG funds in the City, and. will instruct City staff to assist the KCEOC and County staff in every way possible in the implementation of this project. Kern Literacy Council - County 'staff will be making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to fund the $48,750 requested of the City and the $16,250 requested of the County. Because twenty-five percent of the beneficiaries of this project, as calculated by the Literacy CounCil, .are County residents and. it is located in the City, the City Council will acknowledge, as required by HUD, that . is has no objection to the Board of Supervisol;s spending County CDBG funds in the City, and will instruct City staff to assist the Literacy Council and County staff in every way possible in the implementation of this project. It is our hope that theSe decisions will help assure that each of the above listed agencies gets full funding, and that it is provided from one source. We recognize that it represents some level of change, in terms of What your funding applications were. We had situations, however, where each of the three were. in question, relative to support from one agency or another, so we are working together to make sure that these three projects can be completed. ~~, ~ , Sincerely,'. andy 'j d~seph E. Drew ' .City Manager // C(iunty Administrative Officer Ci~ of Bakersfield . C.~dunty of Kern · GERALD B. CLIFFORD REALTORS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION CITY PROPERTIES 1831 TRUXTUN AVENUE FARM LANDS · BAKERSFIELO. CALIFORNIA 9SS01 OIL LANDS TELEPHONE {805! 327-5174 INSURANCE LOANS April 29, 1993 ~ Alan Tandy City Manager-Bakersfield,Calif. 1501TruxtunAvenue. · Bakersfield, Ca. 93301 As one of the group of U.R.M. property owners i~Downtown Bakersfield ~Lmus~~~n-t-LY~-~a~dZMr~j~ger/f6~OV~f-=~ttit~d~ regarding downtown Bakersfield. I am referring to the workshop meeting 5:15 P.M. WednesdaY, April. 28, 1993, wherein you andMr.-Wager shared our feeling for the preservation of the downtown area. Our conCern, as well as yours,'is to maintain the area as aproductive business center.The center will increase property val~es, raising the tax base, for the benefit of the City of Bakersfield. I apologize for any redundancy herein, but I believe that our goals. are mutual. cc: Jake Wager Deputy Executive Direc~or CDDA 515 TruxtunAvenue Bakersfield,Ca.93301 Cathie Patla 6615 Kane Way Bakersfield, Ca. 93309 GBC:ln,. ~0 ,~R 9~ '..~..~ 56. - BAKERSFIELD MEMOR,ANDUM April 22, 1993 TO: LARRY LUNARDINI, CITY ATTORNEY / ./ FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ATTACHED COMMUNICATION I have received the attached communication from the Chairperson of the Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee. .My understanding is that Allen Shaw, of your staff, has been legal advisor to this Committee. Would you please provide me with a concise summary of what, by statute, the significant meanings are of this request? A response to issues such as what types of decisions are determined by the Committee, what their sources of revenue are, their responsibilities to the City Council, etc., would be appreciated. I need your response prior to initiating an action to put this before a Council Committee. AT.alb Attachment ~'?R ~5. '?~' 2-> ~CITIZENS' PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE 4101 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93309 April 14, 1993 Mr. Alan Tandy City Manager 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: For· some time, members of the Citizens'~ Parks and Recreation Committee have discussed the Possibility of our committee attaining full commission status, as opposed to the advisory role we now fill. This issue was on the agenda for action at our last regular meeting, which was held on March 30, 1993. At that meeting, Deputy City Attorney Alan Shaw advised us that if we wanted this issue addressed by .the City Council, we should appeal to the Council stating our desire to become a cO~mission and requesting that this issue be-referred to the proper council committee. Therefore, please accept this memorandum as a formal request that the issue of changing the status of the Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee from that of an advisory board to that of a full commission be heard by the Council and that it be referred to the prOper Council Committee for review. The'next meeting of our Citizens' Committee is scheduled for April 20, 1993', at 12:00 pm, in the Bank Room at the Convention Center.· We·would welcome the chance to explain our request for commission status to any Councilmembers desiring to attend. Sincerely, Marl/SawyeF, Chairperson Cit£zens"~JParks and Recreation Committee MS:cr request cc: Lee Andersen, Community Services Manager · City'of Bakersfield i i 501 Truxtun Avenue ~.~ 1415 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Bakersfield, CA 93301 (805) 326-3751 (805) 861-2371 May 3, 1993 Mr. Edward B. Velasquez KCEOC 300 - 19th Street · Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mr. Stephen W. Schilling Clinica Sierra Vista, Inc. P. O. Box 457 Lamont, CA 93241 Ms. Sandy Spencer Kern Adult Literacy Council, Inc. 401 - 18th Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 At a meeting that took place on Thursday, April 8th, it became clear that we had three agencies who were concerned about joint funding applications from Housing and Community Development Funds between the City and the County. After discussion, it was decided that the staffs would propose to their respective legislative bodies a budget package which clarified for each of the three agencies the status of their application. This is to avoid uncertainty and differing actions between the · City and the County, which could cause problems for the continuation of projects. The decisions were as follows: Clinica Sierra Vista - City staff will be making a recommendation to the City Council to fundthe full $300,000 originally requested of the County and the County will acknowledge that the City had al,r. eady donated land and granted $100,000 in prior year CDBG funds..While sixty-five percent of the beneficiaries of this project may be County residents, because the project is located in the City, no further Board of Supervisor's aCtion is necessary. May 3, 1993 Page -2- KCEOC - County staff will be making a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to fund the $175,000 requested of the City and the $250,000 requested of the County. Because fifty-five percent of the beneficiaries of this project may be County residents and it is located in the City, the City Council will acknowledge, .as required by HUD, that it has no objection to the Board of Supervisors spending County CDBG funds in the City, and will instruct City staff to assist the KCEOC and County staff in every way possible in 'the implementation of this project. Kern Literacy CoUncil - County staff will be making a recommendation to-the Board of Supervisors to fund the $48,750 requested of the. City and the $16,250 requested of the County. Because .twenty-five percent of the beneficiaries of this project, as calculated by the Literacy Council, are County residents and it is located in the City, the City Council will acknowledge, as required by HUD, that is has no objection to the Board of Supervisors spending County CDBG funds in the City, and will instruct City staff to assist the Literacy Council and County staff in every way possible in the implementation of this project. It is our hope that these decisions will help assure that each of the above listed agencies gets full funding, and that it is provided from one source. We recognize that it represents some level of change, in terms of what your funding applications were. We had situations, however, where each of the three were in question, relative to support from one agency or another, so we are working together to make sure that these three projects can be completed. ~rely, ~ Sincerely, JOseph E. Drew C(lunty Administrative Officer ?C_?unty of Kern BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT JACK HARDISTY, Director 1501 TRUXTUN AVE. BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 (805) 326-3733 April 29, 1993 Mr. Richard Sybert, DirectOr CalifOrnia Office of Planning and Research 1400 10th Street # 156 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: City of Bakersfield' Sphere of Influence Amendment Proposal 93-1 Dear Mr. Sybert: The City of Bakersfield is filing the attached Statement of Contentions in opposition to the request by Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to designate it as lead agency for the City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence Amendment Proposal 93-1. Traditionally, California cities hold the lead agency position for Sphere of Influence amendments which they initiate. The City of Bakersfield has initiated this amendment, and, as applicant for the amendment, has had to prepare a full environmental review in order to take action to file the application. 'Kern County LAFCO has never initiated a Sphere of Influence amendment for. the City of Bakersfield. William Turpin, Executive Director of Kern County LAFCO, has made representations to Alan Tandy, City Manager of the City of Bakersfield, ,that he opposes this Sphere of Influence Amendment because of the agriculturaI, zoning in the project area and because of some perceived public opposition to this particular amendment of the Sphere. Moreover, he has embraced a process imposed on the City' of Shafter which took close to three years to complete. Mr. Turpin's request for lead agency designation is apparently a ploy to draw out this process or defeat it. The City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence is currently set at the city limit line in the southwest area, and LAFCO has shown no interest in amending the Sphere. As one of the fastest growing areas in population in. the country, it is inconceivable that the City would not have the authority to consider future service to growth outside of its current city limits. JH/LCMImeg D~J~I~ , R-5\$PHIG~\L~FCOTOPIL LTR / Attachment cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Lawrence M. Lunardini, City Attorney CITY OF BAKERSFJ~r.n STATEMENT OF coNTENTIONS Project Descripfion: : The "project" is an amendment of the boundary of the City of Bakersfield Sphere Of Influence. The proposed amendment includes approximately five square miles east of Bakersfield (the Breckenridge Hills Specific Plan area) and approximately tensquare miles southwest of Bakersfield (south of the Kern River to one mile south of Panama Lane generally west of Old River Road). City Responsibilityfo~Amendm..toftheSphe~eofInfluence, Gove~mentalPowe~ in relafionshipthe~etoand City RelafionshiptoP~oject: Section 56428 of the California Government Code autho.rizes any person or local agency to file a written request to amend the sphere of influence. Moreover, it has been the practice of the City of Bakersfield and Kern County LAFCO for the city to file an application for amendment of its sphere with Kern County LAFCO and handle all environmental review as the lead agency. Over the past twenty-five years~ the City of Bakersfield has applied to Kern County LAFCO for amendment of its sphere of influence a number of times and has handled the required environmental review of all such ~projects as lead agency. Kern County LAFCO has not, in the past twenty-five years, initiated any action to set or.amend the Sphere of Influence for the City of Bakersfield. Currently, the Sphere of Influence boUndary proposed for amendment southwest of the city lies on the city limit line. In order for the City to be able'to plan for its Orderly development and growth, it is .necessary for the Sphere of Influence to extend beyond the city limits. As Kern County LAFCO declines to take the lead in studying or amending the City Sphere .of Influence, it is foreseeable that the Sphere would remain in that location if not for City action. Notably, the City applied in 1991 to Kern County LAFCO for amend- ment of its sphere.of influence covering virtually all of the same area as in the current project. The City later requested that LAFCO hold the application in abeyance pending submission of additional studies. The City was the designated lead agency for the environmental review of that amendment, however, and Kern County LAFCO did not dispute that designation. Additionally, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Division 1-3 (commencing With Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code (hereafter, "CEQA"), environmental review.must take Place at the· earliest feasible stage of the governmental action taken. Statement of Contentions Page 2 SectiOn .15004j State CEQA Guidelines. In this' case, the city's action in determining that its sphere should be changed, and · approving an application for amendment, of its'Sphere, cannot be taken without environmental review. Such review has been ongoing long before submittal of the application to Kern County LAFCO and is in compliance with .LAFCO's longstanding requirement that applicants submit environmental documents along with their applications. Finally,.Section 16021 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the designation of lead agency to be based on the criteria set forth in the State' Guidelines Section 15065 and "the capacity of each such agency to adequately fulfill the requirements of CEQA." Kern County LAFCO has one executive director and two employees who provide clerical' assistance. The Planning,Department of the City of Bakersfield has fourteen planners and six support staff. This staff has handled the environmental review for hundreds of projects and is experienced and capable of complying with all mandates of CEQA, Cln. ondoEyofAetionsTaken: September 23, 1991: Initial study completed by City of Bakersfield for original Sphere of Influence amendment project (including proposed annexation). November 11, 1991: City of Bakersfield Planning Commission held public hearing on the prezoning, of the proposed annexation and the negative declaration for the Sphere of Influence amendment and annexation.' January l5, 1992: City of Bakersfield City Council adopted a Resolution of Application for amendment of the Sphere of' Influence and the negative declaration therefor. ,- Application submitted to Kern County LAFCO. Ma~ch 20, 1992: Letter from City .of Bakersfield Planning Director Jack Hardisty to Kern County LAFCO requesting that the Sphere of Influence amendment be held. in abeyance until resubmittal of a request by the City for expansion of the Sphere of Influence. Statement of Contenlions Pa~e 3 February l2, 1993: New initial study begun~by City of Bakersfield on original amendment of the Sphere of Influence with additional land included. March 25, 1993: Notice of hearing and proposed Negative DeclaratiOn sent out by City of Bakersfield. April28, 1993: Date set for hearing before the City Council of the City of Bakersfield to renew the application for amendment of the Sphere of Influence. Hearing Continued. LCM/meg R-5\SPHERE\lafco. S0C ~/~/~ BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN,TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~Q FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~. DATE: APRIL 29, 1993 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation Terminal Study. Attached for City Council distribution is a copy,of Kern COG's request for submission of proposals by qualified consultants regarding the above subject matter. D10 Attachments APR 9S ~ 22 Kern Council of Governments Apr 15, 1993 TO: Interested Consultants FROM: Ronald E. Brummett(,~ Executive Director .~J SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation Terminal Study The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) requests the submission of proposals by qualified consultants to prepare the Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation Terminal Study. The total budget for this project is $55,000 and is scheduled for completion in February 1994. Proposals shall be-submitted to Kern COG no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 28, 1993, addressed as follows: Mr. Ronald E. Brummett, Executive Director Kern Council of Governments 1401 19th Street, Suite 200 Bakersfield, C~llfomia 93301 The Request for Proposal is attached. For further information contact Mr. Ron Brummett at 805/861-2191. reb attachment Kern council of Governments 1401 19th'St., Suite 200. Bakersfield, CA 93,301 (805) 861-2191 FAX (805) 324-8215 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL · Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation Terminal Study- The Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG) requests the submission of proposals by qualified consultants to complete the Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation StudY: A maximum of $55,000 has been budgeted for this project. The project is scheduled for completion in February 1994. INTRODUCTION: The Ca]iforrfla Department of Transportation has released a Request for Proposal for a Los Angeles-Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation System study. With the development of a high speed ground transportation system,, travel time from the metropolitan Bakersfield area to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles will be less than one hour. To provide the best service to the metropolitan Bakersfield community, Kem COG {s sponsoring thls project to address the location .of the High Speed Ground Transportation Terminal. BACKGROUND: Since 1988, a committee of local transportation and planning officials have been meeting to discuss urban, and commuter fixed guideway systems and the .high speed ground transportation system. The committee has identified a six-phase planning and implementation program for a Metropolitan Bakersfield Fixed Guideway Passenger System. Phase 1,. completed in 1991: Committee preparation of a feasibility study. Phase 2, currently underway: Development of a Long-Range Public Transportation System Study. .The committee has reviewed the following documents: 1. Los Angeles/Fresno/Bay Area/Sacramento High SPeed Bail Corridor Study (AB 971). 2. Rail Right-of-Way Inventory for the California Commuter and Intercity Transit Right- -. of-Way Preservation Act (Galifornia Transportation GommiSsion). 1 3. High. Speed Trains for California, Strategic Choice: Comparison of Technologies and Choice RoUte, University of California at Berkeley. 4. ltall Passenger.Development Plan, CalifOrnia Department df Transportation. SCOPE OF WORK: TASK 1: MEETINGS, COORDINATION, INFORMATION REViEW Consultant. will meet continuously throughout the duration of the project with the Kern 'COG project n~nager and the Public Transportation Teehnieal Advisory Committee. Consultant will. provide all available planning information related to the project. TASK 2: RIDERSHIP ANALYSIS Consultant shall develop inter-regional and intra-regional ridership estimates for the selected sites. With consultant assistance, Kern COG will provide the transportation modelling for the alternative sites. TASK 3: SITE CRITERIA Consultant shall develop a list of site criteria for use in evaluating the identified'sites. Consultant shall assist the eornmittee in the evaluation process. The criteria shall include intermodal connection issUes. TASK 4: ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ConSultant shall conduct an environmental analysis for each of the identified sites. The analysis shall include economic, social, fiscal, and environmental factors that may impact the site. - TASK 5: PUBLIC-PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Consultant will review each alternative site for its potential, for public-private development. TASK 6: SITE SELECTION ANALYSIS Consultant shall conduct a site selection analysis. The analysis shall include ridership, site criteria, and environmental factors that may impact the site. TASK 7: PRODUCT PREPARATION Consultant will recommend a preferred alternative with a comparison analysis to show that this 'alternatives is the best site for this facility. 'PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL: Proposals are to be dearly marked "Proposal to Conduct the Kern Council of Governments' Metropolitan Bakersfield High Speed Ground Transportation StUdy.'' One reproducible and four (4) Copies of all'written proposals shall be submitted no later than 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 28, 1993 to: Ronald E. Brummett, Executive Director Kern Council of Governments 1401 19th Street, Suite 200 Bakersfield, California 93301 NO PROPOS^I--.q WILL BE ACCEPTED AFTER THE DEADLINE. For further information, contract Mr. Ron Brummert at 805/861-2191. All proposals shall remain firm for a period of ninety (90) days following the final date for submission, .May 28, 1993. All proposals shall become the sole property of Kem COG, and a Part of the official Kern COG records, without obligation on the part of Kern COG and may be used by Kern COG as deemed necessary. This Request for Proposal (RFP) is not to be consumed as a contract or commitment on the part of Kern COG~ Kem COG reserves the right to reject all proposals, to seek additional information from each proposer, or to 'issue another RFP if deemed appropriate. PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT: Proposers should limit submission to specific comments, addressing each element of the program outlined in this RFP. Proposals will be evaluated with respect to the ability of the proposer to meet projected goals and requirements within 'the stated budget. A.proposal~ -shall contain the following information to qualify for acceptance. A. Title Page: 1. Subject of proposal 2. Firm name, contact person, address and telephone number. 3. Date of submission. B. Table of Contents: A comprehensive listing of the types of information contained in the proposal-. C. Introduction:- Summary of the proposal and statement of the problem and issues addressed~~ D. Description of the firm and project team: 1. Size of firm. Indicate if firm qualifies as a "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise." 2. Organizational structure. 3. Location and resources of the office where work is to be performed.. 4. Related experience, including specific experience with small transit operations. 5. DescriptiOn of the project team. 6. Name and resume of the project manager. 7. Name, position classification, and brief description of relevant education and experience of each team member. 8. A Hsting of proposed subcontractors, if any, and the assigned responsibilities. 9. One example of a similar project completed by the firm. E. Project Description: 1. A' description of the program and services to be provided; including a statement defining the basic purpose and focus of the program. 2. A description of the overall methodology and specific techniques to be used. in performing the project. 3. A description of the proPoser's recommended course of action and means for meeting the requirements outlined in this RFP.. The proposer should clearly identif3r any major changes recommended in the suggested approach of requirements in the RFP. 4. A schedule of individual tasks, including completion date. 5. An 'itemized description of the products to be generated. F. Cost Proposal:. . 1. An itemized estimate of the total person hours and total cost, including an estimated t°tal cost by task. 2. Estimated total hours Per position classification. Additional Information: The proposer may 'provide any additional information or data deemed essential to the proposal. The proposer may include copies of, or references to, previous work similar to the proposed project. H. Signature of authorized representative. CONTRACT BUDGET AND AH.OWABLE COSTS: A. Allowable Costs: All allowable costs may be charged to this project within the fixed price limited stipulated by budgetary and Contractual constraints. These. costs may .include salaries and wages, travel, .materials, supplies, subcontractors, and overhead. B. Budget: Kern COG has budgeted up to $55,000.00 for the services of. a contractor to prepare this study. The budget for this study shall not exceed this amount. CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS: Firms submitting proposals shall be evaluated for demonstrated competence and experience related to: 1. Intermodal transportation planning. 2. Intermodal terminal design and planning. 3. Travel demand forecasting. 4. Land use and real estate issues. 5. High speed ground transportation. 6. Public,private development. CONSULTANT SELECTION: All proposals submitted in response to this request for proposal will be screened' by a committee of local transportation officials. Consultant interviews will be held at the option of the Kern Council of Governments. Final selection of the consultant will take place no later than 30 working days after the final date for proposal submittal. Contract is subject- to Kern COG appr°val. 5' I I ' CALIFORNIA BARBARA ~ ~ ~~ %~ . VENTURA COUNTY ~ --' LOS ANGELES COUNTY RAIL P~NNING HIGH SPEED ROUTES.---~' INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ~ MAP NO. ~ STATE HIGHWAY TERMINAL SITES ~, FEDERAL HIGHWAY MILES · '' RAILROAD ~KERN couNcIL ~'~ AIRPORT ~OF GOVERNMENTS CITY FUNDS TAKEN BY STATE. GOVERNMENT Annual' Loss. in Millions. Uquor Ucense Fees (1981 ) $18.7 Highway Carriers Tax (1981) $6.7 Aid to Local Agencies (1981 ) $51.0 ~1~ ince 198 l, city government in California has lost several major Business Inventory Tax Reduction (1983) $52.3 revenues that havre been taken over by the State government. Listed Business.Inventory Tax Repeal (198~t) $63.7 are 16taxes that formerly supported city. services such as Cigarette Tax Shift (1990) $6.2 police, fire, parks, recreation, libraries, and maintenance, and .Water Fees (1990) $3.9 amount to a $716.7 million annual loss to cities. Most of these Booking Fees/Tax Collection (1990) $102.6 revenues now go' directly into the State's general fund. The Governor's proposed' NO/Low Property Tax Cities Cut (1990} $7.6 1993/94 State Budget seeks to take . $700 million from cities to help Fines/Forfeitures Loss (1991) $79.8 solve the State's deficit. This chart shows that cities are already Growth in Fines (1991) $39.0 , contributing $716.7 million per I year. In addition, several one-time Additional Cigarette Tax Shift (1991 ) $22.8 State takeaways of city money total $1.1 billion. These annual and Redevelopment Subventions (1991) $ 36.3 one-time losses amount to $3.7 billion that cities have lost to State Property Tax Shift (1992) $200.0 Legislative actions since 1981 .' Cities argue the State has Remaining Cigarette Tax (1992) $ 25.0 already taken money provided to cities following the passage of -- ' Proposition 13 (AB8). Mobile Home Ucense F~ees (1992) $ 1.3 ~1,,~ .... oj Source: League of Calilbmia Cities TOTAL LOSSES $3.7 BILLION ~-~--"'~ Design: Marketing by Design BAKERSFIELD .MEMORANDUM~ TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER l/~J- /~y-6, 1993 FROM: JOHN W. STINSO~,~S~STANT CITY MANAGER . SUBJECT: SECTION 125 PLAN ADMINISTRATOR A'question was raised at the April 28, 1993 City Council Meeting regarding'the selection of an administrator for the City's Section 125 Plan. The previous'125 Plan administrator was terminated for non-performance. Due to the need to replace the Plan administrator mid-year, I asked the Cqty's Health Care Consultant, Herb Kaighan of Godwins, to assist me in locating a replacement vendor. I gave him several names of individuals who had already contacted me and he informed me that he had knowledge of other firms who provide this service. I specifically asked that he contact Alliance Brokers so they could bid on the service. Mr. Kaighan asked these firms to submit proposals, which he then reviewed and evaluated. Mr. Kaighan then provided a report to me showing that two vendors had submitted acceptable proposals, LFS (Through Alliance Brokers) and Plan Management Administrators (a subsidiary of Lincoln National Corp.) Mr. Kaighan recommended Plan Management Administrators. I reviewed the materials submitted by both firms and discussed them with other staff members and Mr. Kaighan. Based on this review, I selected Plan Management Administrators. In mydiscussionwith others reviewing the proposals, it was agreed that they were best suited to Provide the services required by the City. Theyhaveseveral cities for clients who provided very positive comments regarding their performance. They have had a great deal of experience in taking over plans in mid-year and had excellent accounting and report capabilities. They also focused on the education of the employee regarding the benefits provided' by the 125 Plan and had exceptional materials available to inform and encourage employee participation. Although? their fee w~s higher than LFS, it was my judgement that the quality of service, track record and experience outweighed the cost differential. Regarding the matter of Plan Management Administrators not being a local firm, they are located in Pleasanton California. As pointed out at the Council meeting, LFS is located in Anaheim, California. JWS. al b BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May 4, 1993 TO' STEVE JOHNSON, FIRE CHIEF /~.~ '~?~ / FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER / / SUBJECT: WEED ABATEMENT P.ROGRAM At the last regular meeting of the City Council, Councilmembers expressed severe concern over the weed problem in the community and whether or not, in light of the rainy spring and the anticipated dry summer, we will be taking actions to abate all of the weed nuisances throughout the community. Several examples were given of locations in which the problem was prevalent. Please' proceed expeditiously with the following: 1. Identify the efforts you have made over the past three months to abate the weed problems including detail on how much time has been spent inspecting and how many notices have gone out, the status of those notices, etc.; 2. Take action by some cost effective means to gear up to make sure that notices do go out over the next thirty days to abate as many of the problems as possible which will help reduce the fire problem; 3. Take a broadscope look at our whole weed enforcement process and program. The activity itself may need some revision so as to be more proactive rather than reactive; 4. Make maximum effort to get press coverage of the enforcement activities in order to detour this weed problem wherever possible. tf you have any questions, don't hesitate to contact me. AT/kec cc: Mayor Price & City Council ' JOHNSON.MEM MEMORANDUM May 6, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER 6 I~¥93 9~ ~ FROM: JACK H~DIS~, PL~NG DIRECT~: '_ SUBJECT: GE~~ PL~ ~ENDME~S ~A~LY SCHEDULED FOR JU~ 17, 1993 PL~NG COMMIffSION MEETING Segment I: Porter-Robertson for American Real Estate located at 5000 and 5200 Stockdale Highway requested change from Office Commercial to General Commercial to permit shopping center anchored by grocery store - considerable concern expressed by adjacent property owners. Segment II: Martin-Mclntosh for Castle and Cooke located southwest corner of Calloway Drive and Brimhall Road requested change from Agriculture to R-1 on 163.7 acres. This request will require considerably more environmental documentation than is typically the case and, therefore, this case may not make the meeting in June. Segment III: Rickett, Ward, Delmarter & Deifel for Berchtold, Moreland and Jackson located at the northeast corner of Jewetta Avenue and Brimhall Road requested C-1 on 7 acres, R-2 on 3.49 acres and E on 1.36 acres. Segment IV: Porter-Robertson for St. Clair Development located at the southwest corner of Stine Road and Harris Road. HMR to LMR on 21 acres - a continuation of a recent trend in Bakersfield to develop single family dwellings on very small lots (< 6,000 square feet). Segment V: City of Bakersfield - map correction on southwest corner of Gosford Road and District Blvd., property zoned for apartment (for years) inadvertently shown as single family on adoption of 2010 Plan in 1990 - might be controversial as most apartment projects adjacent to established single family subdivisions seem to be. Segment VI: City of Bakersfield - A prezone on southwest corner of Calloway Drive ~ and Brimhall. The recently adopted Calloway Drive Specific Plan cuts this  property in half and removed the commercial zoning from the corner. This prezone would "attach" the commercial to the southeast corner of this intersection and is a prelude to annexation - with the support of the majority landowner and the City must acquire the Calloway alignment in the near future. This portion of the property will remain zoned residential. Alan Tandy May 6, 1993 Page 2 Segment VII: City of Bakersfield - General Plan text change to mandate sewers for all new development - Planning Commission initiated. May be quite controversial for developers currently unable to utilize any trunk lines, i.e. northeast metro area/parts of Olive Drive area. Segment VIII: Martin-McIntosh Circulation Element changes in conjunction with Segment II above, realignment of an unnamed collector within same area. MG:pjt l\mat5.4 CA LI F O R NIA ~: ~ ...... CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 3, 1993 Assemblymember John Vasconcellos, Chair --' Assembly Ways and Means Committee State Capitol Room 6026 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Oppose. AB981 Dear Assemblymember Vasconcellos, On behalf of the Central District Development Agency I strongly encourage your opposition of AB981. The effort to preserve historic properties should be commended. However, in these times 'of governmental streamlining and shrinking revenues the creation of several more requirements imposed on redevelopment agencies is of greatest concern. Today the City of Bakersfield can no longer afford to fund cultural resource inventories. When' · funding was available four cultUral resource inventories were published. It is of comfort to note that two of these inventories included our entire redevelopment project area. HoWever, under AB981 redevelopment agencies would be obligated to create lists of all properties eligible for local, state Or federal registers or other historic inventories and initiate the designation of such properties in the Project area. Due to existing financial constraints and existing debt obligations our redevelopment agency could not afford to fund such a program today. Furthermore, if agencies were mandated to implement such a program, this may raise unnecessary fears that the agency intends to demolish or destroy historic buildings for redevelopment activities. In our city, the Historic Preservation Commission undertakes the responsibility of historic preservation actiVities, not the redevelopment agency. When necessary, the two agencies communicate on issues of mutual concern. This current arrangement works well. I urge your opposition on AB981. Since[ely, ,~"~'"Alan Tandy . Executive Director .... cc: Members 0f the Assembly Ways and Means Committee gg:db6 AB981.vas 1501 .T, RuxTUN AVENUE · ' BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNia '93301 · (805) 326-3767 DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY · , CENTRAL May 3, 1993 Assemblymember John Vasconcellos, Chair Assembly Ways 'and Means Committee State Capitol Room 6026 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Oppose AB978 Dear Assemblymember Vasconcellos, On behalf of the Central District Development Agency I am writing to register my opposition to AB978, the. bill reforming redevelopment by placing restrictions on agencies and the reallocation of sales tax in its present form. The "reforms" to redevelopment law which are focused and remove problem areas without unneceSsarily restricting worthy and necessary redevelopment prOgrams are not opposed. My specific points of opposition with supporting comments are outlined below: 1. Requires that a city annually transfer to recipient cities 30 percent of all new sales tax revenue, above a base year amount, generated by any retailer who locates Within the project area and who receives any' form of "assistance" from the agency. This provision would penalizes if not prevent, any effort by a city to rejuvenate its downtown business district. In our situation, Bakersfield .is the largest city in Kern County, an area of over 8,000 square miles. When compared to other Bakersfield retail centers the downtown is the lowest generator of new sales tax revenues. 'Should we have the good fortune of attracting a major retailer into our downtown project area, potentially thirty percent of the new sales tax revenue would be transferred to every city in Kern County whose sales tax receipts are below the statewide average. If the' retailer located outside the project area thirty percent of all sales tax would not be sacrificed: Why would the city encourage a move into the project area if they Would lose sales tax revenue? 2. Prohibits an agency from including more than 60 percent of the city in a project area, and prevents any new debt issuance~ until existing Project areas are reduced to no more than 60 percent. Although this does not apply to Bakersfield, iris arbitrary and does not acknowledge that some smaller communities are unfortunately almost totally blighted. '1501 'TRUXTUN AVENUE ,, BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301 · . (805) 326-3767 Assemblymember John Vasconcellos, Chair May 3, 1993 Page. 2 3. Denies the use of redevelopment funds for the construction of city .or county administration offices if the offices constitute more than 20 percent of the structure. This pro{,ision overlooks the stimulative value of public investment in a blighted downtown which is represented by the location of governmental offices. In ~downtown Bakersfield, city offices are in the project area and county offices are located just outside the project. The location of these city and county offices has stimulated ancillary uses, i.e. attorneys,' .financial institutions .and other government support services, to locate in the area. Although, no redevelopment monies were used, this type of public investment has benefitted our project area in these demanding economic times. An agency should retain the right to buy, assemble and clear land for administrative facilities and continue to finance parking structures for public and private uses. 4. Requires all agencies'to calculate the 20'percent set-aside on "net" rather than "gross" tax increment revenue. As with SB1711 (Bergeson) of 1992, opposition to this provision is not warranted if it applies prospectively and if the bill states that the Legislature is taking no position on its retroactive application which is presently the subject of litigation. 5. Provides authority for a city redevelopment agency to finance commercial, residential, or industrial development outside the city, but within the city's sphere of influence. Blighted areas in the unincorporated areas of the county should be remedied by a counBt project, not a city project.. I do not believe that the Central District Development Agency would be interested in financially assisting the County of Kern with their development projects. I urge your reconsideration of these dramatic changes to redevelopment law and oppose in its current form AB978. 'Sincere.ely, Executive Director '" cc: Members of ~e Assembly Ways and Means Co~ittee AB978.VASC - ~ MEMORANDUM April 29, 1993 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Dn'ecto(~'-~L) RE: CDDA - Design Review Conunittee Community First Bank Project Tegeler Hotel The Design Review Committee for the CDDA met on April 28th to review two major downtown projects. · Community First Bank (CFB) is proposing to demolish their administrative offices on 18th Street and construct a new two story office structure in their place. Total square footage of the new structure will be 10,725. The facility will include a dual drive-through ATM service, along with walk-in bank services. The buildings proposed for demolition are unreinforced masonry structures at 1408, 1410, 1412, and 1414 18th Street. The building at 1414 18th, the Bakersfield Hearing Aid Company, is in escrow to CFB. Its. demolition will require the store to relocate to another downtown location. The total square footage being demolished is 11,318. The site includes the vacant lot at the comer, that was previously owned by the City. It was exchanged for the parking lot CFB owned at the southwest comer of 19th Street and L Street, in order to complement plans to build a City parking lot after the recent demolition of the old American National Bank building. Because the buildings being demolished are on the URM list, and the replacement structure is less in square footage than the original buildings, the newly-passed ordinance 17.08.080 Section E applies (see copy attached). In essence, the City will not require the site to conform to current site plan regulations (i.e. parking and landscaping requirements). The ordinance was passed so as not to discourage reconstruction downtown by requiring unrealistic landscaping or parking requirements in the .limited space confines of downtown. This iordinance was passed to encourage exactly what CFB is proposing, the demolition of URM buildings and the reconstruction of new facilities. Legal opinion .varies as to whether this ordinance also applies to design review standards adopted by the CDDA for the downtown. This is a matter that we will bring to the City Attorney shortly, for a legal review prior to the next major project. The major issue addressed by the committee in-reviewing CFB site plans was to require the installation of five permanent trees on 18th Street and three temporary trees on K Street within the City right-of-way as specified in the Master Street Tree Plan. CFB's cr'rt ~^t~:t~-~ original site plans proposed having the trees on-site with no trees planted on K Street. The architects for CFB agreed to the committee's recommendations. A report will submitted for full Agency approval on May lOth. Alan Tandy April 29, 1993 Page 2 · The committee also reviewed a request from the architect for Daniels C. Logue on the Tegeler Hotel. The developer requested that an architectual feature of creating a line pattern on contrasting colors between the fourth floor windows be eliminated because of the difficulty and cost of scaffolding to do the work. The design review requirements for this project were originally approved by the Agency in August 1991. The committee reiterated to the architect the importance of this feature, and that they are obligated to support the previous-design review committee's conditions of approval which were approved by the Agency. The committee indicated a solution shOuld have been thought of when the scaffolding was on the building. They also reminded him of other architectual features that have been waived on this project in the past (i.e. bowed window tops). In denying the request to waive the requirement, the committee offered suggestions on how to accomplish the pattern feature. If you have further questions on these items, please call. cw/jw 17.08.080 m 17.08.120. date of the ordinance codified in this title may 17.08.090' Nonconforming uses resulting be completed and used in accordance with the from amendments. plans, specifications and permits on 'which said The provisions of the ordinance codified in this building permit was granted, if construction is title Shall' apply to uses which become commenced within one hundred twenty, days nonconforming by mason of any amendment to this after the issuance of said permit and diligently title, as of the effective date of .such amendment. pursued to completion. (Ord. 2696 § 1, 1982: (prior code § 17.52.090). prior code § 17.52.070). 17.08.100 Dwellings to face access other 17.08.080 Reconstruction of damaged .than alley. nonCOnforming buildings. A. Except where otherwise provided for in this A. If at any time any building in existence or title', every dwelling shall fac e or have frontage maintained at the time of the adoption of this upon a street or permanent means of access to a title which does not conform to the regulations street by way of a public or private easement of for the district in which it is located shall be' passageway other than an alley. destroyed by fire, explosion, act of GocL, or act of B. Such easements shall be not less than ten the public enemy to the extent ofmore than one- feet in'width.. (Pfiorcode § 17.52.100). half the value thereof, then and without fur~er action by the dry council the build/rig and the 17.08.110 'Height of buildings--Roof land on which sa/d building was located or ma/n- structures, chimneys and ta/ned shall from and after the date of such .. towers. desm~ction be subject to ailthe regulations ofthe A. No penthouses or roof structures for the district in which such land and/or building are housing of elevators, stairways, tanks, ventilating located. ' fans or' similar equipment; towers, steeples, roof B. For the pul'pos~ of this title, the value of signs or other structures shall exceed the height limit any building shall be the estimated co~ to replace provided in this rifle. tlae building in kind. B.' Radio and television masts, flagpoles, C. Any reconstruction shall be performed public utility poles and lines, chimneys and under one building permit, started within a Smokestacks may extend not more than thirty feet period of one year .from date of damage and above the height limit provided in this title: diligently prosecUted to completion, provided, that the same may be .safely erected and D. The provisions of subsection A of this sec- maintained at such height in view'of the surrounding tion shall not apply to the reconstruction of any conditions' and circumstances. (Prior code § damaged or destroyed residential structure made 17.52.110). nonconforming by adoption of the Baker Street Corridor specific plan .and related rezoning 17.08.120 Yard requirements when por- actions: provided, however, that the provisions tion of other use is used as of subsection C of this section shall apply to any dwelling. such reconstruction. This subsection shall expire Where a portion of a building used for dwelling .and shall be of no further force or effect after purposes is located above another portion of a March 31.2007. (Ord. 3097 § 1, 1987; prior code building having another type of use in zones other § 17.52.080). than R-l, R-2, R-3 or R-4 zones, the rear and side yards for the floors occupied for dwelling purposes E. The provisions of Subsection A of this section shall not apply to the remodeling, reconstruction or replacement of buildings pursuant to shall comply with the provisions of the R-4 zone. Chapter 15.40 reg~irding seismic strengthening for unreinforced (Prior code § 17.52.120). -' buildings until January 1. 1998. provided there is no change in use ' of the building and no increase in the gross square footage of the buildings.building or buildings if merged with adjacent unreinforced masonry .~-1 Bakersfi~d 6-9:2) April 30, 1993 To: Laura C. MarinO Assistant City Attorney /cC: Alan E. Tandy city Manager CC: Lawrence M. Lunarini City Attorney Subject: Is there any law that would allow the Kern County Superintendent of Schools to lease the property at 5801 Sundale Av. for the construction of high density homes with out going through the Bakersfield Planning Department ? Enclosure: March 25, 1993 letter to the City of Bakersfield Planning Department with over 550 signatures of Kern City residences opposing any construction on the property at 5801 Sundale Av. that would be anything other than equivalent to R-2-SC-1 (Senior Citizen Single Story) that currently surrounds ninety five percent (95%) of.the perimeter of this property. Dear Laura Marino I called you.last week and asked you the question as stated in the above subject. You thought the development should go through the City of Bakersfield Planning.Department but said there may be some law not requiring this. I have tried to get a clear answer from the school people with no success. I even called Frank Fekete, the legal advisor to. the school board, but he said he could not discuss the matter with me. I have discussed this matter with Jack Hardisty, Director and Art Hartenberger, 'Principal Planner in the City of' Bakersfield Planning Department, and the Planning Department also needs to know the answer to the subject question. I formally request a .legal opinion if there are alternate means which the Kern County Superintendent of Schools could use to circumvent going through the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. The residences of Kern City ( which surround the 5801 Sundale Ave. property) need to know the Channels this development will go through. Thank you for your help Charles W. Schert~ 1316 Yorba Linda St. Bakersfield, CA 93309 ph 805-831-1792 March 25, 1993 To: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jack Hardisty, Director Art Hartenberger, Principal Planner Marc Gauthier, Principal Planner Jim Movius, Principal Planner. ~ From: Charles Schertz Subject: Future Development of the Kern County Superintendent of schools Property at 5801 Sundale Avenue Enclosures: 1. Copy of letter giVen to Jack Hardisty, Director, City of Bakersfield Planning Department in February 1993. 2. Copy of City of Bakersfield Zoning Map 123-03 shoWing the .300 ft radius from the property known as 5801 Sundale Ay. 3. Copy of the Kern City Residence Street Map showing the homes with property within the 300 ft radius of the property known as 5801 Sundale Av? 4. Copies of the over 550 signatures collected by April 23, t993 from Kern City residences who request that development of the property known as 580I Sundale AV. be restricted~to the limits allowed in an R-2 Senior Citizens, Single Story zone. More signatures to follow. Gentlemen I'have attended the Kern County Board Of Education meetings and it is still their intent to lease the property known as 5801 Sundale Ay. for 55 years to a developer (for a annual fee) for high density senior citizen homes. The Board originally had planned to award a~contract at their March 9 meeting. It now appears a contract award is in the July / August time frame. The zoning issue will need to proceed this. 95 % of the boundary of the property known as 5801 Sundale Ay. is zoned R-2-SC. There are 107 homes within the R-2-SC zoning that are with in 300 ft radius of the property known as 5801 Sundale Ay. Residents of 96 of these homes have signed the enclosed petitions or 96/107= 90%. Ten (10) of the signatures not obtained was because these homes were vacant or the people were away for some time. Only one person did not want to sign the petition. 95/96=98.96% of the people we could contact signed the petition. Of the remaining homes in Kern City we have the highest percent sign up in the areas zoned R-2-SC because of our condominium meetings. The signatures in inclosure'(4) represent over-60% of all Kern City Residences. We are continuing our visits to each house and will .be giving you more petitions in the near future. '~ - 1 - I am a resident in the Yorba Linda Condominium Association. There are 34 homes in this condominium and we border all the south side and 65% of the east-side of the property known as 5801 Sundale Av. Other than the two homes that are not occupied all signed the petition. Please notify me of any attempt to have a development on the property known as 5801 Sundale Ay. that would be more dense than R£2-SC Single Story. Is there any way the property known as 5801 Sundale Ay. could be developed for residences with out the'approval or knowledge of the planning department? Thank you for all the help you have given me . 1316 Yorba Linda St. Bakersfield, CA 93309 ph 805-831-1792 To: Jack Hardisty, Director City of Bakersfield P'lanning Department Subject: Future Development of the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Property at 5801 Sundale Avenue At their regular meeting on February 9, 1993, the Kern County Board of Education approved a "Resolution of Intention to Lease Real Property located at 5801 Sundale Avenue, Bakersfield, California, pursuant to Education Code Sections 39333 and 39360 et seq, include findings and actions required by the California Environmental Quality Act." Thes action was taken to enable the Kern County Superintendent of schools to solicite proposals for future development of the subject property following its vaCation in late 1993. They plan to lease the land for a minimum of 55 years for senior citizen housing. Frank Fekete who gave the oral presentation to the board ~said they~plan to advertise for bids and receive bids to be presented to the board at their next regular meeting March 9, 1993. Each bidder will show in their bid the zoning they planned on and the bidder will be responsible for Obtaining the zoning. We the below listed Kern city property owners of properties .surrounding the subject School District property, respectfully request that the City of Bakersfield Planning Department exercise every effort to insure that any approved future development of this proRerty be fully compatible with existing surrounding property use, specifically, ~over ninety five percent (95%) of the immediatly adjoining properties are currently zoned and being utilized as R-2 SC, single story structures. WE believe that any future use of the. property at 5801 Sundale Avenue should refelect no greater density occupancy use, wehther by rezoning or by conditional use permit to the current C,1 zoning. Further, we request that each of the undersigned be notified of any scheduled public hearings regarding the future development of this propertY. '~' PETITIONERS OWNER'S NAME PROPERTY'ADDRESS . ~,oo oz J~ ~' CITY OF BAKERSFIELD : "- , ,. ' ' ZONING MAP ~::.3-~3 '.t. ~'~"'" , SEC. O~ ' L '. '. ~"'~ X~ X~, '~X~l I II I~ II I~ Il ...... ,,.,,, ..... ~ ~ ~~.- .... ~ .... XX , _. '~ X~,~.'~ . '~t ~i ..... / ~ Il ~ , R-E ~ ..... ~ I ~ I I R't .. ~ ~ / '-. R'I-~ I ' ~ ' ' ' ' ': :"-" :'"'":-"" :' ' ........................ ~ / ;':~1 ~ i ~, _: ~.:. 1-:-: :.: ~ :.'C-.~ :~ ct ~ I~ ~c _-- ,~ _~_.~-~.'.'-':.-:~:, ~T~ ~/I/ ....................... I ' >'' OS , J:-':'-.-.-.- '.-.i 'T~ 7 ~ '~" ' ~~ ~-~-'--- ------[-~ - ,,,. ,..~ '. ..........l -... .E.~ ~, ~ ¢,.: ~ ~ -':' . . ,.. ~,.~'~-" ,'~.' ~ KERN Cl .... RESIDENCE- STRUT - CITY - ¢ ASSOCiATiON ~'[ c~vlc ~,~¥9~,~:~ .B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER {~ / ~ FROM: ED SCHUI_Z, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR '~ · DATE: MAY 3, 1993 SUBJECT:' ANNUAL REPORT FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT FEES (FY 1993/94) In accordance with Ordinance 3327 (BMC Chapter 15.82), which was adopted by the City Council on November 7, 1990, this IS the Public Works Director's annual report to the City Council providing any updated, new or additional information which may cause an adjustment to the fee amount collected for park development. A change to the fee requires a public hearing. This hearing should be combined with the budget hearings in Junel The proposed tees are to be adopted by City Council resolution. The Consumer Price Index (CPi) for March 1993 shows a 4% increase from March 1992 for this region. 1 I recommend that the park development tees be adjusted for inflation as indicated below: PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE COMPARISON TYPE Of EXISTING PROPOSED FEE DWELLING PARK DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTED FOR UNIT FEE CPI (Inflation) Single Family $645 $670 Duplex $525 $545 Multi-Family $485 $505 Mobile Home $455 $475 1 Consumers Price Index for West Coast "Class C" cities, March 1993. 2 Fees rounded to nearest multiple of five. CC: Leland Andersen, Community Services Manager Frank Fabbri, Parks Superintendent Jack Hardisty, Planning Director JE: \MPFEE.93 -- Golden Empire Transit District -- C ~T~ 6 ~¥95-~ t? April 27, 1993 City Manager Alan Tandy City of Bakersfield 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA -93~1 ..... Dear City Manager Tandy: The' purpose of this communication is to provide you and the other city councilmembers with a status report on the Golden Empire Transit District's Southwest Transfer Facility. As Steve informed you in his letter dated February 23, 1993, the firm of Leonard Schroeder and Associates was selected to design and oversee the project. Approximately 90% of the pre-construction tasks have been completed. We have completed a survey which identifies property boundaries, underground utilities and existing easements. A soils test has also been completed. This report provides recommendations for site preparation, grading and foundation design. The architect has completed a design for the facility and prepared cost estimates. The design was conditionally approved by the Site Plan Review Committee on April 22, 1993. The facility is designed to accommodate seven (7) buses simultaneously and provides designated_~bo~rding areas for each route. Other amenities include public restrooms, vandal-resistant benches, drinking fountains, shelters, public telephones and route information. District staff attempted to solicit a food vendor to clean the site and restrooms in exchange for the exclusive right to sell food. and beverages at the site. Staff issued a request for proposals (RFP), but did not receive any bids in response to this solicitation. Staff plans to issue a revised RFP. In February 1993, the District was notified that President Cllnton's proposed economic stimulus package could provide slightly more than $500,00 to finance local transit capital projects. Construction of the transfer facility was put on hold to take advantage of these additional funds. The 1830 Golden State Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301-1012 (805) 324-9874 FAX (805) 324-7849 Southwest Transfer Facility April 27, 1993 page 2 District had budgeted local funds to construct the facility, but viewed the proposed stimulus package as a way to use ~ocal ~funds to leverage additional federal dollars and maximize the total dollars that would flow into our community. ~ortunateiy, -~ President's proposal was defeated. ~e are now proceeding with construction of the facility using local funds. It is anticipated that the request for bids to construct the facility will be issued within two weeks. Please feel free to contact Steve at 324-9874 if you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, Chairman HS/eb