Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/93 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM y 21, 1993 TO' HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL/~.q~. FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. A week ago, I mentioned that we were having some troubles with the County on language on the northeast sewer which would have interfered with our ability to provide service in the unannexed areas. I am happy to report that was worked out to our satisfaction and appears to have gone away as an issue. 2. We did have a meeting with the County, this week, on the Fire Fund. They have their attorney looking at the issues. It was too preliminary to get much of a reading; we do think we've caught their attention to the subject as a priority and we will know more later. 3. We met with Warner Cable this week. I am confident that, if we can develop a system where all three of the t.v. firms are paying 5% of their gross revenues to the City, we can get Warner to contribute. That, basically, means Valley Wireless. We are looking at enabling legislation under the Utility User Tax to see if that is possible-to achieve. It would mean between $180,000 and $200,000 for the City budget, which would be very significant. Warner is, of course, concerned with equity as an issue in imposing a fee on only some of the competition and not all, which I feel is a legitimate concern. 4. Also, with regard to cable t.v., there are new regulations going into effect, which come from the Federal government, that are going to mean they will have to do price changes now and programming changes in the fall. There may be complaints. It is a Strange and complicated set of Federal rules. Change, in itself, usually makes some number of customers unhappy. 5. Responses to some of the budget questions raised at earlier sessions will be available at the Council Budget Session on Monday, May 24th. 6. A memo from the Finance Department is enclosed responding to issues raised at a recent press conference of one of our bargaining groups. 7. Second-guessers will begin to emerge on the Hotel deal - we have done exhaustive research - please call me as they bring in their better ideas! I have enclosed a Directory of other John Q. Hammons hotels, for your information. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL May 21, 1993 Page -2- 8. Enclosed, for your information, is a memo from Jack Hardisty regarding the Plan for Adequate Schools and Affordable Housing. 9. Enclosed is information on the League of California Cities' Mayors and Councilmembers Executive Forum, to be held in Monterey July 21-23. Please contact Andrea {326-3753}, by June lOth, if you are interested in attending. Andrea will need to know your hotel selection at that time. 10. Enclosed, for your information, is a brochure on the Tegeler House. 11. Enclosed is information regarding repairs to the Convention Center ice floor. We are proceeding with the most cost-effective option, which is to make minor repairs. This may serve as a reminder that there are a number of areas of capital maintenance which will be deferred, due to this year's budget constraints. AT.alb Enclosures cc: Department Heads City Clerk MEMORANDUM MAY 19, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: GREGORY J. KLIMKO, FINAN IRECTO SUBJECT: FIREFIGHTERS INFORMATION PAMPHLET - PUBLIC SAFETY BAKERSFIELD #1 CONCERN Generally the numbers and statistics have been presented to express a particular viewpoint.' Attempting to compare events in 1975 to events in 1993 is commendable but not very fruitful, due to the effects of Proposition 13 in 1978 and required changes in budgeting and accounting in California. Property Taxes comprised approximately 27.97% of the total 1975-76 City Budget prior to Proposition 13. In 1992-93 Property Tax comprised approximately 9.8% of the total City Budget. This reflects the shift from a tax supported to a user fee supported environment. The number of firefighters per 1,000 population may not be a clear indicator of serviCe levels since it does not take into account the efficiencies and economies expounded in adoption of the City/County JPA. Lower staffing levels result in higher fire loss (dollars). This chart does not take into account the effects of inflation over an eighteen (18) year period nor does it reconcile the change in location (response time) and type (commercial vs residential) loss. The budgetary comparison is misleading since many functions previously funded with property taxes (sewer, refuse, street sweeping, street repairs, etc.) are currently funded with user fees and special revenues thereby freeing up tax dollars for public safety. The past decrease and potential future decrease in ISO fire rating may result in higher insurance costs, however, the amount or percentage increase referred to is not stated and not documented. A gradual shift of focus away from public safety over the last two decades is a result of action by the voters reflected in the Proposition 13 tax limitation, Proposition 4 expenditure limitation and Proposition 98 reserving 40% of the General Fund Budget at the State level for Education. Additional information is provided on the attached. nrc/MGJK.42 PUBLIC SAFETY BAKERSFIELD'S NUMBER ONE CONCERN ANALYSIS 1. Number of firefighters per 1,000 of population Misleading in that number of firefighters in relation to population was significant before JPA. I'm not sure how many City residents are covered by County Fire and vice versa. 2. "Lower staffing levels result in higher fire loss" The charts of firefighters per 1,000 population and fire loss do not statistically represent a direct correlation of staffing level and fire loss. 3. "In 1975 the General Fund comprised 90% of the total City Budget" That statement is incorrect. The total City Budget should include all funds of the City. They have used the General Tax Rate Category information (general fund), but have neglected the Bond Rate Category and the Restricted Agency Category (Special Revenue & Capital Funds). In fact, for 1975-76 the General Fund was 78.5% of the total City Budget and in 1974-75 it was 74%. Also it should be pointed out that within the General Fund (in 1975-76) were services that are now separate and distinct from the General Fund (i.e. Community Development, Street Cleaning, Street Maintenance, Wastewater, Refuse, Equipment). 4. "Today the General Fund is only 37% of the total City Budget" The actual percent is 39%, but it is interesting that in this calculation they used all sources of funds including bond and restricted use funds. Also this percent is lower due to the City establishing enterprise funds for certain services (reducing the numerator of the percentage calculation) and the additional funding sources available to the City in 1992 as opposed to those available in 1975 (inflates the denominator for the percentage calculation). 5. "... the percentage of the total City Budget going to public safety has dropped dramatically" 75-76 92-93 Fire Budget $ 3,439,035 $ 15,582,713 Total General Fund Budget 16,948,010 72,196,530 % of Fire Budget to General Fund 20.2% 21.5% Total City Budget 21,585,308 184,769,205 % of Fire Budget to total City Budget 15.9% 8.4% The last comparison of Fire Budget to City Budget can probably be related to the increase in restricted funding sources in current year budgets. This has no relationship to emphasizing other priorities over Fire Safety since these funds are restricted. 6. 1975-76 1992-93 Property Tax $ 5,136,709 $16,885,000 Sales Tax 6,000,000 27,500,000 $11,136,709 $44,385,000 Fire Budget 3,439,035 15,582,713 30.8% 35.1% MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS Firefighter Union Newspaper Ad (05/17/93) In 1985-86 the City Budget document included for the first time the CIP budget. The firefighters ad misrepresents this change as an increase of taxes and other services over public safety. The marked increase in City Budget represented in their graph has to do with budget presentation. Also, the ad represents within the graph that the total City Budget is approximately $230 million. In 1992-93 the total adopted City Budget on July 1 was $196,474,815. The 1991-92 July 1 budget adopted was $167,168,605. I have also highlighted a statement from the Fire Chief that truly could be applied to the campaign by the Fire Union. krc GR.11 )e orms bold wor , reaps rewards ------"'-"- tli wh -'--' ==== Youn ~00 150 100 50 0 1975 1980 1985 1990 199~ iscuss ~st exploits fl~e I)ut~et ll[q gr(m'tl, ~ ~. ~ ~ r~ keen y( )~ h%xes ~ve ~own, I)t lt... ' ' Are x od safe toda~ ? ~*~"~~" ~ ~ Public hcari,~ f~r police & fire H~tl~ct - - (m Nlav 19 . - ~ ~ "~ ~ .~- =~d ~S ;'= ': You may attcmt or call -,~. ~ ~-~ ~ - ~ ~ .... ~*" = t (utncil member with v,,u r c(),~ c,'us. ~F.,a%'~--~'" .... ~.~. ~.,-,--.'--... ~ . Ward 1 ..... Ed d t23 '~ ...... *~' ~' l.vnn ~r s ........... -1009 -~' .'~' '~ ~ ~' .... ' P Mo _ ~ 872 381)6 - ~ .~ ~ ~ '~ ~. at De n ............ - ~'"~, ~ .-. ~ .... ~..., .... ~-.; . "~-~ .... = ~ ' Ward 3 Da. 14:,nc . ............... XX'.,,,t ~, ~cvln Mol ~erm.tt ~ ~ Mark S:d,'aggio ........ 834-6667 ,6-9 p.W. pk-~,, ,,,pp,,, >.,,,~ ~,,~:,~ ~;,.,. ?d entertainment ~,o~e dcl,artmc,,ts by ,'oi, ;,,g yo,,, - · ol, ini,,n to out elct ~cd .tilt iai.. i~i~ Public MEMORANDUM May 19, ~ TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~'/~J FROM: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECT~ SUBJECT: PLAN FOR ADEQUATE SCHOOLS AND~FFORDABLE HOUSING After nearly 1V: years of work, the School Task Force has achieved a consensus agreement on how the impact of new development upon our local schools will be addressed. The "model agreement" represents a compromise between the many interests represented on the Task Force and is supported by both local industry and the school districts. The Plan was developed to ensure that the community's needs for adequate schools and affordable housing are better met in the face of legal and financial uncertainties. The agreement details two different fees for all types of projects: 1) Residential development which received all required legislative land use decisions (general plan amendments or zone changes) prior to January 1, 1993 or non-legislative projects (like tracts) will pay $2.65 per square foot of residence. 2) Residential development which receives legislative approval after January 1, 1993 will pay $3.65 per square foot. The "model agreement" also contains considerable flexibility in the timing of the payment, i.e., at time of building permit issuance or at the time of close of escrow. In addition, the "model agreement" is flexible in the manner of payment permitting a variety of special financing with the consent of the applicable school district. All school districts in the metropolitan area have recently increased the standard school fee to $2.65 per square foot. From a practical perspective this "Plan" will have Iittte impact on building permit fees for 1993 as the city always has a considerable number of finished residential lots available for immediate construction. The first legislative acts which may be subject to this agreement may possibly come before the City Council this summer. The information discussed at last Monday's meeting is attached. We will continue working with the schools and builders to bring this problem to a practical solution. MG:kl Attachment m~,nat2 The Kern County Plan for Adequate Schools and Affordable Housing The Kern County Plan for Adequate Schools and Affordable Housing is the result of studies conducted by the school funding task force established by the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern as well as significant negotiations among representatives of Kern County school districts, the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, residential and commercial/industrial builders and developers. The Plan was developed to ensure that the community's needs for adequate schools and affordable housing are better met in the face of legal and financial uncertainties. Because the focus of legal uncertainties is on SB 1287 which became effective on January 1, 1993, the Plan divides residential development into two categories based on whether the project had received all required legislative land use decisions (i.e., adoption or amendment of a specific plan; adoption or amendment of a general plan, including a community plan; change of zoning; or annexation into a city) prior to January 1, 1993 1. Residential development which received all required legislative land.use decisions prior to January 1, 1993. For most projects in this category, the Plan provides that mitigation' of public school impacts will be limited to payment of school facilities fees of $2.65 per square foot. These fees may be paid as late as close of escrow rather than prior to building permit issuance if the builder makes certain arrangements. Per current law, $1.65 of this amount will be subject to periodic adjustments for inflation, ' however, if and when the voters fail to approve ACA 6, the other $1.00 of this amount will no longer have to be paid. In addition, if state law is changed to expressly permit or require higher or lower school facilities fees, the amount of 92.65 may or will be adjusted accordingly. · Of course, development projects whose legislative approvals require mitigation at higher levels, which are already in Mello-Roos districts, or which are covered by existing agreements with school districts may have to pay more or less than this amount depending on individual circumstances. 2. Residential development for which any legislative land use decisions were or will be made on or after January 1, 1993. For most projects in this category, the Plan provides that mitigation of public school impacts will be limited to payment of 93.65 per square foot of residential construction. Payment of this amount will exempt residential construction project from payment of statutory school facilities fees, however property in the project will remain subject to any applicable taxes. No mitigation beyond statutory school facilities fees (currently 90.27 per square foot) will be required on commercial or industrial development. The amount required under the Plan may be paid as late as close of escrow rather than prior to building permit issuance if the builder makes certain arrangements. That amount is subject to periodic adjustment for inflation in the same manner and amount as statutory school faciiities fees. In addition, if state law is changed to expressly permit or require higher school facilities fees that amount will be adjusted accordingly. However, it will not be otherwise adjusted upward or downward regardless of the continuing efficacy of the amendment of Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 by SB 1287. Under the Plan, the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, and other Kern County cities, in cooperation with both the building industry 'and the county's public schools, would establish procedures providing generally that: · School districts would notify appropriate County and/or city officials when they have determined that new residential development will have a significant adverse effect on its facilities. · In this notice, school districts would either indicate that they agree to enter into the "Model Agreement for Mitigation of Public School Impacts" ("Model Agreement") which implements the' Plan or describe what different mitigation measures they consider necessary and appropriate. · In evaluating any proposed legislative land use decision the County and/or city would determine whether it would authorize the constructiOn of residential units in excess of any currently authorized within one or more of the school districts which has given the notice described above. · If not, each of the school district(s) in which the' development will occur will be notified that it has been determined that the development will not have any significant environmental impact in the area of school facilities. · ' If so, the applicant and/or beneficiary will be notified that unless the Model Agreement is entered into with the affected school districts(s), or some other agreement is reached with the district(s), an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") will be required to assess the development's impacts on public schools and identify what measures would adequately mitigate those impacts.' · If the applicant and/or beneficiary and each affected school district enter into the Model Agreement, or some other agreement which mitigates the development's impacts on the public schools, compliance with that agreement will be included as a condition of any legislative land use decision regarding that development proposal. In addition, the school district(s) will not object to, or demand additional mitigation as a condition of any subsequent legislative land use decision for the proposed development (unless that decision would authorize the construction of additional residential units). The Plan recognizes that, prior to January 1,1993, the Norris, Rio Bravo-Greely, and Rosedale School Districts established a Mello-Roos community facilities district ("CFD") designed to meet the community,s need for elementary school facilities associated with new residential development. Based on this, projects in those three districts would either annex into the existing CFD or' pay those amounts established by the CFD to prepay the taxes which would otherwise be levied if they were annexed into the CFD. In those three districts, the payment required to be made to the Kern High School District will be limited to that portion of the $3.65 it received in other elementary districts. DRAFT MODEL AOREEMENT FOR MITIOATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL IMPACTS [THIS INSTRUMENT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE A MODEL AGREEMENT FOR THE MITIGATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES IN KERN COUNTY. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTSIN THE NORRIS, RIO BRAVO-GREELY, OR ROSEDALE SCHOOL DISTRICTS,' FOR WHICH A SEPARATE MODEL AGREEMENT APPLIES. THIS MODEL AGREEMENT IS THE RESULT OF STUDIES CONDUCTED BY THE SCHOOL FUNDING TASK 'FORCE ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AND' THE COUNTY OF KERN, AND SIGNIFICANT NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, THE COUNTY OF KERN, THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDERS/DEVELOPERS.] THIS AGREEMENT is made the__day of , 19__, by ("Builder"), the School District [and the School District] ([collectively] the "Public Schools"): RECITALS A. Builder 'intends to develop and/or construct residential properties (the "Project") within the area served by the Public Schools, which Project is described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. B. It is a requirement of the [County of Kern ("County"/Cit¥ of ("City")] that the Project conform to the General Plan and any Specific Plan which may be in effect with regard to the geographic area in which theProject is located. C. The Public schools contend that the Project Will have significant environmental effects with regard to public school facilities, and that the Public Schools have the right to expect that any legislative approval of the Project (with "legislative approval" defined for purposes of this Agreement as annexation, general plan amendment, specific plan approval, or zoning change) include conditions providing.for mitigation of those environmental effects, such as inclusion of the Project in a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. D. Builder desires that the Project proceed without the imposition of conditions which may be unreasonably burdensome and cause the Project to become economically infeasible. 0075097.03 -..034515 DRAFT E. Builder and the Public Schools agree that the laws of the State of California with regard to the impoSition of fees or dedications pursuant to California Government Code Sections 53080 and 65995.3, and mitigation of new development impacts on public schools facilities pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), are uncertain and capable of a multiplicity of inconsistent interpretations~ F. Builder and the Public Schools have' negotiated a compromise of the positions of the parties with the intention of obtaining certainty as to the fees, dedications and conditional exactions which will be required of Builder on account of potential or' actual environmental effects of the Project on public school facilities. THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. If any and all legislative approvals required for residential construction 'in the Project were obtained prior to January.l, 1993, and so long as no additional legislative approval for the ~Project occurs after that date (excepting only a legislative approval which results in a decrease of the residential density permitted for all or~ any portion of the Project), the following apply: 1.1 Builder shall provide for payment to the Public Schools of the fees levied by the Public Schools under Government Code Sections 53080 and 65995.3 for each residential structure constructed in the Project in the amount and the manner prescribed by the Public Schools. pursuant to state law. 1.2 The amount of the ~fee levied by the Public Schools under Government Code Sections 53080 is currently $1.65 per square foot of assessable space as that term is defined in Government Code Section 65995 ("Assesable Space"). It is expressly understood by the parties that this amount is subject to periodic upward adjustment for inflation at the times and in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65995(b)(3). 1.3 The amount of the fee levied by.the Public Schools under Government Code 65995.3 is currently and will Continue to be limited by the Public Schools to a total of $1.00 per square foot of Assessable Space. .It is expressly understood by the parties that Government Code Section 65995.3(b) currently provides that the Public School's authority to levy this fee terminates if and when the electorate fails to approve AssemblylConstitutionalAmendment 6. 007'5097.03 - 034515 DRAFT 2. If any legislative approvaI for residential construction in the Project is required or otherwise occurs subsequent to the date of this Agreement (excepting only a legislative approval which.results in a decrease of the residential density permitted for all or any portion of the Project), or if such a legislative act shall have occurred subsequent to December 31, 1992, the following apply: 2.1. Builder shall provide for payment to the Public Schools of ~the sum of $3.65 per square foot of Assessable Space for each residential structure constructed in the Project at the time and in the manner set forth in this Section, which amount shall be subject to periodic upward adjustment for inflation at the times and in the manner provided for in Government Code Section 65995(b)(3) for fees levied pursuant to California Government Code Sections 53080 and which amount will be determined as of the date of building permit issuance; and 2.2 Upon execution of this Agreement, the Builder shallimpose, or cause to be imposed, upon all property within the Project to be used or actually used for the construction of residential structures, a recorded 'lien sufficient 'to secure the payment of the sums as set forth in this Section, a certified copy of which recorded lien will be provided to the Public Schools; and 3. The amounts set forth in Subsections 1.1 and 1.2, or 2.1 (as applicable) shall be paid for each residential structure constructed in the Project in one of the following ways, at the discretion of the Builder: 3.1 Prior to and as a condition of issuance of any original (and amended) building permit for that structure as set forth in 'Section 4 hereof; or 3.2 Prior to and as a condition of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for that structure as set forth in Section 4 hereof; or 3.3 As a condition of the close of escrow established for a sale of-any part of the Project improved with a residential structure for which a certificate of occupancy has been issued as set forth in Section 4 hereof. 3.4 In no event, however, may any structure constructed in the Project be occupied without Payment of the applicable amount specified in Subsections 1.1 and 1.2, or 2.1 hereof. 0075097.03 - 034515 DRAFT 4. After applying for anoriginal (or amended) building permit for any residential structure to be constructed~in the Project, but prior to, and as a condition of its actual issuance, the Builder will carry out the following actions: 4.1 Provide a copy of the building permit application to the Public Schools, along with such other documentation necessary to establish the [County's/City's] determination as to the number of square feet of Assessable Space in the structure; and' 4.2 If the Builder elects.to meets its obligations as set forth in Subsection 3.1, pay the amount specified in Subsections 1.1 and 1.2, or 2.1 (as applicable) to the Public Schools; or 4.3 If the Builder elects to meets its obligations as set forth in Subsection 3.2 hereof, Builder shall provide the Public Schools with a certified copy of a recorded lien sufficient to secure the payment of the amount specified in Subsections 1.1 and 1.2, or 2.1 (as applicable) upon the specific parcel on which the residential structure will be constructed; or 4.4 If the Builder elects to meets its obligations as set forth in Subsection.3.3 hereof, Builder shall comply with the provisions of Subsection 4.3 and shall provide the Public Schools with a properly certified escrow demand requiring payment to the Public Schools of the amount specified in Subsection a of this Section upon the close of the escrow established for a sale of any part of the Project improved with a residential structure for which a Certificate of occupancy has been, or will be, issued prior to the close of that escrow. 5. The Public Schools expressly agree that to the extent the obligations set. forth in this Agreement are performed for any part of the Project, the Public Schools will be precluded from making a finding that the fees which would otherwise be assessed on that part of the Project under Government Code Sections 53080 or 6599513: (i) bear a reasonable relationship or are limited to the need for public School facilities; (ii) are reasonably related and limited to the need for public schools caused by that part of the Project; and, (iii) do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing for the construction or reconstruction of public school facilities necessitated by that part of the Project. Therefore, the Public Schools will carry out the following actions: ~ 0075097.03 - 034515 DRAFT 5.1 Upon verification of the Builder's compliance with Section 4 hereof, provide certification of ~the exemption of that part of the Project. from school . facilities fees which would otherwise be levied on that part of the Project by the Public Schools under Government Code Sections 53080 or 65995°3. 5.2 Upon verification of the BUilder's compliance with Subsection 4.4 hereof, provide a conditional release of lien expressly conditioned on concurent Satisfaction of the escrow demand for payment of the amount 'specified in Subsections 1.1 and 1.2, or 2.1 (as applicable) of this Agreement. 5.3 Upon payment of the amount specified in Subsections 1,1 and 1.2, or 2.1 (as applicable) of this Agreement provide a release of the liens provided for in Subsections 2.2 and 4.3 of this Agreement. 5.4 The parties understand that the validity of any building permit or certificate of occupancy issued subsequent to the Public Schools certification of exemption provided as set forth in this Agreement is espressly conditioned on actual payment to the Public Schools of the amount set forth in Subsection a of this Section as provided for in Subsection d of this Section. '6. The Public Schools will not seek the imposition of any condition in conjunction with legislative approval of any commercial or industrial development for purposes of mitigation of school facilities impacts pursuant to the CEQA; however,, such development will be subject to fees levied by the Public Schools pursuant to Government Code section 53080. 7. If, at any time subsequent to the date of this Agreement, the public Schools should determine that lesser amounts than those provided at Sections 1, 2 and 6 hereof, or some other method of mitigation, would be sufficient to reasonably mitigate the effects of construction of the type and amount undertaken as part of the Project, or if such lesser amounts shall be required pursuant to amendment of Government Code Sections 53080 or 65995.3 or other express statutory authority, each owner of property within the Project shall be permitted to pay such lesser amount or undertake such other method of mitigation as shall be from time to time be mandated by law or determined by the Public Schools to be sufficient. 8. Ifc at any .time subsequent to the date of this Agreement, the State of California shall enact legislation which requires or permits the levy of a fee, charge, dedication, or other 0075097.03 - 034515 DRAFT requirement pursuant to Government Code Sections 53080 or 65995.3 or other express statutory authority greater than that provided for in Sections 1, 2, and 6 hereof, the Public Schools shall be 'entitled to the payment of that amount then provided by statute. 9. In the. event there shall be more than one school district which is a party to this Agreement, then each of the school districts which are parties hereto agree that any sums collected pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be shared between them in the manner required by law or by agreement between them, with which agreement Builder need not be concerned. However, each of the school districts agree that they shall notify the escrow holder for all transactions involving a sale of a portion of the Project'improved with a completed residential structure of the amounts which are to be paid to each school district which is a party, hereto. 10. In consideration of, in reliance on, and conditioned on Builder's execution of this Agreement and Builder's continued compliance with the terms hereof, the Public Schools shall~withdraw all objections to any legislative acts which may have been made prior to the date hereof, and further agree not to initiate litigation challenging any legislative action or approval related to the Project. 11. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the levying of taxes Which the Public Schools or any other public agency can otherwise lawfully levy on property within the Project. 12. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties concerning this agreement or the rights and duties of either in relation thereto, the party prevailingin such litigation shall be entitled, in addition to such~ other relief as may be granted in the litigation, to a reasonable sum as and for its attorney's fees which shall be determined by the court in such litigation or a separate action brought for that purpose. 13. The provisions of this Agreement shall remain in effect regardless of the continuing efficacy of the amendment of Government Code Sections and 65995 and 65996 as accomplished in 1993 by SB 1287. It is the intention of the parties hereto to establish a continuing, predictable and legally and factually justifiable structure for the calculation and collection of fees, charges, dedications, and other requirements required to mitigate the environmental effects of new residential development on the school facilities of the Public Schools. 14. This Agreement shall be binding on both the Public Schools and the Builder, as well as their heirs, assigns, 0073893.01 - 034515 DRAFT o~ne~ o~ ~e g~oge=~¥ en¢o~ss£ng ~e ~o~ec~), expressly b~nd~ng able document evidencing such satisfaction and extinguishing said covenant running with the land as to that part of the Project. Upon Builder's sale or other transfer of title to any part of the Project (and barring subsequent reacquisition of that part by the Builder), the Public Schools agree that any obligations undertaken by Builder in this Agreement are extinguished with respect to that part of the Project on the condition'that the sale or transfer is made subject to this Agreement. This agreement is executed at , County of Kern, State of California. DATED: , 19 BUILDER By: DATED: , 19 SCHOOL DISTRICT By: [DATED: , 19 SCHOOL DISTRICT By: ] 0073893.01 - 034515 Announcing, .... ' Mayors and Council'Melnbers Executive Forum Wednesday - Friday, July 21 23, 1993 Monterey Conference Center One Portola Plaza . Monterey, CA 93940 WHO SHOULD ATTEND · Mayors · Council Members · City Managers · City Clerks in Non-Manager Cities · WHAT YOU WILL LEARN AS an elected leader you pride yourself on knowing what is happening that affects the people of your city and its ability to meet their needs. You understand the importance of being aware of what's going on and actively influencing decisions and events for the benefit of your city and your constituents. .The Mayors and Council Members Executive Forum this year will offer you the opportunity to do both--to learn and to influence. Get briefed on the key issues you face. Participate in critical discussions which will help determine the future structure and services of cities and their relations to both constituents and to other levels of government. Share ideas and learn from your colleagues who have both similar and different viewpoints on common concerns. The stimulating andchallenging program of the Executive Forum offers a unique chance for you tohave asay in how cities will function in the years ahead. The topics covered will include: >>>> how elected officials' roles and responsibilities ar~ changing and how you can adapt >)>) how to enhance the economic base of your city )-~ how to build a viral sense of community among your citizens >>>> how elected officials can help create an attitude of service in City Hall >>>> how to get the most from your planning and community service programs A major part Of the program will deal with the State Budget, h°w it will affect your city, and what you can do about it. See the attached program outline for a more detailed schedule. ' Thursday afternoon will feature a special Town Hall Forum in which you can join your colleagues in exploring the many creative ideas and options which are available for cities to adjust to the changing circumstances brought on by the economy and the Legislature. Don't miss this great chance to have a say in your own destiny! Please note the following deadlines: ' ' '. ~ ".' : Hotel Reservation:. 'Tuesday, june 29,1993 Advance Conference ..... Registration: ' Tuesday, July 6, 199.3 ., Headquarters- 1400 K Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 · (916) 444-5790. And be Sure to participate in the City Solutions Center WedneSday evening at the ~: receptiom Sign up to brag about the good things your city has been doing which can be helpful mother cities. See the attaChed SolutiOns Center registration form. And best of all, IT'S FREE! (But space is limited.) Plan to take advantage of the League Bookstore at the Forum. 'Copies of the latest and most popular publications Will be available at a discount during the meeting. NEW MAYORS AND cOuNCIL MEMBERS BRIEFING: Wednesday morning a special briefing will cover several imPortant topics for newly elected officials who may not have had the chance to attend the Mayors and Council Members Institute last January. The Briefing addresses key subjects which can get you into trouble if you aren't aware. Please indicate on the advance registration form if you plan to attend this . briefing; there is a slight fee for the materials you will receive. REDEVELOPMENT SEMINAR: Immediately following the Forum on Friday afternoon and Saturday, the League is holding a Redevelopment Seminar especially for elected officials. It will provide an intxoduction to the redevelopment process; an up,re on the effect of the state budget on redevelopment; and briefings on the key. issues in redevelopment today. If you wish to stay for this program, you may make hotel reservations for both meetings on the attached Hotel Reservation Form. You may also register for both meetings on the attached Advance Conference Registration Form. ~;l}¢cial Dual Registration Offer City officials may register in advance for both the Executive Forum and the Redevelop- ment Seminar and save $25.00 on the combined registration fees. No spouse program is planned; however, spouses are welcome to.attend the Forum for a nominal fee. Fee includes program sessions, scheduled breaks, and hosted reception. Please see below for registration prices. Spouse meal tickets may be purchased in advance or on-site at the League Registration Desk. Information on local aUractions will be available.. Registratio~t Fee You can reduce your cost by registering in advance; advance registration must be (Please ttote flew Spouse postmarked not later than Tuesday, July 6, 1993. After that date, the full fee will apply. The fee includes all program materials, one lunch, two continental breakfasts, a Registration Fee) reception and breaks. The one-day fee includes all materials and events for that day. For any questions regarding registration, please contact the Conference Registration Office at (510) 283-2113. The one-day registration option is intended primarily to enc~ourage attendance by your mid-level staff who might not otherwise be able to go to this meeting.' The program and contacts will benefit their professional development You are urged to consider having them join you for at least one day of the program. -.. ' · Full One Day Both ExeCutive Forum & Institute Only Redevelopment Seminar · City Officials $160 $ 95 $285 Non-City Public Officials $185 $120, N/A Non-Public Officials $210 $145 N/A Spouse $ 20 $ 10 N/A Optional: Pre-Conference Workshop for New Council Members. $30 ' After July 6, 1993, please register on.site as follows: ~ One Day Only City Officials $195 . $115 Non-City Public Officials $220 $140 Non-Public Officials $245 ·$165' Spouse $ 20 : '~ $ 10 Payment In order to process regisu'ation, payment in full must accompany the attached form. Only checks or money orders will be taken. No _~urchase orders. You may now pay your registration 'fee by check or by using Visa or Mastercard. If you pay by credit card, you are welcome to register by faxing to (510) 283-7833. To assure this program benefits all who attend, please advise us on the registration 'form if any.attendee has a disability requiring special accommodations. Hotel Reservations The League of California Cities Housing Bureau will handle all sleeping room reserva- tions on a first come, first served basis. Please use the attached Hotel Reservation Form when making reservations. A $100 deposit, payable to the Housing Bureau, is required to confirm individual reservations,'or you may guarantee with a major credit card. ' Deposit refund policies will be included in your confirmation notice, which comes directly from the hotel. NOTE: There is heavy demand for hotel rooms in July in Monterey. Therefore; be sure to make your reservations early. If you find you must cancel your reservation, please do so as early as possible before the reservation deadline so another city official can reserve the space. Telephone reservatiOns will not be accepted prior to the deadline. You may FAX your reservation to (408) 649-3502. If you choose to FAX your reservation, please do not mail a duplicate copy, which will result in duplicate reservations. After June 29, contact the hotels directly to make reservations on a space-available basis. Please note that hotel rates do not include 10% city hotel tax. Meeting facilities will be at the Monterey Conference Center, Marriott and Doubletree Hotels. The conference hotels do not provide airport shuttle service; taxi costs $8 one .way from the Monterey Airport. Hotel Room Rates Marriott Hotel 350 CallePrincipal (408-649-4234) - $104 single/double Valet parking $5 per day. Hotel joins the Conference Center by a bridge. Doubletree Hotel 2 Portola Plaza (408-649-4511) - $104 single/double ~'Self parking is free for hotel guests; valet parking is $8 per day. Adjoins Conference Center. Merritt House 386 Pacific Street (408-646-9686) ~ $99 single/double Free parking. Across the street from the Marriott Hotel.. (Please note hotel rates do not include 10% hotel ta~.) Transportation Monterey is served by United and American Airlines. Discount airfares are available for city travel on any Southwest Airlines flight to Oakland and San Jose, where you can arrange discount car rental (see below). Allow about 90 minutes to drive to Monterey from Oakland. Unrestricted ticket vOuchers priced at $53'.50 per segment ($107.00 round trip) may be purchased in advance through the League-sponsored Statewide Purchasing Program. Advanced seat reservations are recommended by calling toll flee (800) 845-1221. If your city has not already purchased a minimum block of six ticket vouchers, contact Karen Durham at the League (916) ~?/.-5790 to request order forms. Rental Car. Discount rates with unlimited mileage are available one week prior and one week after this meeting from HerXz. Call Hertz Meeting'Services at (800).654-2240 and indicate the League of California Cities Meeting Number CV# 2357. Amtrak. Rail service is available to San Jose with bus connections to Monterey. A 10% discount off the lowest available rail fare is available from Amtrak. For informa- tion and reservations contact Amtrak at (800) 872-7245 and indicate the Special Fare Code X-76B-929. Discount does not apply to additional accommodation charges for sleeping car or custom class. Directions From the North on Highway One - Take the Del Monte, pacific Grove exit. Continue straight for seven stoplights. At the seventh stoplight, get in the left turn lane to continue straight two blocks on Del Monte to the Conference Center. From the Airport/HighWay 68 from Salinas - Take the Monterey Fisherman's Wharf exit. At the rd'st stoplight, make a right turn onto Aguajito. Continue on Aguajito until it ends at Del Monte. Make a left onto Del Monte and continue straight for three stoplights. At the third stoplight get in the left mm lane to continue straight on Del Monte two blocks to the Conference Center. From the South/Carmel on Highway One - Take the Aguajit° exit. Turn left at the first stoplight (going under the freeway).' Continue on Aguajito until it ends at Del Monte. Make a left on Del Monte and continue straight for three stoplights. At the third stoplight get in the left mm lane to continue straight on Del Monte two blocks to the Conference Center. RegistratiOn Fee Advance registrants unable to attend this meeting will receive a refund of the registra- tion fee, less a $35 processing charge, by submitting a written 'request to the League of Refund Policy California Cities, Conference Registration Office, Box 7005, Lafayette, CA 94549; (510) 283-7833 (FAX).. Request for refunds must be received by the last business day before the Forum (Tuesday, July20, 1993). Preliminary Program Overview Tuesday, July 20 - 6:00 - 7:00 pm REGISTRATION OPEN ~ Monterey Conference Center, Lobby Level Wednesday,. July 21 8:30 am REGISTRATION OPEN ~ Monterey Conference Center, Lobby Levet 9:00 am - 12:15 pm PRE-FORUM SESSION New Mayors and Council Members Orientation This session will cover a few key areas and is intended to help officials elected to office sin.ce last November or unable to attend the January Institute. · The Law of Municipal Corporations · Conflicts of Interest ~ · Council Relations with Staff and Employees · The Brown Act 2:00 - 3:30 pm FORUM OPENING GENERAL SESSION Cities and the State Budget A briefing on the current status of the State Budget and its effects on cities; the position of cities as a result of the grass roots lobbying effort; the Legislative Analyst Office recommendations; and the options available to cities in the months ahead. 3:45 - 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS I. The Changing Roles and Responsibilities of Mayors and CoU~ncil Members An interactive discussion of the knowledge, skills and abilities which elected officials will need in the future if you are to are to succeSSfully define and guide the mission and vision of your city. ~~ Concurrent SeSsions continued on next page ~~ 4 Wednesday, July 21 (continued) 3:45 - 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS (continued) II. Update on Growth Management Proposals A briefing on the current status of the various growth management proposals and the efforts of cities to retain effective local conu'ol while being sensitive to state- wide and regional concerns. '5:30 - 6:30 pm GET ACQUAINTED HOSTED RECEPTION (There is no program event this year at the Monterey Bay Aquarium.) Thursday, July 22 7:30 am INFORMAL "ISSUES" BREAKFASTS These informal discussions over continental breakfast provide a chance to exchange ideas, information, and solutions among officials with common interests. Topics tentatively include: · The pros and cons of gaming · Working with volunteers · New cities forum · Options and answers regarding tobacco control · Working cooperatively with schools 9:00 - 10:30 am GENERAL SESSION Building the Economic Base of Your City · How to identify and attract the right jobs · Opportunities for business-citY collaboration · Minimizing competition between cities 10:45 am - 12 noon CONCURRENT SESSIONS I. BUilding the Needed Sense. of Community · How to create community identity and pride · How to build trust and support among community groups H. The Effects of Mandates on Local Government A discussion of the range and impacts of the many mandates imposed on local government, and options available to cities to better serve the public. 12 noon - 1:45 pm GENERAL LUNCHEON The Future of the California Economy 2:00 - 3:30 pm TOWN HALL FORUMS ' Creating and Adapting to the Future of Local Government Join in one of several small 'discussion groups to build on the information and ideas of previous sessions. Identify and recommend specific actions which cities can take to increase the sense of community and citizenship among' their residents, and thUs strengthen the ability of cities to serve their residents. The ideas generated in these discussions will be recorded and reported to all attendees. Thursday, July 22 · (continued) 3:45 - 5:00 pm CONCURRENT SESSIONS I. Building an Attitude of Service in City Hall ' A discussion of the specific actions councils can take to create and support an ' organizational attitude of real service to the public, and thereby also gain the increased support and appreciation of the public. II. Survival Tips for Elected Officials An informal discussion of ways you can keep yourself focused and balanced while in public office. 5:00 pm SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP MEE~T1NGS 5:30 - 6:30 Pm NO HOST RECEPTION · · 'Friday, July 23 7:30 - 8:45 am INFORMAL "POPULATION" BREAKFAST DISCUSSIONS These informal discussion sessions provide a chance to exchange ideas, information, and solutions among officials from cities of similar size. 9:00 - 10:30 am CONCURRENT SESSIONS Tapping Your Hidden Resource: How to Use Community Service Programs to Enhance Local Identity and Support Learn how to tap the potential of your citizens with the right community service programs, and how to develoP strong programs which advance the grade of your city--and thus enhance pride and economic vitality. II. Is Your.Land Use Planning Doing What You Want? How to set clear and accepted goals for your land use planning process, and hoTM to assure your p,r~ss and plans meet those goals. Learn the questions to ask and the outcomes to measure to assure the council gets what it wants. III. "Rightsizing" for Elected Officials As resources dwindle cities are having to reduce staff. This is largely a managerial 'function. Yet there is an important role for councils to play in setting the policies which can cause or mitigate the need for reductions, and make reductions as fair and humane as possible. Learn what you can do to best deal with this difficult issue. 10:45 am - 12' noon CONCLUDING GENERAL SESSION The New Opportunities Facing City Officials A challenging presentation exploring the options open to you to help. make your cities even better places to live and work.' 12 noon ADJOURN Note that the Redevelopment Seminar for elected officials, offering both an orientation to your role in the redevelopment process and a briefing on the current issues in the subject, will begin at 1:30 pm. If you register for both the Executive Forum and the Redevelopment Seminar there is a discount on the registration fees. League of California cities Mayors & Council Members Executive Forum Wednesday - Friday, July 21 - 23, 1993 Hotel Reservation Form (Please use only one form per hotel room) · Guest Information Name:. Please make cop!es of this Address: form if more than one room is to be reserved. If you choose City: to FAX this form, please do State: Zip: not mail duplicate. Phone: ( ) FAX:(, ) Arrival Date: am/pm Departure Date:~ am/pm Accommodations Requested Please indicate by number, your first and second preference of hotel. Marriott Hotel Single @ $104 __ Double @ $104 Doubletree HOtel Single @ $104 __ Double @ $104 Merritt House __ Single @ $99 __ Double @ $99 No smoking room Handicapped access I will be sharing a room with: Guarantee .Deposit Enclosed Amount Enclosed $ Type of Credit Card Credit Card # Expiration Date signature Return this form to League of California Cities Housing c/o Monterey Visitors & Convention Bureau P.O. Box 1770 Monterey, CA 93940 408-649-3502 FAX Hotel'Reservation Deadline is Tuesday, June 29, 1993 Please make copies of this form/f CITY more than one will be registering. If you choose to FAXthis form, Mayors & Council Members Executive Forum please do not mail a duplicate. Wednesday - Friday, July 21 - 23, 1993 Monterey Conference Center Advance Conference Registration Form Spouses Attendee Information Name Title -Name Enter first and last name and official title as they should appear on your conference badge and registration card. Please indicate So we can plan for any special needs please indicate if any registrants require special spouse's name if he~she will attend, accommodations for disabilities: Who? What? Registration Fees and Advance registrations postmarked by Tuesday, July 6, 1993 Deadline City Officials @ $160 = $__ Includes all program materials, one Non-City Public Officials @ $185 = $.__ lunch, two continehtal breakfasts, a Non-Public Officials @ $210 = $__ reception and breaks. One Day Only (indicate date attending): (For on-site fees, please see page 2) City Officials __ @ $ 95 = $__ Non-City Public Officials __ @ $120 = $__ Non-Public Officials @ $145 = $__ Both Executive Forum & Redevelo_oment Seminar City Officials __ @ $285 = $ . Qpfional · Pre-Conference Workshop for New Council Members __ @ $ 30 = $__ Total $__ Spouse Registration ~Vuli Institute Spouse Registration @ $20.00 = & Me'al Tickets Qne Day Only (indicate date attending): (Note: NO REFUNDS on Spouse Registration @ $10.00 = $ meal tickets) Thursday Breakfast @ $11.25 = $.__ Thursday Luncheon @ $22.50 = $.__ Friday Breakfast @ $i 1.25 = $ Total $ Payment Information Check which is enclosed: (Note: Payment must ~ City Check ~ Personal Check ~ VISA ~ Mastercard accompany this form to process Make check payable to: League of California Cities (No purchase orders please) the Advance Registration) Name on Card Credit Card # · ' Expiration Date. Authorized Signature Registration Receipt Send registration receipts to address indicated below: Name: Title: -- Address: City: Zip: Phone: (' ) FAX: ( Return this form to League of California Cities, P.O. Box 7005, Lafayette, CA 94549, 510-283-2113, · FAX 510-283-7833 (for those paying with credit card ONLY) Califomta Cities Work Together The LeagUe of California Cities would like to invite your city to particiPate in an informal "Solutions Center" display during this year's Mayors and Council Members Executive Forum, July 21 - 23, 1993 in Monterey. The "Solutions' Center" tables will allow city officials the opportunity to share information on.one Or two of your cities' projects in which other cities might be interested. · The tables will be open Wednesday, July 21, between 5:30 - 6:30 p.m. Space is limited and reservations are on an advance first-come, first-served basis. Your participatiOn, in this informative activity would be greatly appreciated. There is no charge for Participating in the "Solutions Center" displays. To participate please submit the attached application with a description not lOnger than 50 words of what will be displayed'or disseminated and the' benefits to other dities. The description should be able to be printed as submitted. Conference attendees, will be given a list of which cities will display and a description as submitted. Applications and'descriptions need to be received by June 21, 1993. Please note'the limitations on the display. You' are urged to keep the display simple and ine~XPensive, and to concentrate on providing useful information to other city officials. If you have any questions, call Barnaby Nnaji at (916).444-5790. . Mail or FAX to: Barnaby Nnaji ' '~ '~':: '~' League .of California Cities .... City "Solutions Center" . 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX (916) 444-5129 '. ...... t \mtg\mc~solution.ctr :' SPECIFICATIONSFOR~THE CITY ,,.SOLUTIONS I. ~e pu~ose 'of 'the displays is to disse~nate .~Omafitn' on progr~ that ~t flso be use~l to other dries. ~e i~omation should include the follo~ng: . , .::. '~ '. · A descriPtion of the program / proem b~neh~ / ~d needsmet.' · Infomation which describes how the propm or iffomation ~t be used ~it~ · ~e name of the Person to contact in your d~ fOr more. ~Omat~o~on the~ II. Emphais should be on handing out help~ i~omation ~d a~we~g questiom rather than on a f~ display. You are urged to keep'~bur cost to a III. You ~11 be ~s~ed to one specffic space at the Get-Acqum[~d 5:30 - 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, July 21, 1993. Dunng th~s t~me, penodygur}~ace':: should be staffed by one or more cie °fficia s on - '1.' Each'~pace ~11 be~'li~ted t° a 6'x 6' ~ea. 2. Each space ~11 have one 6'x 30" table along 3. Table top posters c~ not exceed 4 feet above 4. Displays ~11 have to be able to be set up' and 5. Displays must be able to be caffied'in and ~lowed ..... 6. Ele~c~ power and utilities ~I1 NOT bl Slides, ~deo, recordings, etc.) ' :::,~ ' :":'" 7..No floor displays or e~els Mll be ~lowed.' '"'~-~ ' - - ';'~(.-'1993 Mayors ~d Council Mem~rs EX~utive ' '"': .... '' CIw 'SOLmONS ~~R' SPACE Name of Ci~: ..... Conta~ Name: Title: Phone: ( ) Descdpfion for p~t (li~ted to 50 words): Description of what materials your city will have to display and handout: Name(s) and phone number of on-site official(s): Signature and phone m~_mber of contact person Return by June 21 to: Barnaby Nnaji League of California Cities City "Solutions Center" - 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 FAX (916) 444-5129 MEMORANDUM May 19, 1993 TO ALAN TANDY - CITY MANAGER FROM LELAND J. ANDERSEN - COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER SUSPECT CONVENTION CENTER ICE FLOOR During an inspection of the Convention Center ice floor a leak was discovered within the Concrete-encased circulation system. This leak precludes the use of the Convention Center for future ice events until repairs can be completed. Experts in the field have indicated this system has a life expectancy of 30 years and will begin to experience some failures. It could last another 5-10 years or fail rather quickly. Although ice has not been prepared for approximately five years, we were testing the system in preparation for an exhibition hockey event in connection with the Firefighters' Olympics. Unfortunately, hockey was canceled because of financial considerations. We do, however, have a tentative hold for a public skating event in September, 1993. The General Services Division has researched costs for repairs that include demolition, piping system repair, concrete patch and recharge of chilling system, at a cost of approximately $7,500. Other options considered are to replace the complete system at an estimated cost of $750,000 to $1,000,000, rent or purchase a portable system at a cost of $62,000 and $120,000 respectively, or finally, abandon the system altogether. As you can see, our options are very limited and expensive. If for some reason we are unable to put the floor back in use, there is a way to salvage some of the equipment. P G & E has advised that our existing chillers may enable us to install a thermal storage unit to supplement existing'air conditioning systems which will substantially reduce our monthly utility rate. The complete system can be installed for approximately $220,000 and would make us eligible for a one-time installation rebate of around $90,000. With the above information in mind, I would recommend that we implement repairs to correct the existing leak. This appears to be the best alternative. At the completion, of repairs, we will complete 'a check of the entire system to make sure there are_3~o other problems.. I feel the ice floor is an important part of this facility as it provides us with additional rental opportunities and every effort should be made to proceed with repairs. Unless otherwise instructed, I will proceed with repairs and keep you posted on a regular basis as to our progress. If you should have questions or need additional information, please contact me at your convenience. cc: John Stinson - Assistant City Manager Larry Jamison - General Services Superintendent H. C. Bryant - Supervisor II MEMORANDUM "WE CARE" TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: S.D.. Johnson, Fire Chief~. DATE: May 19, 1993 SUBJECT: Seismic Grant Chief Pacheco and I called the office of the State Architect on May 11, 1993 and talked to Mr. Tom Nichols. At that time, he stated there were 293 total applicants and it would be one month from that date when different agencies would be notified whether they qualified for the second round of screening. The final selection process should be completed October 15th with the report made to the .State Legislature. A final motion for funding would be made somewhere between January 1 and January 10, 1994. We are also tracking SBl182 which could allocate another 200 million dollars. 20 ~.Y 9.~ 9: 94 Apdl 13, 1993 -' City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Regarding: Proposition 122 Seismic Grants Available to Local Governments Dear Mr. Tandy: In June 1990, voters approved PropOsition 122, a $300 i~liilion general obligation bond measure. Local governments can benefit from $50 million in grants from this program. These funds have been allocated for program administration and retrofitting or replacing local government essential services; emergency, and public safety buildings. For a local government to be eligible for funding, the agency must have complied with the Unreinforced Masonry Building Law, Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) and have an emergency plan approved by the Office of Emergency Services (OES) as being consistent with the state planning guidelines, the State Emergency Plan and the most recent catastrophic emergency response plan. The local government must also have a pdodty list that identifies those facilities which are not expected to be operational after a major earthquake and which are Cdtical to carrYing out the emergency plan. The retrofit portion of the project should be conducted during the same general pedod that life safety hazards, including, but not limited to, asbestos-related hazards and/or fire and panic safety hazards are abated or when renovation, or pedodic maintenance of the essential services, emergency and public safety building is performed. If the City of Bakersfield has potentially eligible projects, HMC GROUP would like to assist you in this process. Prequalified public agencies must enlist the services of an architect or structural engineer to prepare and submit applications to the Office of the State Architect (OSA) by August 15, 1993. As you may be aware, for over 52 years HMC has been providing a broad range of architectural services to clients throughout California. In 1992, Building Design and Construction magazine rated HMC as the ninth largest design firm in the nation. Moreover, we have unequaled expertise in seismic-related issues and an in-depth understanding of the Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings Rehabilitation Bond Act. I will contact you in the near future to assist you with any applications the City may have regarding State Seismic grants. In the intedm, if you would like further information, please give me a call at (909) 989-9979. I look forward to speaking with you and assisting the City of Bakersfield in this process. Sincerely, HMC GROUP ,, ' ~0v_ enn Norton-Pemj (,.....,,,,Director of Marketing and Public Relations c £'J."~. '"~'~'i~'~(~'l~:j-h HMC GROUP Corporate Offices 3270 Inland Empire Boulevard, Ontario, California 91764t-4854 909 989-9979 Fax 909 483-1400 ;''!~¥ ('~5 ~_.~ [,t,!. Architecture · Engineering · Interiors * Planning PROP122.GEN-I MEMORANDUM May TO: John Stinson, Assistant City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Status on Architectural Barrier Removal Program (FY 92-93 CDBG Project - #70.92.2) As part of the City's FY 92-93 CDBG Program, construction funds were set aside in the amount of $73,526 to remove architectural barriers from City owned buildings in order to benefit handicapped residents. The recent retrofit of the City Hall elevator in the amount of $7,300 was the first expenditure of these funds. It is our understanding from General Services that the next phase of this activity is handicap counter work for Personnel, Clerk's Office, Martin Luther King Center, and Economic and Community Development offices. Before commencing on any additional architectural barrier removal work, we would like to meet with you and Larry Jamlson to clarify the extent of handicapped access work still needed, the funding sources available to pay for these improvements, and the degree of staff involvement from our department for this activity. We have two issues that we feel need to be addressed prior to implementing the counter work. Our first issue deals with the preparation of the plans and bid specifications. Since the nature of the work is extensive we recommend that Engineering be responsible for this task. My staff would be available to review and comment on the final bid packages and provide secondary monitoring assistance as needed. Our second issue involves the use of CDBG funds for interior handicap counter/work space area to benefit employees. As you are aware, HUD regulations require that we substantiate that the use of these funds primarily benefit low and moderate income residents. The use of CDBG funds to accommodate physically challenged employees do not meet HUD qualification criteria unless the City can document that the specific employee to be benefitted is a low and moderate income individual (this di.~tinction does not hold true for handicapped residents who are generally presumed to be primarily low and moderate income persons unless their is evidence to the contrary). Please let me know when it would be convenient to meet to discuss the completion of the handicap counter work. Page 2 Stinson Memo 05/17/93 I am also requesting that CDBG - ADA funds be used to accomplish the necessary accommodations that have been identified by Five Star at the 18th & Eye Street Parking Structure. It is my opinion that the off-street parking funds be reserved for other activities. My reasoning is that these funds do not have the same statutory ]imitations that CDBG funds enjoy and thus can be used in a much more flexible manner. xc: Alan Tandy, City Manager Larry Jamison, General Services ln~: VZ4 ! STINSON. MEM BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May 10, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ' ' FROM: OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT SUBJECT: CLAIMS ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL 1993 The claims activity during the month of April 1493 Was a result of actions i6 the following City Departments/Divisions: NEW DEPARTMENT/DIVISION CLAIMS FILED FILES CLOSED COMPLAINTS FILED Police 5 7 1 Streets 4 1 1 Parks 0 , I 0 Fire 1 1 0 Parks 1 0 0 Recreation 0 1 0 11 11 2 The new claims filed during the month of April J993 resulted in the following types of damages: CITY THIRD PARTY DAMAGES DEPARTMENT/DIVISION VEHICLE INVOLVED VEHICLE DAMAGE OTHER PROPERTY INJURIES Police 2 2 0 2 Streets 0 3 1 0 · Fire 1 1 0 0 Parks 0 0 0 1 3 6 I 2 Claims Activity Report - April 1993 Page 2 As a result of the April activity, the year to date (fiscal) totals are as follows: Claims Filec~ Claims Filed # of Claims Department/Division in April Year to Date Open @ 4/30/93 Police 5 47 49 Streets 4 29 27 Parks I 4 3 Fire 1 9 3 Sanitation 0 8 3 Engineering 0 5 6 Building 0 3 3 General Services 0 5 3 Other 0 1 2 Recreation 0 3 1 Water 0 I 1 11 115 101 There were no claims filed in April as a result of activities by the Sanitation Division. Two claims resulted from activities involving Police vehicles. The citizen was not cited as the responsible party in either case. Claims Activity Report ' April 1993 Page 3 ~ POLICE DEPARTMENT Clarence Shaffer, II, P.O. Box 3688, Rancho Cucamonga, DOL: 1/15/93; Claimant alleges the Police Department damaged his property at 4451 California Avenue. Jameson Ernest and Jane Lynn Terrell, 2800 St. Mary's Street, DOL: 3/27/93; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle and a Police Department vehicle collided at Columbus and Union Avenues. Jeffrey and Leah Seybert, 705 Palo Verde, DOL: 10/18/92; Claimants allege they were falsely arrested by Police Department officers. John Reed, 1512 Langston Court, DOL: 11/14/92; Claimant alleges false arrest and the use of excessive force by officers of the Police Department. Daniel Earl Badger, 1016 Lorene Avenue, DOL: 1/27/93; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Police Department vehicle collided with the claimant's vehicle at Baker Street and California Avenue. PARKS Kyle Gregory Smith, 924 "C" Street, Apt. 9, DOL: 4/7/93; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant fell off a toy in Jastro Park. STREETS DIVISION Torin Olav Torgerson, 817 Quailridge Drive, #56, DOL: 3/11/93; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle hit a pothole at Belle Terrace and Valhalla. Doroteo Catanio, Jr., 4412 Gordon Street, DOL: 3/28/93; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle hit a pothole at Monitor Street and White Lane. Fredlisha Kindred, 2220 College Avenue, DOL: 2/9/93; Claim is for damages al!egedly caused when claimant's vehicle hit a pothole at 22nd and K Streets. Hocking, Denton, Palmquist, 3511 Union Avenue, DOL: 1/5/93; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a City sewer backed up into claimant's property at 3511 Union Avenue. FIRE Michael Murphy, 2525 21st Street, DOL: 3/4/93; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Fire Department vehicle backed into claimant's parked vehicle at Fire Station #2. Claims Activity Report - April 1993 Page 4 CLAIMS CLOSED/SETTLED DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL POLICE. Scott Ward's Car Finders, DOL: 2/8/93; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle was struck by a police officer's bullet. City settled case for $656. Robin Jamieson, DOL: 5/11/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Police Department vehicle collided with the claimant's vehicle. City settled case for $8,000. Anthony Armstrong, DOL: 8/29/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle was hit by a police officer'~s bullet during an incident on Lakeview Avenue. Closed -' no court filings. Martin Gross, DOL: 7/14/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when the Police Department SWAT team damaged property owned by the claimant. Closed - no court filings. Robert Johnson, DOL: 5/28/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when Police Department officers damaged a door while making an arrest. Closed - no court filings. Carlos Lopez, DOL: 3/8/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the use of excessive force by a Police Department officer. Closed - no court filings. Simon Prin$, Jr., DOL: 8/26/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when property owned by the claimant was destroyed by personnel of the Police property room. Closed - no court filings. FIRE Thomas Reese/'rransamerica Insurance, DOL: 12/15/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Fire Department vehicle made an improper turn at an intersection. City settled case for $1,379. STREETS Robert Magarrell, DOL: 8/3/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused by a manhole cover that broke and damaged claimant's vehicle when claimant drove over the manhole cover. Closed - no court filings. Claims Activity Report - April 1993 Page 5 RECREATION Stacey Harris, DOL: 7/10/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when the claimant scraped her head on the rough edge of the Martin Luther King pool. Closed - no court filings. PARKS Patrick Puryear, DOL: 7/19/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a City tree limb broke and fell onto claimant's parked vehicle. Closed - no court filings. CLAIMS WITH RESULTING COMPLAINT AND/OR SUMMONS FILED DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL STREETS Shelley Blume, DOL: 8/2/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant drove her vehicle on a City street that had been recently oiled by the Streets Division. POLICE Rick Guiles, DOL: 7/13/92; Claim is for damages allegedly caused by the use of excessive force by officers of the Police Department. cc: City Council Lawrence Lunardini, City Attorney City Clerk's Office - Natalie Welty Newsmedia File City ~Of~Eersfield TRANSMITTAL SLIP Date....~:.!.?..~.~. ............. ~_ ........... To ....... A..~.....~.~.~..:...~....~~ ............................ Fro m.;...~...~....~~....-:.....~~~'~... ............. For Your:~ ~1 ~ Signoture ~ A~ion nformetion ~ File Pl~se:~ ~ Return ~'See ~e ~ Follow Up ~ Prepere Answer Copy to: .................................................................................................. Memo: ............................... .: ............... ~I~.:.O~,L~.~...~..~..~_~ ................ ............ ~.~Z~.....L~.~..~~..~~.. ............ . ..... .............. ~.~. ..... ~ WedS, May 12, 1993 ~J~ illak~nifiHb warns 819 water s stems excess lead; Bakersfield clean ' ':' ":: :"'" "' ~19 W~G~N (~) ~ ~e gove~t 'w~ . ~O~ ~y ~t ~ ~p ~r ~n~ ~ mu~ l~d ~d o~ ~ ~ ~ ~e h~ *"~ '" ~' ff~wever, none ff Ba~nfleld's water ap~m~ * - Water .systems ~ C~ornia that ~e Envi- - " ~ ~ ~e f~ ~ ~ ~ey ~ c~ ~ ronmon~ Protec~n Agency has idon~fiod . ~ exceeding ~e ~fe load level of 15 p~s - . fomla Wa~r Sys~m ~sted more t~n 1~ per blll~n. ' ' ' -~ol~ for 1~ pdva~ ~ ~d for ~e ciW ~ Monitoring was ~nducted be~een July ' .* ' ~akersfleld's ~p water. O~y two of the ~ples ~d D~ember 1992 at 7,500 ~ge ~d '~w~ *~a~ l~d lev~. ' · ~ · ~e U.S. ~~ ~~ ~ ~ medium public water systems. A su~ey of j~ ~ ~e ~nd ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~e.l~ stonier systems ..~ .due later this ye~. ~ l~d -- mom ~ 15 ~ ~r b~ -- ~ p~Uc* Sy~ems ~lng rare than 50,000 p~ple ~ ~ ~ a mmb~ ~fl~ ~ ~ C~om~ Water ~wice -- ~ Mat~, 25 '.' '* J~ E~, ~ ~ ~ EPA's ~ wa~ C~' of Milpi~, 23 ~m, ~d n~ ~ ~ple ~ ~ ~e 'fa~ ~ ~ of Moun~n ~ew, 22 Redw~d Ci~, 19 ' : ..... ~ ~ wo~, ~ ~e mo~ ~ ~e~ ~u~ ~ ~ ve~ mn~m~ a~ut ~e pubUc s ~d ~," he ~d..' . Systems 8e~ng be~n -~ ~ '~'wo~ p~bl~ w~ f~d 'at ~ ~Je~e ~ 3,300 and 50,000 p~ple ~o~ ~, a ~e ~, w~ ~d l~ leve~ ~. ~ Fr~is~ Inter~onal Air~,' ~ ~ ~ b~ ~ ~me ~p'Wa~ El~ ~d ~ V~den~rg ~r ~or~. ~e,' 43 ase a~ead~ is ~n~ Co~ective a~lon and h~" ~t w~ ~ ~h ~ ~ wa~r. '~ Estero' Mid, 41 ' '~'' ' ~ .. E~ve ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ a ~d's Hi~rough Water:.' ~ct, 33 ~ ~ ph~ d~el~t, ~d ~ low ~ Ci~ of ~lmont,~~ ., ~e~t ~ p~ b~. Cl~ of M~nez, '~28:. ~ · ~ ad~, eg~lve ]earl can ~crease bl~ ' =d .t. W,t,r 24 ~ ~, ~ d~e ~d men~ m~floa. Duel Vo~flo~ I~??}n Tracy, '23' ~ ~PA a~ ~ ~ ~e 819 ~ ~ ~ ~astSide 'CwD, ~; '" We ~ ~p ~r ~. E It ~ ~e ~e l~e~ New~ 'Wat~ ~ent, 19' ~ ~d ~ve ~ ~'s bt~ ~ ~or ]~d. C~ff~.~stituti~*.~ Men in Va~lle, 16  ..... .~ ,. ;, ~ The As~iat~ Press U~'m]d ~p wa~ for ~, ~d ~y avoid '~ ~er~ mn~t ~ ~ wa~r ~ ~t ~p wa~ ~ pre~ ~by ~o~nl~ wo~ ~e pmb]~ by ~g more ~ ~ ~ ~flon's 1,~ pubUc wa~r s~ ~t pi~ ~ ~ wa~r. ~ ~e at 1~ 3~1 ~d~, 1,1~ sy~ ~d n~ ~PA o~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lead C[T~ UANAGEE~ ~mplete ~PA's r~ed monttor~g and ~U be madu~ ~ e~ve p~Uc no~i~fion ~d ~ucafion ~o~d not ~ve a ~ of ~ ~ pre~ for a ~e~. 12 ~Y ~5 ~: 0~ ~w ~. - ~ ~ m~ ~ndu~ ad~o~l mo~ " ~ · ~e'~ l~d 1~ ~ EPA's ~ we~ fo~d and reduce ~e lead e~ure by adding mineral ~ m~~ ~ ~ ~g ~ 3~1 ~~ ~ ~e ~r ~ ~t pi~ ~d prev~t lead ~d ~,~ ~le, ~elu~ ~p ~Je~e; G~ ~ 1~, ~d by ~ lead pi~. ~o~ P~, ~., ~ ~ ~b; ~d ~' ~, EPA ~ a ~' ff mo~ ~ 10 ~rc~t'of ~ ~'- ~e ~ ~ m0~ ~ ~.~ ff a ~r ~ f~fl~ ~'~e ~ve m~ ........... ~ h u ~*' er it faces a m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~,:S.C., ~1~ ~b. f or no~y the pub c ~ t d~g , EPA ~ ~ ~ ff~ ~:'~" ~m ~,~ ~. Eder. ~d ~ ~;. ~~~~~eE~ [~ ~'~ !~d~ ~.yo~ c~. ~'~ b~ ~~ ~ l~d pi~' ~"~ve ' ' ~~ ~t, ~~~ ~fl ~d d~ ~ o~ ~:~ ~ ne~ ~on. B~ p~bl~ ~ ~* ~. *:' *r'~ (' · . ~~ ~ ~ ~ i~d ~ld~ on c~ pi~ ~- *'~o~*~ s~ wri~ rom ~r (~lifomia ~o BOB PRICE MAYOR May 14, 1993 State of California Department of Transportation Robert L. Binger, Director District 6 P.O. Box 12616 Fresno, CA 93778-2616 Dear Mr. Binger: During the council meeting of May 12th, it was.voted that I write to your office regarding a Cal Trans sign which we believe unintentionally but none the less promotes a business which is offensive to many people in our city and elsewhere. The sign simply states that this stretch of highway has been adopted by the dancers of Deja Vu. As you are undoubtedly aware, the Deja Vu in San Diego was recently widely criticized for the inappropriate activities of nude dancers in San ~Diego bay. The City of Bakersfield has recently taken some rather stringent actions to curb what was believed by many citizens to be very immoral sexually-oriented activities within the Deja Vu in Bakersfield. Many of the City Council members as well as my office have received calls wondering why Cal Trans is promoting this type of enterprise. I realize that you are merely making a statement that they are participating in some way in the cleanup of that portion of the highway. Unfortunately, that is not the message being received by those who read the sign. Thank you for your time and attention. You rs' truly, Mayor cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager .City Council 05 ~5~;1, Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 · (805) 326-3770 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM TO:~DEPARTMENT HEADS /~~f__ May 18, 1993 FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION/TO CITY COUNCIL Please work with your staff to make sure all information the City Councilmembers receive from your department is placed in the Councilmembers' mail boxes in the City Clerk's Office, not mailed to their residences. Items placed in Council boxes are delivered to them every Friday (unless picked up personally by the Councilmember before that time). Thank you for your help in eliminating unnecessary postage costs. .alb cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council City Clerk · The State of California is not willing to make the tough decisions needed to control and balance the State · This July the State plans to grab budget. $8,300,000 of Fremont's tax money. · The ~State's budget solution is to · Because of the State's MONEY take local property tax money away GRAB, Fremont may have to further from cities and counties, reduce services by making cuts which · The State has already taken over are equivalent to 145 City jobs. $4,600,000 of Fremont's money. harg of its OWH Destiny Fremont has always been able to The City made enough budget manage its budget and live within cuts in 1991 and 1992 to adjust to its means. To keep up with growth the economic recession. No more and maintain top quality services, cuts would be needed in 1993, the City's General Fund budget except .... the City is forced to cut should be about $70,000,000 by now. another $8,000,000 in 1993 The actual budget is $57,000,000. entirely due to the State MONEY GRAB. Already Cut from Fremont's Budget ~__~ Hiring freeze ~ 15% cut in ~ Two-week City resulting in materials and oflEice closure 125 jobs lost. supplies purchase, in 1992. ~ Additional 27 ~ Reduction in ~ No pay employees Vehicle/equipment increases laid off. replacement, negotiated. These cuts have forced the City to run more efficiently, but services have been cut, too. 75% of Fremont's General Fund Revenues Come From... I. PROPERTY TAX Property tax is the largest single source of revenues to the City. It accounts for 35% of the general fund, and supports $21,000,000 ll of City services. Any State MONEY GRAB will hit Fremont harder than other cities which have a range of fees, assessments and other taxes that Fremont has not imposed In1995, the State proposes to grab $4,700,000 more of Fremont's property taxes. You pay 8.25¢ sales tax for every dollar you spend. Fremont gets less than 1¢ of that. Sales tax provides about $17,500,000 for City services, or 30% of Fremont's general fund. The City's share of sales tax is another likely target of the State's MONEY GRAB. ~fllCLE LICENSE FEES Each year you pay vehicle license fees to the State Department of Motor Vehicles. Fremont's share is about $6,000,000, or 10% of general fund revenues. The State cut Fremont's share in 1991, and may take what's left to help balance the State budget. The State has taken and threatens more MONEY GRABS from these revenues. Where Your Properly ~ax Dollar Goes.... Fremont now gets only 17.5¢ cents of each property tax dollar you pay. The lion's share of your property taxes goes to the schools, the county, and the various special districts listed on your property tax bill. Check it out! You might be surprised how many ~ agencies get some of that money. ProP.er. ty T. axes combined wflh other revenues make up the City's $57;000,.000 General Fund. Police Fire Dept. Dept. Speaking of Schools'.. Good schools are important to Fremont and they need adequate State funding.., but not with the City's portion of local property taxes. By law the State must provide minimum funding to schools. To fulfill its guarantee, the State has arbitrarily chosen to shift a portion of the City's property taxes to the schools. The State wants more and more from Fremont... The State' MONEY GRAB is eroding local services. It might look harmless: A few cutbacks here. Some trimming over there. A delayed project or two. Postponed maintenance on streets, parks and City buildings. But the quality community we have all worked so hard to build could start crumbling, because the State continues to grab the City's revenues, year after year, more each time. Public General Leisure Community Human Debt Payment Works Services Services Development Services &Contingency "What about Business and Industry?" The State's MONEY GRAB of local property taxes and other revenues to balance the State's budget works against the State's goal of retaining and creating jobs in California. Property taxes were intended to Cities will be hard pressed to Pay for property-related services provide the services that business such as police, fire, street and industry need. Through the maintenance, recreation and park MONEY GRAB, the State itself is services, and road building. The undermining California's economic State's MONEY GRAB abandons this recovery. Without adequate local concept, services, businesses will keep moving out of California, taking jobs and tax base with them. "It's a Bad Idea"... Says Who? Cliff Allenby, California Building Burt McChesney, California Industry Association Association of Realtors "The loss or 'recapture' of... "The future of our industry is property taxes is an irrelevant directly dependent on the decisions argument. If you don't maintain this being made in this budget. We can't connection (between property taxes sell homes in communities which and property related services) it are not viable and functioning.' will have a detrimental effect on future development and the economic recovery of California. ' The City of Fremont is listening. We've installed a special State MONEY GRAB Hotline to make it easier for you to hear updated budget information. But more importantly, we want to hear your ideas, comments and suggestions. Pick up the phone and dial 494-4886. Or write to: STATE MONEY GRAB City of Fremont 39100 Liberty St. P. O. Box 5006 Fremont, CA 94538 The State's MONEY GRAB decision to take 21.7% more of your property tax will be made by the people listed below. Let them know what you Governor Pete Wilson Governor's Office . State Capitol \ Sacramento, Ca 95814 \ (916) 445-2864 '. ~ ~....~. Delaine Eastin David Roberti 20th District Senator 20th District Assemblywoman President Pro Tempore State Capitol, Room 3003 State Capitol, Room 205 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-7874 (916) 445-8390 or 39650 Liberty St., Suite 160 Fremont, CA 94538 Jim Brulte (510) 791-2151 63rd District Assemblyman MinoritY Floor Leader Bill Lockyer State Capitol, Room 2114 Sacramento, CA 95814 lOth District Senator (916) 445-8490 State Capitol, Room 2032 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-6671 Ken Maddy or 14th District Senator 22634 Second St., #104 Minority Floor Leader Hayward, CA 94541 State Capitol, Room 305 (510) 790-3605 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-9600 Willie L. Brown Jr. 13th District Assemblyman John Vasconcellos Speaker of the Assembly 23rd District Assemblyman State Capitol, Room 219 Assembly Ways and Means Committee Chair Sacramento, CA 95814 State Capitol, Room 6026 (916) 445-8077 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-4253 1991:$1,000,000 $1,000,000 + $2,600,000 1992----r$3,~600~000 $3,600,000 +$4,700,000 1993:$8,300,000 1994: HOW MUCH MORE??? City of Fremont 39100 Liberty Street P.O.Box 5006 Fremont, CA 94538 Roger C. Anderman City Manager David N. Millican Finance Director EDITOR Karen A. George Contributors Jack Rogers Beth Schoenberger Design ALLEN Graphic Design The GREAT 1993 MONEY GRAB! A community newsletter about the State budget crisis from a city point of view. Tell Your City's Story Don't Reinvent the Wheel No time and limited funds make it difficult for large For just $150 (a fraction of the cost to create this and small cities alike to produce a newsletter. Yet now publication from scratch) you can produce this same is the time to communicate with residents the State's newsletter for your community. Three diskettes con- very real threat to take local property tax dollars, tain the template, text and all the graphics printed in Most importantly, to tell that story with just a few the newsletter - plus a few more. Customize the text words and good graphics. Fremont's newsletter does and budget information for your city. As Nike says, just that. "Just Do It.''m "Fremont's piece is great stuff for cities that need to communicate the State budget crisis with impact and graphic flair!" Don Waldie, Public Information Officer, City of Lakewood Fremont Attorney Approved! Newsletter Template Specifications: (But no guarantees.) Computer System Apple/Macintosh Please check with your attorney prior to implementa- Software Program Aldus Illustrator tion in your city. Fonts (by Bitstream) Futura and Garamond Color Separation Black plus two colors Yes ! Send me a copy of Fremont's MONEY GRAB newsletter. "xhe Great ~,9a MONEY GRAB!" 3 Apple/Macintosh diskettes with template, text, 1 copy $150 graphics and three color separation. 3 Applo/Macintosh disks (Aldus Illustrator and fonts not included) Rush Service $ FAX or CALL Overnight Delivery $20 Karen George, PIO Sales Tax (for the State!) Add 8.25% City of Fremont, P.O. Box 5006 Fremont,(510) 494-4257CA 94537fax TOTAL ~. (510) 494-4809 voice Mail to: Payment Name Make checks and purchase orders Address payable to City of Fremont. City State ~ Zip BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May 19, 1993 TO' HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OFTHE~Y~L FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: RESPONSES TO COUNCIL BUDGET WOR~%HOP QySTIONS Attached is a summary form which 1.ists questions and staff responses for budget workshop.questions. We will prepare one of these sheets for each workshop session, and will attach any backup materials or memorandums. Each sheet will include the Councilmember asking the question, the responding party, and comments regarding the response. The comments may range from a simple answer to a more in-depth memorandum or materials. If for some reason any questions are inadvertently overlooked, please contact John Stinson so we may prepare a response. We hope this will provide a timely and adequate manner in which to respond to Your questions. AT:jp Attachment FY 1993-94 Proposed Budget 5/12/93 Workshop Responses Ques. COUNCIL QUESTION/SUBJECT RESPONDING COMMENTS Num. MEMBER PARTY 1 Brunni How are the PERS rates G. Klimko See attached memo. determined and calculated ? 2 Brunni What is the current status of J. Stinson See attached mayor and council the Hageman Rd. bddge ? update as of 4/30/93. 3 Brunni Is the Kern River Parkway within M. Dunwoody See attached memo. a MaJnt. Dist. ? And which enterprise fund pays for parkway maintenance MEMORANDUM MAY 19, 1993 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /./~/~~/~ FROM: GREGORY KLIMKO, FINANCE DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PROPOSED BUDGET 1993-94 CITY COUNCIL INQUIRIES Councilperson Brunni inquired as to the PERS rates used in the Budget estimates. A recent history of PERS rates follows: Miscellaneous Fire Police 7-1-90 5.724% 17.542% 17.542% 7-1-91 7.056% 18.144% 17.020% 7-1-92 5.695% 15.401% 14.512% 1-1-93 5.241% 14.485% 13.676% 7-1-93 Note 1 9.344% 15.097% 13.575% Notes 1) The miscellaneous increase of 4.103% effective 7-1-93 includes 3.961% attributable to a change in retirement plan to 2% @ 55 years of age. saj MGJK.43 juveniles (with their parents or guardians) spent four hours 'Wiping out" graffiti in the vicinity of Wilson and Real. The City matched and provided the paint. Parents and minors had to bring the other supplies. This pilot event will be part of an ongoing diversion program sponsored by the County Probation Department. Lookinq Good Neiqhborhood - The Economic/Community Development Department is restarting its "Looking Good Neighborhood" Program in the spring of 1993 which will have as the focal point the Ralston-Potomac neighborhood between Lakeview and Owens. Initial neighborhood meetings will be held on May 10 and May 11. The "good neighbor" program, which develops a commitment to the neighborhood by those who live in the area, focuses on vacant lot cleanups, paint days, housing rehabilitation, installation of smoke detectors, improving curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, street lighting and other neighborhood improvements. This program will culminate in the 3rd annual "Good Neighbor Festival" in the Fall of 1993. ....,-~ ~"~Hageman Road Bridge - This project has received design and environmental approval by the Bureau of Reclamation. City staff are awaiting the finalized agreement between the Bureau of Reclamation and the Friant-Kern users for review and approval by the City. The bridge will connect Coffee Road and Calloway, near the new Centennial High School. Construction could be under way within 90 days and would take approximately six months to complete. Staff are hopeful that the final agreement will be received from the Bureau and Friant water users by the end of May. j Motor Vehicle Emission Reduction Proiect - The City has received word from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District that the Evaluation Committee has included a City of Bakersfield $27,500 proposal to convert 11 vehicles to compressed natural gas vehicles in its list of preliminary projects for approval. The Evaluation Committee reviewed 117 project proposals from 82 entities requesting over $17 million. The Committee's preliminary recommendations are to fund 49 proposals for a total of $3,665,200. A special Governing Board Meeting is tentatively scheduled for May 6, 1993 for them to receive the preliminary package from the Evaluation Committee. Coffee Road - The Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District has reported that funding has been secured for the "overhead" separation of grade for the Santa Fe Railroad at Coffee Road. The Separation of Grade District will take the lead on the $8 million project, which is being funded by the State, the Greater Bakersfield Separation of Grade District, City (gas tax), and transportation development fees. '~~~"'i- ' ' '"' ' ' Ill ' From the Office of the City Manager U.S. Cold Storage - Grading work has begun on the United States Cold Storage plant at District and Ashe Road. Despite spring rains which delayed the start of construction, company officials expect the project to be completed on time by the end of 1993. When opened, the 90,000 square-foot plant will employ between 30 and 35 workers. Tegeler Hotel Update - A ribbon cutting for the grand reopening of the Tegeler Hotel is scheduled for TueSday, May 18, at 11 a.m. Economic and Community Development staff are working with the developer to organize and publicize the event. Invitations will be mailed shortly. State Farm Insurance - State Farm Insurance will hold a ground breaking event for its new Bakersfield administrative center on Tuesday, May 11 at 11 a.m. at the Sheraton Valley Inn. E/CD staff are working with State Farm to make a media event of the ground breaking. City Landfill - The City, in compliance with directions from the California Integrated Waste Management Board and Kern County Environmental Health, has reviewed methods to limit access to the City landfill facility from the Panorama/Columbus intersection. A fence is Currently being installed to discourage illegal access and entry into the facility. The next phase in closing the landfill is the development of a "burn dump assessment" and development of a "closure plans document." In the "burn dump assessment," the bluffs will be evaluated to determine the quantity and quality of ash present. The "closure plans document" that is generated will address CEQA issues and lay out conditions for closure, such as the. depth of coverage recommended in the "burn dump assessment." Implementation of the closure plan will probably not occur until 1994-95 at the earliest. Graffiti News - The board of the Secret Witness Program has agreed to accept donations from corporations and general members of the public which will be dedicated to graffiti eradication. In unrelated action, on Saturday, April 25, approximately a dozen BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM May 19, 1993 TO-ALANTANDY, CITYMANAGER I~~ FROM: M.A. DUNWOODY, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST I SUBJECT: Response to Council Question: Park Maintainer for Kern River Parkway Currently, the Kern River Parkway is not in a maintenance district. Maintenance of any improvements in the Parkway are performed by a park maintainer funded out of the Agricultural Water Fund. Until recently, maintenance was performed by one park maintainer, but additional improvements in the parkway require that another existing maintainer be shifted from the General Fund to the Agricultural Water Fund. As mitigation for Bakersfield's Kern River Channel Maintenance program, adopted in 1986, the Agricultural Water Fund would provide restoration and re-planting of the shoreline areas of the Kern-River channel through urban Bakersfield. This has included re-vegetation of visible floodplain areas, tree planting projects using funding from Urban Stream grants, and citizen volunteer groups. Since the program began, over 1,000 new trees and approximately 12 act.es of grass and shrubs have been planted between Truxtun Lake and the Mercy Par Course on Truxtun Extension. These developments, have required one full time park maintainer and equipment. With the addition in 1993 of 15 acres of developed parkway for the new group picnic area, and the new one acre turfed bicycle path rest area to be located at Truxtun Avenue and Coffee Road, an additional park maintainer would be required. An existing park maintainer would be shifted away from General Fund activities to the Agricultural Fund and used for maintenance of the new improvements along the parkway. The maintainers work for the Parks Division and are not budgeted directly in the Agricultural Water Fund. Rather, these costs are caputured by transfers from the Agricutural Water Fund to the General Fund through adminstrative cost allocations.