HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/93 BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. ~~ June 25, 1993
FROM' ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. There is a timetable enclosed for next year's round of CDBG Grant
Applications.
2. There is a nice letter enclosed from John Q. Hammons, thanking us for.
cooperating with their cost review team on the hotel. We do not have any
information, yet, on the cost estimate, although we know that they continue
to work. There is a status report enclosed.
3. We continue to get updates from the State budget with many issues still
unresolved, as of this writing.
4. There is a letter enclosed from the County on the Fire Fund. We have
meetihgs next week on that issue, as well as the tax split issue, with Joe
Drew. The one on the tax split issue is with all of the cities in the
County. We are meeting together in advance of going to see Mr. Drew, so
that we can have a common position.
5. There is a memo on the South Beltway meeting enclosed.
6. There are responses to Council Referrals enclosed, including one involving
graffiti in the maintenance districts, one involving insurance in the
maintenance districts, and one involving the Polo Grounds.
7. There is a memo enclosed initiating a study on the travel issue that was
given to us by the Grand Jury.
8. The downtown booking facility is, apparently, going to be closed by the
Sheriff, even though the legislature seems to be easing off some of the
harsher elements of their financial capture. A memo from the Police Chief
is enclosed showing his short-term plan and outlining things being examined
for the longer term.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
June 25, lgg3
Page -2-
9. The time schedule on the bond issue for the hotel money issue, which would
include a sewer bond refunding the Calloway and Coffee Road bridge money
and the Northeast sewer money, is enclosed for your information.
AT.alb
Enclosures
cc: Department Heads
City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
June 18, 1993
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directorl
SUBJECT: Timetable for processing request for CDBG funds FY 93-94.
Attached for your information is the timeline associated with request for CDBG funds. This is
both for city departments and non-profits. I plan on distributing this at our next department head
meeting.
timetine.cbg
21 dUN 93 I0:07
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
1994-95 FISCAL YEAR
APPLICATION AND RELEASE OF FUNDS TIMETABLE
08/31/93 Invitation Notice to Non-Profit Organizations for 09/21/93
workshop, Invitation to City' Departments to submit proposals
08/31/93 Deadline for Public Notice to Papers
09/04/93 Notice of Public Meeting to appear in non-legal section of
Bakersfield Californian
09/08/93 Notice of Public Meeting to appear in non-legal section of
Bakersfield News Observer
09/09/93 Notice of 'Public Meeting to appear in non-legal section of El
Mexicalo
09/14/93 Public meeting at Council Chambers 6:00 p.m._
1501 Truxtun Avenue
09/16/93 Public meeting at Senior Center 6:00 p.m.
530 4th Street
09/21/93 City Non-Profit CDBG Application Workshop
11/30/93 Deadline for City departments and outside agencies to submit
proposals
12/01/93 to Review of Proposals by CD staff
O3/25/94
04/06/94 Administrative report due for 04/13/94 City Council meeting
04/13/94 Obtain permission from City Council to publish
"Proposed Statement"
04/20/94 Notice to appear in non-legal section of newspapers (3) for
"Proposed Statement"
05/11/94 Council meeting to approve application. (Final Statement)
(Tentative Date)
05/18~94 Final notice published in newspapers advertising the availability' of
"Final Statement"
05/24/94 Application mailed to HUD (3)
05/31/94 Application deadli ne
06/14/94 Activity summary sheets completed by CD Planners
06/15/94 Begin NEPA Assessment - submit information to Planning
Department requesting CEQA Assessment
07/19/94 Receive HUD FY 94-95 Grant Agreement (Tentative Date)
07/29/94 If applicable, release of funds for FY 94-95 CDBG Projects
08/24/94 City Council approves FY 94-95 Grant Agreement and submits to
HUD (tentative date)~
* NOTE: (60 day calendar clock deadline for City Council to
approve Agreement of mailed Grant Agreement)
Im:DB6
. CDBGAPP.1
6/15/93
JOHN Q. HAMMONS INDUSTRIES
JOHNQ. HAMMONS
June 17., 1993
Mr. Alan Tandy
City Manager
city df Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, MO 93301
Dear Mr. Tandy:
Just a brief note to express my sincere appreciation for the
cooperation your city showed our representatives when they visited
you this past week. We are hopeful that we can make this
opportunity work for you and our company as well. It is a tough
ball game today, but maybe.we.can make it-h~ppen~
May I state that %he,product-we ~ilI build will-be-superior to
theo~i~im~-l~layout~p~ahh~d ~he treatment for the front entrance
will be outstanding, .in our judgment, and I know the
reconfiguration of the floor plan is superior frOm an o~ nal
standpoint. All in all, I hope this project can come together
construction will start some of these days soon.
With very cordial good wishes, I am
Very sincerely yours,
HAMMONS
HOME OFFICE: JOHNQ. HAMMONSBUILDING, 300JOHNQ. HAMMONSPARKWAY, SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI6580B · TEL.(417)864-4300 FAX(417)864-8900
OFFICES IN: CINCINNATI (513) 891-1066 · SACRAMENTO (916) 338-5800
HOTEL EVALUATION CONTINUES
Evaluation of the costs, to complete the hotel continues: for the John Q. Hammonsgroup.
Beginning Monday, June 28th thru Thursday, July 1 st the hotel site will have numerous
subcontractors.reviewing the structure to establish cost estimates~ The cost evaluation is
.being coordinated by McDevitt, Street and Bovis, an engineering and constmction
consultant for John Q.. Hammons.
Hammons andtheir consultants' initial review of the project went well. They were
pleased'to see the lack of deterioration (mst) on the structure. (A small benefit to the last'
.few years of drought in the valley.) They also were impressed with the quality of work
originallY completed on thehotel, and said that our local trades people obviously have
high wOrk standards. Economic Development has provided a list of the original
subcontractors andother local companies for McDevitt, Street and Bovis to contact for
bids on the hOtel completion.
"~3~G:24:4G -> 8853~33788 Bakcrs£icld . Page
JU1,t-23-93 I,F-I) 13:58 LEAGUE OF C~ CITIES F~H HO, 9164448671 P, O1
.lm Bmmm mw ague of California Cities ·
TO: City Maria§ers
RE: State BudEet Update- The "Final" Approach7
A~ you undoubtedly know from considerable media coverage, the Legislature appears to
be on thc brink of crafting a final budget solutio~l, At 5:30 a.m. on Monday morning, the
Assembly adopted the overa~ '~9~get:i~i!l". Included in this bill was the assumption of a
$2.6 billion reduction to local governments. On Tuesday morning at 3:00 a.m. tho gev, ate
followed the Assembly's action and adopted the same budgct bill.
To implement the. targeted cuts for local goVernmcnt, a "trailcr" bm to the budge
needed. SB 113:5 is presently se~ a~s,~the, trailer bill for implementation of the $2.6
bdlion cut to .crees, counhes,, speaal~d~stnCts 8nd redevelopment agonaes. In tho bill, the
allocation of the cuts among local gove~nm,ents is established. At present tho, c cuts are
· Counties $1,998 mill/on
Cities 288 million
Special Dhtficts 244 million
Redevelopment Agendes 65 million
The allocation of the $288 million in ~ts among cities is done on a formula driven by
the.Original "AB 8" alloCati6~'fC/tieS';~oUld:;1O~ $288 million in proportion to the
amount of AB 8 thc dty received with a "cap" o£ $19.31 per capita. This formula is part.
of a h/ghly sensitive comprom/sc am0~g k~ey leghlators representing large urban areas of
the state. ::r ~:~',:.:L ,::.~:*:,I::.,~.:~,:;~::,-,;~'-:~.~: L:: ?, ::~:,;:
To help mamnuze the pain of the'brbPe~ vax,:'~ts, the bill contains the one-time
allocation o£ $130 null/on from ..... the Ti~sp.ortatton Planmng and Development ClTandD)
accolmt to c/t/es and counties:i:.Th~', Splii[:'0h: the=si30 million is presently holding at $90
mLIlion for cities and $40 million for counties. The $90 mill/onfor cities is based on the
pr°portlonat¢ amount of
estimated that the TP and D :iei~i~e;~i~plafi¢i/~PPrOximately 30 percent of the less in
property taxes.
In addition, cities will potefitially ~eceive a.p0rtion of the 1/2 cent sales tax revenues
from thc 1/2 cent sales measure which will be p~aced on thc November statewidc ballot,
~/~3793-:~G:25:32 -> 8853233?88 Ba~ers£1eld P~ge 2
' JUN-23-O3.~ED 13:58 LEAGUE OF Oh CITIES F~X NO,' 9164448671 P, 02
· if aP?roved by the ,voters. This revenue source will provide on-going, sal~ tax revenues
to cit/es stargng at approx/mately $99 mill/on the f/rst year and is dedicated for Public
safety purposes. The distribution of this revenue to cities is ,m~antly under intense
debate in the 'Legislature. As with the TI' and D monc~, thc formula will likely h~clud¢' a
dlsm'butlon factor based on fl~e amotmt of property i~x loss. Tl~e £ol'mula'c~rrenfly limits
the backffil to cities to approximately 50 percent of their property tax loss. There is also
discussion taking place about Hmitlng the aggregate amount of revenue item this sales
tax which can go to all ~e cities in each county. One of the figures being discussed is a
percent limit on the total amount o£ revenue all cities in a particular couaat~ may receive.
ff all of these measures to backfill property tax losses stay in plae~ through the final
budget negotiations, the ov~rall, net reduction to cities on a stateside basis will be
'approximately $99 million.
In its curr~nt version, the $65 million rexluCtion:!in tax increment revenues to
red~velopment agencies h~.m~q.y, eld ~9~ a one-year to a two-year proposal. Also,
language was inserted in the draft which obligates city gcner~ laud money, if a
redevelopment does not have sufficient unObllgated revenues available to pay its share of
the redevelopment cut. This general ~nd '~hook" had not surfaced formally until
yesterday.
No'and Low property tax ~6~S :~iiii~"ar::t~: ~cCx~lUdvd from auy propcrt~ tax ~ts under
the cun~nt provisions of th¢'-lespsl~on:~.~:esumably, No and Low prope .rt5 tax: cittes
would be excluded fi'om a~,Sf.:thi~4~d~ill,:~easums.
Based on the parameters of. th,e 16a~l..:g/~e~iit package at this hour - 1:00 p.m. on
Wednesday, June 23, 19937'
which i~cludcs the sales ta~:'~'~{0fi dad ~a0~implementation of the cuts to local
government. It is our best jadg/~iri~i:ttiat~ ~ ~roloilged delay of this packase, i.e.,
beyond Friday, will incrcase:~tbe~:exP~S/ir~ of:'¢ifies to deeper cuts, further assaults on
general city authority and other bizarre notiOns which seem ~o spring from times of
uncertainty such as this one;"~e.~messa§e is:' ~Adopt the Budget Now. lu~t Do It,
DEP,J:.E5
BERNARD C. BARMANN. SR. OFF~CE
COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY TOM CLO¢,
SYEPHEIN D. SCIflUE'FT
ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL OOLIN-h' OF
CHIEF DEPUTIES ADMINISTRATI';'E CENTER DONN.:. ~ WE,SM.'.'.
BRUCE DIVELBISS B,4KERSFIELD. CALiFORNL& 9330~
JOHN M GALLAGHER TELEPHONE ,~:"5,
jUne 17, 1993.
Mr. Alan Tandy
City Manager
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Allocation of county Fire Fund upon City Annexation
Dear Mr. Tandy:
We have met with the Board. of Supervisors concerning.'the City of
Bakersfield's concerns and claims relating to.the distribution of
fire fund taxes in recent city annexations. The. Board. requested
that I reply to your letter of May 4, 1993. After Our meeting with
your staff on May 17, this office did an extensive review of this
matter and met with Mr. Lunardini and Ms. Skousen on June 4.
We haVe tried to make a thorough 'and objective assessment of the
'City's claim because of'the consequences that will flow from a
failure.to resolve this matter amicably.
As we explained to Mr. Lunardini in our meeting of June '4, it is
our opinion that after Proposition 13 Revenue and Taxation Code
Section 99 provides the exclusive procedure for allocating property
tax revenues in an annexation. In addition, that same section
mandates that mistakes and inequities be remedied by renegotiating
the agreement. It is our view that the courts will not'depart from
these statutory requirements and'remedies.
It is my understanding the County Board (through the IGRC) and
staff are willing to meet as soon aspossible to discuss the Joint
Powers Agreement for Fire Services, future annexations, .and the
inequities that you have outlined in your letter of May 4.
Litigation of this matter will benefit no one in our view but only
damage both the City and the County in the eyes of our taxpayers.
Alan Tandy ~
June 17, 1993
Page 2
My office will do what it can to assist in a proper and expeditious
resolution of these matters. If you or Mr. Lunardini have
additional concerns or questions, please let me know. We want to
work with you for the benefit of our citizens.
Very truly yours,
.Bernard C. B~rmann, Esq.
County Counsel
cc: Larry Lunardini, 'Esq.
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~
FROM: Ed Schulz, Director of Public Works
DATE: June 21, 1993
SUBJECT: South Beltway EIR
Kern COG Board Meeting; June 17, 1993
At the Kern COG Board meeting held at 7:00 P.M., June 17 at the COG
conference room, the certification of the Final EIR for the South
Beltway Transportation Corridor was the first item on the agenda
after the consent calendar. This meeting was not scheduled as a
public hearing for the EIR. However, several citizens of Lamont
attended, under the impression that this was their last chance to.
comment on the location of the South Beltway (An article had
appeared in the Arvin Tiller that said that the route would be
decided on at this COG Board meeting).
The public comment period was devoted to comments on the South
Beltway. All of the comments received expressed the displeasure of
the residents of Lamont with the location of the South Beltway.
Several people were concerned with the increased flooding that they
assumed would occur with the adoption of a beltway near Lamont.
Another was concerned that the location of the beltway would
destroy various ethnic organizations in Lamont. Again, the
consensUs among the Lamont citizens seemed to be that a beltway
three miles south of Lamont along Bear Mountain Boulevard would be
in the best interests of Lamont.
Supervisor Shell made a motion that the EIR be amended and that
alternative route locations be studied - Bear Mountain Blvd. being
one of the alternatives. In addition, the City expects that an
alignment to the north of the preferred alignment also be studied.
The motion passed.
At the next COG Board meeting on July 15, Harland Bartholomew's
contract and work plan will be amended to include the amendment to
the EIR. Harland Bartholomew expects to have the amended draft EIR
out for review on September 1, 1993. October 15, 1993 would be the
end of the review period, with certification to follow in November.
CIT~ ~ANAGER-~
~ JdN 95 ~ ~?
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: FRANK FABBRI, PARK SUPERINTENDENT~'
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL #11926 - GRAFFITI IN CAMPUS PARK
The attached letter was mailed to Mr. Dan Crisp.
cc City Clerk
23 JUN 95 9:45
1993
Dan Crisp
% Valley Wireless Cable, .Inc.
5610 District Blvd.
Bakersfield, CA 93313
Dear Mr. Crisp:
During the City council meeting of June 9,1993 you spoke regarding
graffiti in Campus Park and suggested the clean-up cost be included
in the Maintenance District budget.
?
When a Maintenance District is established, the Public Works
Director files a report specifying which improvements will be
maintained by the District.
The'walls have been conSidered landscape improvements benefiting
the property owners of the affected subdivision and therefore have
always been included in our Maintenance District program. The cost
for materials and labor to repair Maintenance District walls has
always been charged to the District.
Very Truly Yours
Frank Fabbri
Park Superintendent
cc Connie Brunni
FF:bao'd
DanCrisp
4101:TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93309 (805) 326.3701
MEMORANDUM
June 21, 1993
TO Alan Tandy, City Manager'
FROM Lee Andersen, Community SerVices Manager~'~
SUBJECT 93-94 MAINTENANCE DISTRICT BUDGET - COUNCIL REFERRAL
#11931
During the June 9th Council Meeting, Councilmember Brunni requested
additional information regarding the amount included in the 93-94
Maintenance Districts' budget for Workers' Compensation and
liability and property insurance. Also requested was an
explanation of the water account increases pertaining to
Maintenance Districts.
The following is provided to address these questions:
SELF INSURANCE CHARGES FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
See attached schedule. Refer to highlighted items.
WATER RATE INCREASES FOR MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
The water account increased from $135,169 (92-93 budget) to
$194,233 (93-94 proposed budget). The increase of $59,000
represents a 44% increase. Justifications~for the increase are
provided below.
1. Approximately 20% of the increase can be attributed
to new parks and street landscaping. Maintenance
Districts' acreage increased from 146 to 176 acres.
2. City Water increased their monthly meter or service
charges. The increases range from 12% to 34% depending
upon size of meter (200 + meters).
~NaGE~ 3. Current 92-93 budget estimates did not include rate
or meter charge increases.
9:46 4. Proposed 93-94 budget estimates include a 8.9% rate
increase per utility companies.
Pag~ -2-
93-94 Maint. Dist. Budget
Council Referral #11931
5. There was also an increase in water consumption for
some areas without increasing the landscaping. This can
only be attributed to over irrigation. This is a major
concern of the Parks Division and Park Supervisors are
working with staff in an effort to reduce these costs.
GL:bao'd
93-94MDGL.memo ,
pARKS DIVISION '~:'
MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS '~ ii
ANALYSIS OF SALARIES, BENEFITS, LIABILITY
AND PROPERTY INSURANCE FOR THE ~'
1992-93 AND 1 993-94 FISCAL YEARS
'FILENAME:MD94ANAL
THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE DETAILS SALARIES, BENEFITS AND LIABILITY AND PROPERTY INSURANCE
PERTAINING TO THE 92-93 AND 93-94 MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS' BUDGET. ~'
.SALARIES:
P E R MAN ENT SALARI ES $450,1 76 $41 9,679 $30,497 7.27%
T EM PO RARY SALARI ES 295,952 258,958' 36,994 14.29%
OVERTIME 5,179 4,987 192 3.85%
VACATION/SICK LEAVE PAYOFF 3,926 3,941 (15) -0.38% ~
TOTAL SALARI ES '~ 755,233 687,565 67,668 9.84%
BENEFITS:
RETIREMENT COSTS 64,735 49,182 .1 5~553 31.62%
SOCIAL SECURITY 18,349 16,055 2,294 14.29%
MEDICAL & LIFE INSURANCE ' 51,946 47,319 4,627 9.78%
MEDICARE -6,493 '5,91 2 581 9.83%
U N EM PLOYM ENT 50,000 36,000 14,000 38.89%
TOTAL BENEFITS 201,395 175,114 26,281 15.01%.
LIABILITY & PROPERTY INSURANCE:
TOTAL LIABILITY & PROPERTY INSURANCE 13,246 . 9,657 3,589 37.16%
TOTAL ' $969,874 ' $872,336 $97,538 11.18%
BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
June 23, 1993
TO' HENRY ROSS, III, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGE~ AN~D~
GREGORY KLIMKO, FINANCE DIRECTORy~7~'~/
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /~ '~
SUBJECT: TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT
Recently, I received a letter from the Kern County Grand Jury regarding policy.
recommendations relating to travel and per diem reimbursements.
The conclusion of the Grand Jury's investigation is that travel and per diem
reimbursement for Kern County and cities are too liberal.
As a result of their findings, I would appreciate your coordination of a staff
study team to review the City's current policy on travel reimbursement.
If you have any questions or need further clarification,.please contact me.
AT:jp
PD 64-2759
e MEMORANDUM
TO S.E. BRUMMER, CHIEF OF POLICE
?/
~" FROM J.M. LEWIS, ASSISTANT CHIEF
..... ~' .... SUBJECT CLOSURE OF THE INTAKE RECEIVING CENTER
~,~ .... On June 29, 1993 at 0700 hours, the responSibility for
~i~i~'L.'.~ . receiving prisoners is being transferred from the Kern County
~iiiii!~?~i,i~i'i,... Sheriff's Office downtown Intake Receiving Center (IRC), to the
.~?~!i?i~,i'~!i'Lerdo Facility located approximately 15 miles north of 'downtown
--;, ,.. : If we were to continue our .present level of bookings and
'"' ....... .... transporting single prisoners, it's estimated that we would put
/'~ ~'~-' ~i-. over 500,000 additional miles on our fleet. Additionally, it is
~....:.. estimated that half of the prisoners interviewed by detectives
<i,,i'.?"~.~'., during follow-up investigations are now housed in the downtown
· .",', jail. The closure of this facility means that all interviews of
in-custody prisoners will now occur at the Lerdo Facility.
'-" The additional transportation time alone is estimated to
· ~ equal approximately 10 officer positions or 8% of our patrol
complement.
CiTY.~A~AG~R., In order to address this crucial and unforeseen event, we '-'~' have solicited input from all levels of the agency.
25 JU~ 95 ~1:. ~ Initially, we will be reducing our bookings by citing or
~:, %'~.,~:'?~.i..~ releasing and seeking a complaint on many violations that we
~ ~%~;~?~booked .in the past. This will not have a positive [npact on our
~ ~?~,=:-.~'.~·..~, bookmng fees as these are violations that the Sheriff's Office
~ !!~:?:,?..~:does not charge us for. It may have a long term negative impact,
'~ ~'i~(~i,~i~'.~i.~ as. the lack of being booked may influence the number.of suspects
:~%~iii! !i!~i{?i,%/-~?~;who' fail to show for court and warrants are issued. ,
.?~ V.~,~,. >~'~ . ', We are also look~ng at other areas to supplement manpower,
~-%?'~..~{}i.~;-~-~'. such as closzng our lobby to the public during specific night
~! (~"~.]~."'~:.'. hours, however, this will "provide minimal personnel and may have
-~i~,~i'?!.,~-.~ numerous disadvantages to our operation.
The consensus of staff for a long term option is the
".i-~' ~ purchase of a holding area and the implementation of a
'-~'" · '"~" transportation system. We are in contact with trailer
construction firms who have designed and built the appropriate
trailer facilities. We have exchanged working drawings and it's
anticipated that this purchase could cost between $40,000 -
$60,000. It's recommended that this be funded with asset
forfeiture funds. This piece of equipment would also serve as a
mobile booking facility in a major emergency.
To staff this system, it's recommended that we employ three
temporary transportation officers from 1700 - 0300 hours per
night These officers would be paid $11 47 per hour We would
anticipate the majority of this pool of temporary employees
coming from the Kern County Sheriff's Office and the Bakersfield
Police Department's Reserve Units. The City Attorney's Office
concurs that this would not violate federal rules as far as their
volunteer services are concerned, as long as we appropriately
monitor their hours. The cost of funding this unbudgeted and
unforeseen expense for one year is $125,597.
~.One officer will manage the trailer while the other two
~i~.' itransport prisoners using existing department transportation
JML: dpm
..... ~ .~
·. .....
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (JPA)
MARKS-ROOSt'BOND POOL
1993
June 21 City publish notice of Public Hearings
June 25 City receive Resolutions from Bond.Attorney to establish
JPA.
July 6 CDDA Public Hearing, presentation by Bond Counsel and
Underwriter, Resolution to Establish JPA (4.00 P.M.)'
July 7 All Participants meeting (12:00 P.M.)
July 7 City Public .Hearing, presentation by.Bond Counsel and
Underwriter, Resolutions to establish JPA, issue bonds
and contracts appointing Bond Counsel and Underwriter
(7:00 P.'M.).
July 23 Bond Counsel provides first (lst) draft of the Indenture.
Aug. 6/9 Underwriter provides first (lst) draft of the Official
Statement (OS).~
Aug. 16 All participants conference call (10:00 A.M.).
Aug. 30 'Bond Counsel provides Second (2nd) draft of the
Indenture.
Sept. 9 Underwriter provides second (2nd) draft of the Official
Statement (OS).'
Sept.
20/21 Trip to NYC to meet with bond insurers and Bond Rating
Agencies.
Oct. 19 Underwriter markets the bonds.
Nov. 8 Bond Pre,closing.
Nov. 9 Bond Closing.
krc
GJK.13
MEMORANDUM
June 22, 1993
TO: Councilman Salvaggio /~ j
FROM: Jack Hardisty, Planning lJi[~t°r2~'.- ~-~'r
SUBJECT: Mobile Home at 7639 Wible/Road'
Dismantling at 7725 Wible Road
Staff has reviewed the complaint by Mr. Wurtz. At 7639 Wible Road the inspector
found a 60 foot mobile home, sheep and goats. The owner was given a correction notice
and should be in compliance.
The dismantling business was annexed as a nonconforming use at 7725 Wible Road. Its
permit was approved by the county as a nonconforming use in existence before zoning
was adopted for the area.
JH:kl
cc: Alan Tandy
24 JUN 95 ~ 47
MEMORANDUM
June 21, 1993
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JACK HARDISTY, PLANNING DIRECTS'
RE: LETTER FROM KERN CANYON ESTATES
/
Neither Kern Canyon Estates nor the Jr. High School under construction are in the city although
we are in the process of annexing the school. The school construction is reviewed and permitted
by the sate and is not subject to local building codes. This seems to be an issue between
neighbors in the county beyond our control.
JH/iw
C~T¥ MANAGHR~
223L~193 ~ 22
KERN CANYON ESTATES
8536 KERN CANYON ROAD
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93306
TELEPHONE: (805) 366-7261
24 May 93
Ed Waterman AT1/q: City Manager
Bakersfield City School District City of Bakersfield
1300 Baker 1501 Truxton
Bakersfield, CA. 93305 . Bakersfield, CA. 93301
RE: KERN CANYON ESTATES
Gentlemen:
There are'some issues which directly affect our some 500 Residents
here at Kern Canyon Estates resulting from the. Jr. High School con-
struction. We know these issues were originally discussed due to
their direct and immediate impact on the Residents in this Park,
specifically, the Residents i~mediately adjacent to your construc-
tion.
1) DIRT - We're sure that you cannot possibly visualize the quan-
tity of dirt that settles on the homes and vehicles of oir Resi-
dents everyday. We know that construction crew(s) are instructed
to water down the area periodically to settle the dirt. Usually,
however, when we go up there the water truck is either parked or
not there. A~ditionally, we know that the crews are told not to
exceed !5mph with their vehicles.
.2) SLOPES - When the slopes immediately behind a row of our Resi-
dents ware created, wa were advised that. landscaping ~3uld take
place right away to control dust and erosion, and as a replace-
ment for the views which were taken away from the Residents.
Happily, one portion of the slopes was done; another section in-
.explicably not. done. Please advise us when these slopes will be
completed.
3) RETAINING WALL - This is by far the most serious of all. A
partial retaining wall was constructed at the bottom of the slopes
but even with ground level. This means that any irrigation leaks
or heauy rains w~uld cause top dirt and rock to wash directly in-
to these Resident's yards. We don't understand why the wall was
not raised above the level of the ground which ~uld prevent the
above from occurring.
Page 2
24 May 93
RE: KERN CANYON ESTATES (continued)
Another serious problem to address is directly below your backflow
device.. There is a section at the base of the hill containing no
retaining wall whatsoever. This to us defies explanation .and has
the potential for the most damage of all.
We are sending copies of this letter to all of our Residents, City
Council and Board of Supervisors m~mbers and anyone else who may
have some authority in the matter. Our only concern is to prevent
a serious problem before it' OCcurs and ~Duld appreciate a response
as soon as possible.
Harry & ~wen AlcOCk
(XI~4UNITY MANAGERS
cc: Residents of Kern Canyon Estates City Council
Board of Supervisors
MEMORANDUM
June 22, 1993 ;
Per your inquiry, the following chronology highlights various City Council actions which have
modified the Polo Grounds development project since its' approval in March of 1990. These are
pursuant to Planning Commission recommendations on applications filed with the city.
March 7, 1990: City Council approves Polo Grounds development on 1,452 acres. The original
approval includes 4,593 dwelling units, 3 commercial sites and a 52-acre Polo Grounds equestrian
facility.
D. ecember 30, 1990: Planning Commission approves ~Master Equestrian Trail System" for Polo
Grounds.
February_ 19, 1991: Minor land use change adopted. No substantive change to either equestrian
trail system or equestrian facility site.
May 22, 1991: Reduction of the 52-acre Polo Grounds equestrian facility to 14 acres adopted,
November 6, 1991: All zoning in the Polo Grounds development that permitted the keeping of
horses outside the 14-acre equestrian facility was removed.
November 18, 1992: Six of the nine miles of the planned equestrian trail system was removed.
MG:pjt
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
1\mcc6.21
24 d.h~ 93 ~ 47