The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/18/94 ------ ~ . - B A K E R 5 F I E L D MEMORANDUM February 18, 1994 TO: HONORABLE ~OR AND C~ COUNC! L ~t? ~ tó{ FROM: ALAN TAND~, CITY ANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The Civil Service interview process was conducted this week and early next week the Commission should certify a list of three finalist applicants on the Public Works Director position. 2. We have forwarded all of the revised Fire documents to Kern County and will be encouraging a meeting with them regarding the JPA, consulting study on the Fire Departments, etc., as soon as they are available. 3. You will find enclosed a copy of a lobbying letter we sent to our State representatives in regard to the Fire Station No.2 grant, which has been approved but which requires an appropriation from the legislature. 4. Enclosed, for your information, is a memo from Greg Kl imko regarding financial data related to the Hotel project. 5. A forecast on the Kern River Water supply is enclosed for your information. 6. We are continuing to work on the prostitution and drug loitering ordinances I I and will strive to have them for the first Council meeting in March. I 7. The Kern County City Managers met again this week with the County over the issue of the tax splits. Although there was considerable discussion regardi ng the loss of revenues to the County and the cost of servi ces assumed by cities upon annexation, no real resolution was achieved. We wi 11 continue to work wi th the Kern County Ci ty Managers group and the County to develop a mutually-agreeable solution for this ongoing problem. We are attempting to get a response from the County as to how annexations will be processed until a solution is found. 8. The Fire Department personnel seem, to me, to be reflecting some morale improvement as a result of new communication initiatives and discussion of a management development program. I think we are seeing an opportunity for improved understanding! AT.alb Enclosures Department Heads " cc: 'I City Cl erk 'i ------- . .-~. 4 . -- B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy. City Manager February 15, 1994 The Honorable Phil Wyman The State Senate State Capitol Building, Room 4062 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Wyman: The City of Bakersfield is writing to ask for your support and assistance in its successful award of funding for Project SPS 3108 pursuant to the Earthquake Safety and Public Building Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1990 to retrofit Fire Station 2, 716 East 21 st Street, Bakersfield, CA. Fire Station 2 has been determined by Government Code 8875 et seq. to be seismically deficient and is not expected to be operational after a major earthquake. Repair or replacement of this station is a high priority with the City of Bakersfield. The service area for Fire Station 2 is ethnically diverse and serves as a community public service center. In 1992, the station responded to an average of 6.5 emergency calls per day, or 2,377 for the year. In the event 01 a major earthquake, Fire Station 2 will be a key response station for emergency services for the City, and unless work is done to retrofit as proposed, community needs may not be met. Our proposal ensures the continuation of vital public services. The Office of the State Architect has informed us that our Project SPS 3108 has been selected for inclusion in the grants list submitted to the State Department of Finance. While this is optimistic news, it does not necessarily guarantee that we will be awarded funding. It is our understanding that the State Department of Finance must recommend inclusion of our project in the annual Budget Bill or within other legislation. As the governmental entity charged with the health and safety of the Bakersfield community, we ask your support in sending a letter of endorsement to the Department of Finance and to Senator Charles Calderon the Chairperson of the Toxic and Public Safety Committee on our behalf. An excerpt of our grant application which highlights the structural engineer's report is attached; however, if you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. AT:jp Attachment City of Bakersfield. City Manager's Office. 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. California. 93301 (805) 326-3751 . Fax (805) 324-1850 .7.~' Distribution for letter of February 15, 1994 to local legislators requesting support for Grant Application for Fire Station 2. The Honorable Phil Wyman The State Senate State Capitol Building, Room 4062 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Jim Costa The State Assembly State Capitol Building, Room 2158 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Trice Harvey State Assemblyman 100 W. Columbus Street, #201 Bakersfield, CA 93301 .. ¡ ! : WARREN A. MINNER & ASSOC~ATES 1 I STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS 1716 OAK STREET \ BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93301 PHONE (805) 324-9724 FAX (805) 324-3416 ( STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION ) IDi City of Bakersfield DATE: September 10, 1993 I Department of Public Works 1501 Truxtun Avenue I Bakersfield, California 93301 I Attention: Marian Shaw I PROJECT: BAKERSFIELD CITY FIRE S T A TI 0 N #2 INVFSTIGATION: STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION 716 EAST 21ST STREET BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93305 iliJ PURPO S E J 1. To inspect and analyze the main Fire Station building to detennine its relative earthquake safety and to make recommendations for seismic strengthening. 1 2. To provide a cost estimate for strengthening and rehabilitation of the building. CONCLUSIONS .J 1. The building was constructed with unreinforce«ll masonry walls. This is true of not only the original 1905 building but also the 1939 alteration and addition. J According to the design drawings, the new portion of the building (built in 1939) was designed to contain reinforced masonry walls. However, investigations \ performed by Brian L. Ward, Structural Engineer, Inc. and Brian D. Marier of BSK & Associates indicated that no rebar was present in most of the masonry walls. Even if the walls had been reinforced as specified on the 1939 plans, this ! reinforcing would not be adequate by today's Uniform Building Code requirements. Observations of an old film of the construction also seem to indicate that no reinforcing was placed in most of the walls. Locations not confirmed by previous J inspection to contain steel rebar were assumed to contain no rebar in our analysis. 1 J I I ] ! .' I < STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION PAGE 2 ! Ms. Marian Shaw September 10, 1993 [ CONCLUSIONS (Continued) < \ 2. By Ordinance No. 3302 of the City of Bakersfield, Fire Station No.2 falls under the scope of Chapter 15.40 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relating to \ Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings (URM). However, Fire ! Station No.2 does not fall within the scope of the 1991 Uniform Code for Building Conservation (UCBC) "Seismic Strengthening Provisions for Unreinforced I Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings" because Section A102(c) excludes "essential" facilities. The UCBC provisions and those of Chapter 15.40 are nearly identical; thus, their scope should be identical. For these reasons, we interpret UCBC I Section A102(c) as excluding essential facilities from URM criteria and requiring that essential facilities such as Fire Station No.2 should be brought up to current building code standards. This includes the 25 % increase in seismic design loads ¡ required for essential facilities (see Appendix UBC excerpt). A fire station should remain operational in the aftermath of an earthquake. Furthermore, the purpose of I safety stated in UCBC Section AlO1 is too minimal for essential facilities (see UCBC excerpts in the Appendix). 3. The masonry shear analysis and work required for strengthening were based on ] assumed masonry shear test values for 40 psi. Masonry shear tests must be performed before engineering any rehabilitation. I 4. The following deficiencies were found. In order to meet the current 1991 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) code for essential facilities, all of these deficiencies must be corrected. (Required work to correct the deficiencies is I described in the "Recommendations" section of this report.) Deficiencies J . All masonry walls must be strengthened with vertical and horizontal steel reinforcements. Some penetrations in the walls should be filled with concrete. J . The deteriorated masonry walls of the original engine room will require replacement. Pointing would be inadequate due to severe deterioration I < observed. . Parapets should be strengthened along with the walls. j . Roof diaphragms of the engine room and hose tower must be strengthened with new plywood roof diaphragms. . Roof diaphragm connections in the engine room must be strengthened. J . The non-ductile R/C frame at the entry to the engine room (south wall) must be strengthened with a new ductile WC frame. . The hose tower must be strengthened and braced with new gunite shear walls for the entire height of the tower and the walls must be reinforced. The tower j must be tied to the main engine room roof diaphragm. . Penetrations in some dormitory walls must be filled and the walls strengthened. I ,- : STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION PAGE 3 '. . Ms. Marian Shaw September 10, 1993 , CONCLUSIONS (Continued) I 5. The nearby shop and utility buildings also contain many URM walls. These buildings should be brought up to code or demolished the same as for the main fire ¡ station structure. The old buildings not being used should be demolished to allow I use of their site areas for parking, storage or other uses. These building are not reviewed in this report. I 6. The estimated total project costs of correcting the deficiencies found are: By Strengthening & Rebabilitation - $432,000 I (including engineering) ¡ The costs are preliminary estimates and must be verified. They include all costs for the main fire station building only. I RECOMMENDATIONS If the City decides to strengthen and rehabilitate the substandard Fire Station structure, the ,J following program is recommended. ¡'" . Wall Strengthening ] Steel reinforcement must be added. Remove one wythe of brick, likely the interior wythe, to preserve the building I s exterior historical appearance. At I intervals of 8'-0" +, remove a second wythe of brick to form vertical ribs. This will both stiffen the walls and tie-in the outside course of brick to new gunite concrete inside wall. Place horizontal and vertical rebar in accordance with J 1991 UBC requirements for reinforced masonry walls. New steel rebar must be adequately lapped to new or existing dowels into the existing foundation, bond beams and columns. Then gunite the entire wall with 4000 P.S.I. shotcrete. ] Walls requiring strengthening are: all perimeter masonry walls, all engine room walls, the wall between the dormitory and the bathroom and the wall between ! the bathroom and the squad room (and kitchen). ..1 In some locations, it may be desirable to fill wall penetrations with concrete to provide more continuity and shear resistance in the wall. . Parapet Bracing .01 The parapets contain vertical steel that is inadequate. Also, they do not contain horizontal steel as required by the UBC. They should be strengthened at the 1 same time the walls are being strengthened to compensate for this deficiency. ..J ] . i " STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION PAGE 4 Ms. Marian Shaw September 10, 1993 ( RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued) I . Roof and ceiling diaphragm connections in the engine room must be strengthened. Add additional anchor bolts and ties. In addition, plywood sheathing must be installed on top of the existing 2x6 rafters after removal of ( the 1x6 diagonal sheathing to form a rigid diaphragm of adequate strength. Use 5/8" plywood panels with lOd plywood nails. Ceiling joist anchorage must also be improved. ! . The hose tower must be strengthened and braced. The tower walls contain vertical steel above the engine room roof line. However, the UBC requires horizontal steel. The tower walls below roof line are URM. To correct this deficiency, all walls of the hose tower must be strengthened with gunite and steel reinforcement as described above under "Wall Strengthening." For added ! bracing, the comers of the hose tower should include heavily reinforced gunite ribs, somewhat like small columns. . Replace the heavily deteriorated brick and mortar walls of the engine room f (Le., all walls to the front half of the engine room). New structural concrete block with brick veneer may be used. ;J . Point all deteriorated mortar joints. I I . Refinish the entire building, inside and out, at locations of new construction. J I Note: Many design professionals use a rule of 60% to determine whether it is I better to fIX or rehabilitate an old structure or replace it with a new one. If the cost of rehabilitation and repair exceeds 60% of the replacement costs, then your funds can usually be best invested in a new replacement structure. The ...! cost of rehabilitation of the Bakersfield City Fire Station #2 will not exceed 60% of the cost of a new replacement structure which, by preliminary estimates, is approximately $780,000.00 (construction costs only). J I J ., I ¡ J : . I - STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION PAGE 5 I Ms. Marian Shaw September 10. 1993 ) I ITEM UNIT COST it QUANTITY TOTAL \ (a) Demolition (Selective) $4.29/ft2 j( 7,320 $31,400.00 (b) Strengthening of wall and parapets $16.00/ft2 x 9,100 $145,600.00 I (gunite and reinforcing) (c) New engine room reinforced concrete $500.00/C.Y. x 10.0 $5,000.00 ductile frame and south entry wall I (including footing) (d) Add reinforcing and gunite to hose tower $16.00/ft2 j( 1,210 $19,400.00 J (e) Tie and anchor engine room and hose $20.00/ft x 240 $4,800.00 tower walls to the roof diaphragm (f) New 5/8" plywood roof sheathing at $1.20/ft2 j( 3,500 $4,200.00 I engine room and hose tower (g) Remove and replace engine room roofing $3.00/ft2 j( 3,500 $10,500.00 (h) Repair and patch dormitory roofing $15.00/ft x 180 $2,700.00 J (i) Anchor mechanical and electrical $ .34/ft:! j( 7,320 $2,500.00 equipment for seismic loads I ij) Relocated mechanical and electrical Lump Sum $22,800.00 equipment and fixtures (k) New and relocated architectural finishes $4.921ft2 j( 7,320 $36,000.00 - ¡ and equipment. New partitions, complete building refinishing, etc. ] ::::::¡ ::¡:¡¡:r~¡::::::¡::¡:::::¡:¡¡¡::¡:::::¡::::::::::::::¡::::¡:~¡::::: ::::::::::¡:::::::::.:~:::::::::¡::::::::¡: :¡:::¡::¡ ::t;:::::,:;¡:::::,:,:¡:::::::. i:Rlí§ li~:;;~:::::::::.::: ::::,:::::::::::::::::¡::::~:¡¡:¡::¡::::::::::¡: ::::::::¡¡¡¡:::'~¡:¡:¡:::::::::¡::¡::::¡::::::¡::;::::;::::~:::¡:¡:¡::¡::::::::::~,:::~:.::¡:::::¡:,:':,illf~ II:~B:~~ :::::¡::::,:. O&P 15% x Subtotal $42,700.00 General Contractor Bonds 1 % x Subtotal $2,800.00 ] :::::::::: :::::::::::::::::;':::::::::::!i:i:::!:!::':!::: :::::::::::::::::::'::!:::::::::: if::::::!::::::::::::::::::::!:::::::::::::::: if:::::::: :::' :':::!:::: ::¡fig 11I11 p::::::::: :::::: :::::::,::i::::: ::::::::::::::i:::::::::;:ilii:::::::: :i::;:::::::::;:!¡:::!:!:!:!:¡:::¡:::!:!:::::::!:::::::::::!:::;:¡;!::::: ::::!:::::::::::::::::::: ::::~!lg~IIl~@R:::: :::: ¡i: ::::, Contingency 15% x Subtotal $49,600.00 .J ITEM TOTAL J (a) Engineering - design, drafting, City approval, bids, field supervision, $38,000.00 construction inspections, final inspection and acceptance, etc. (structural, architectural, mechanical and electrical) ] (b) Prints, reimbursables $4,000.00 (c) Special inspections, testing $8,000.00 1 (d) Permit $2,000.00 J ] ~--- ~ . I i . STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION PAGE 6 ! Ms. Marian Shaw September 10, 1993 I 1 HISTORY The Bakersfield City Fire Station #2 was originally constructed in 1905. It was extensively ¡ altered in 1939. The second floor living quarters were removed from over the engine room and rebuilt to the east. A new front wall was built for the engine room and the engine room was enlarged by extending it to the rear (north). A new hose tower was added. The new ¡ walls were intended to be reinforced brick, but the reinforcing was not installed. This means all the walls of the main building are unreinforced masonry. They would be hazardous to the station I s occupants if there is a moderate to major earthquake. This is not acceptable for an ¡ essential facility that should remain operational after an earthq1JRke or other natural disaster or emergency. '! Some historians and members of the Fire Department staff feel this station has historical significance. The living quarters are attractive and warm with their tile floors and brick walls ¡ and arches. Some of this, such as the brick walls, would be lost if the rehabilitation is made in the most economical way. It is possible the City may wish to proceed with a detailed rehabilitation to preserve an early landmark even though this will likely add to their J rehabilitation costs. If this is desired, I would suggest that consideration be given to having the building registered as a .historic building. We would then follow the guidelines of the "State Historical Building Code." We could follow these guidelines, if you wish, even if the ] building is not declared a historic building. INVESTIGATION ¡ Structural and architectural plans were available for the work performed on the building in 1939. However, no plans were available for the original building erected in 1905. Previous J investigations performed by Brian L. Ward and BSK & Associates were used extensively for reference. In particular, they showed that portions of the building did not follow the plans, J e.g., steel reinforcing was called for in the plans but nonexistent in the wall. Our office performed two inspections, a preliminary inspection on September 27, 1991, and I another on October 14, 1991. A Soiltest CT -4950 micro covermeter was used to spot check various walls throughout the - ,f building not mentioned in previous reports. Some walls were completely unreinforced. Roof diaphragm connections near the crawl spaces were examined. The connection details J appeared to differ from drawings. More bolts are necessary. Nearby shop and utility buildings contain URM walls. In some cases they are hybrid URM J brick walls plus reinforced concrete block. These structures appeared to be used primarily for dead storage. They do not appear to be of great value and are very likely hazardous structures. They are non-conforming structures. They are in poor condition and not worth J rehabilitation. ] - -------- . . i STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION PAGE 7 : . I Ms. Marian Shaw September 10, 1993 ! SUMMARY I The building can be strengthened to confonn to present day Unifonn Building Code Standards for "essential" facilities at approximately the costs estimated above. However, the ) improvements are necessary and expensive, much more expensive per square foot than typical \ nonessential building URM rehabilitations. The estimated total project costs are still considerably less than the cost of a new replacement structure. Exact costs will be determined I after plans are prepared and bids taken. I Very truly yours, W AHREN A. MIINNER & ASSOCIATES ; I STRUCTURAL & CIVIL ENGINEERS 4/¿' ak I ? "~ ~ ~~ Nestor Agbayani Design Engineer J W AM: NA: cab Enclosures I I J ] I ! I ---1 J J ] ---- ------- ;.> .. ~ . I - B A K E R 5 F I E L D i , MEMORANDUM February 18, 1994 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~ FROM: GREGORY J. KLlMKO, FINANCE OIRECTOR ;1f SUBJECT: ANNUAL RENTAL - BALLROOM - $90,000 During our continued negotiations on the Convention Center Hotel project, in August, 1993, I provided you with a preliminary estimate of a $90,000 variance between taxable and tax exempt annual debt service on $2.4 million. At the time, the Hammons group was requesting a 15-year management contract on the ballroom and meeting rooms which would require them to be financed with taxable bonds, since the 5% non-qualifying tax exempt ($3 million) was going to be dedicated to Hotel construction. The attached schedules were run by First California Capital Markets Group (the Underwriter) in August, 1993. Taxable Debt Service - 15 years $ 4,024,000 Tax-Exempt Debt Service - 15 years (2,969,690) Difference Attributable to Taxable } 1,054,310 Di fference to be recovered over 12 years (years 4 through 15) of the Lease Agreement: $1,054,310 + 12 years = $87,859, rounded to $90,000. As it turns out, $90,000 is also the difference in annual interest between today's taxable (9%) rate and tax exempt (6%) rate on the $3 million Hotel portion no longer to be financed by the Bakersfield Public Financing Authority. GJK.alb Attachments , " ~- ~--- ~ - ~'" .... ,v" ~......v -......'" vv- .vvv ...,-- ----_.~._._.- - ,~ . ~ITY OF BAKERSFIELD $2.4 MN TAXASLe, NOIiRATEO SŒJlAR10 1C1 """""- DEST SERVICE SCHEDUt.E ".-- - DATE PRINCIPAL COUPOI ¡ NTEHST PE[Um TOTAL HSCAL TOTAl ..------ -------.------ ----.----- __._0_..___.-. -------------- __--0_.-.-...- 101 1/9~ 15,000.00 10.000000 2SZ,SOO.oo 1:67,500_00 ,'-1,500.00 101 1195 15,000,00 10.000000 251,000.00 ~66,OOO.OO 266,000.00 10/ 1/96 ,0,000.00 10.000000 249,500.00 269,500.00 269.500.00 101 1/9'7 20,000.00 1 0 . 000000 ZItT ,SOO.GO 267,500.00 U7'.500.ØQ 10/ 1198 20,000.00 10.000000 2'5.500.00 ~,5oo.00 265.500.00 tOI 1m 25,000.00 10.000000 ,43.500.00 268.500.00 Z6I,500.oo If!O')Yooo 10/1/ o 25,000.00 10.00000o Z41,DOO.00 266.000.00 ,66,000.00 10/1/1 30.000.00 10.000000 238,500.00 Z68.500.00 268,500.00 "/ / 10/ 1/-2. ... .. 35',008.00 10.000000 . -235:,'50G.OO ... &70.500.00 270,500.00 10/1/3 35,000.00 10.000000 232.000.00 261,000.00 261,000.00 101 1/ ~ 40,000.00 10.00a000 zza,Soo.oo 268,500.00 268,500.00 1011/5 45,000.00 10.000000 2Z4,500.oo 269.500.00 269,500.00 1011/6 50,000.00 10.000000. .~. ZZD.OOO.OO 270,000.00 270,000.00 10/117 55,000.00 10.000000.. 215.0DO.DO 270.000.00 270.000.00 10/11 8 60,000.110 10.000000... 209,500.00 269,500.00 269.500.00 .. 10/119 65,000.00 10.0000D0 203,500.00 268,500.00 268,500.00 10/ 1/10 70,000.00 10.OCOOOO 197,ðOO.00 267,000.00 267,000.00 1011/1' 75,DOØ.oo' 10.000DOO 190,000.00 2155,000.00 265.000.00 101 1/12 85,DOØ.oo 10.00000o 182.500.00 267,500.00 267,500.00 10/1/13 Q5,DOO.DO 10.000000 174,000.00 2å9~0D0.OO 269,000.00 10/1/14 105,000.00 10.000000 164,500.00 269,500.00 269,500.00 1011/15 115,000.00 10.000000 154,000.00 269,000.00 :!&9,OOO.OO to/1/t6 125,000.00 10.000000 1'2,500.00 ;¡67,500.00 267,500.00 10/1/17 135,000.00 10.000000 130.000.00 265,000.00 265,000.00 101 "'8 150,000.00 10.000000 11 6,SOO.OO 266,500.00 266,500.00 10/1/19 16S,OOO.00 10.000000 101,500.00 266,500.00 266,500.00 'Of. 1/20 185,000.00 10.000000 a5,ooo.OO 270,000.00 270,000.00 10/1/21 200,000.00 10.000000 66,500.00 266,500.00 266,500.00 10/ 1/U 220,000.00 10.000000 46,500.00 666,500.00 266,500.00 10/ 11Z3 2~5,OOO.OO 10.000000 24.500.00 Z69,500.00 269,500.00 _un--_____-- ,'...._OO__G.' ....---------- 2,525,000.00 5.512,500.00 8,037,500.00 ACCRUED Z,5zs,oaa.OD 5,!!12,500.00 8,037,500.00 ,,"B_~- =-~= - Dated to/ 1/93 with DeLivery of 10/1/93 RUIiDATE: oa.1T.,m ¡¡ 15:36:58 FILEHAJIIf: l"11Kf; KEY: SAIŒRSFIELD3C , -----~--- ,-,- 38/:;2/93 37:49 ~U5 982 1855 FIRST CALIFORNIA i4I 005/009 .. CITY OF BAŒRSFIELD $2.4 MM TAX EXEMPT, NOMRATED SCEIIARID 1CZ :s - DEBT seRvice SCIU!DU1J! - --~ PATE PRINCIPAL CŒPOII INTUEST PEIUœ TOTAL FISCAL TOTAL ....--.. .-.-.-..-...-- .--...--.. .......-....-. ._.'DC".__--- -.---..--..--- 10/1194 30,000.00 4.000000 167,53T.50 197,537.50 197,537.50 10/ 1195 30,000.00 '.5000G0 166,337.50 1%,337.50 196,337.50 101 1/96 35,000.00 4.5000G0 164,9&7.50 199,987.50 199,987.50 10/1/91 35,000.00 5.ZSØDOO 163,412.50 198,412.'0 191,412.50 10/1198 35.000.00 5.500000 161.575.00 196.575.00 196,575.00 I 10/ 1199 40,000.00 5.750000 159,650.00 199,650.00 199,650.00 ~ 7~~ ~ ~C> 10/110 40,000.00 6.00œa0 151.350.00 197,350.00 197 ,350.00 10/1/1 - '~,~o;09 6 . ZOUOOO _J!4.,~~~!w 199,950.00 199,~O.00 10/11 Z 45,000,00 6 . 400000 152,l60.CIU 197,160.00 191,160.00 10/11 J so,oao~œ' 6~6ÐIIUOO". 11,9 ,2BØ.oo. 199,280.00 199,280.00 10/1/4 50,000.00 6. roooao 145,980.00 195,98Ø.00 195,980.00 10/ 115 55,000.00 6. 8DODOO 142,630_00 191,630.00 191,630.00 10/1/6 60,030.00 6.911ØDOO 138,890.00 198,890.00 198,890.00 10/1/1 65,000.00 1. øaoøoo. 134,750.00 199.750.00 199,750.00 10/1/3 65,030.00 7.000000 130,200.00 195,200.00 195,200.00 10/ '/9 70,000.00 7. 00000o 125,650.00 195,650.00 195,650.00 10/1/10 75.000.00. 7.0000G0 120,750.00 195,750.00 195,750.00 10/1/11 sa,OOO.oo 7.00aa00 115.500.00 195,500.00 195.500.00 10/ '/12 90,000.00 1.0000D0 109.900.00 190.900.00 199,900.00 10/1/'! 95 ,000.00 T.OOoaao l03.600.aD 19a,~.oO 198,6QO.00 10/1/14 100,000.00 7.000000 9669S0.00 196,950.00 196,950.00 10/1/15 1as .000.00 7.000000 89,950.00 1 !)t,,950. DO '~,950.oo 10/1/16 115,000.00 7.000000 82.600.00 197,600.0(1 197,600.00 10/1/'7 125,000.00 7.000000 74,550.00 199,550.00 199,550.00 101 1/1a 130,000.00 7.000000 65 ,800.00 195,800.00 195,800.00 101 1/" 140,000.00 T.OOOOoo 56.7DO.ac 196,700.00 196,700.00 10/1/20 150,000.00 7. 000000 46.900.00 196,900.00 196,900.00 101 1n, 160,000.00 7.000000 36,400.00 196,400.00 196,400.00 10/ 11ZZ 175,000.00 7.000000 25,200.00 ZOO, 200.00 ZOO,ZOO.OO 10/ l/Z3 185,000.00 7.000000 12,950.00 197,950.00 197,950.00 -------------- ----------.--- -------------- :/:,475,000.00 3,4",090.00 5.9Z8.090.00 AI:CRUfØ 2,'"75,000.00 3."53,090.00 5,92B,O90.00 - -== -,,~... ="""-' .. Oat8cl101 1/93 with Delivery of 10/ 1/93 RUNDATE: 08-11-1993 ãI 08:41:35 F I I.ÐIAME: III IE KEY: ßAIŒRSFIELD3CZ . ~fËCCfE~VfEro \ I , , 'I FFR I E:i 1994 ': I 1994 KERN RIVER WATER SUPPLY FORECAST ~m MANAGER'S OFFICE Distribution List C.H. Williams Kern River Watermaster Dana S. Munn North Kern Water Storage District John L. Jones Cawe1o Water District I' C.W. Bowers I Kern-Tulare W.D. - Rag Gulch W.D. Robert K. Bellue Improvement District No.4 Mary conup Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District Gilbert Castle Kern Delta Water District ~an Tandy Gene Bogart Thomas Stetson Scott Slater Judy Skousen F. Core 02-15-94 _u_----- " CITY OF lRAI[IE~SIFTI1E IL,[)) CA LIFO R N I A DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION GENE BOGART, Manager FLORN CORE, Water Resources Director MIKE SIDES. Sanitation Superintendent - --. -. . -. February 15, 1994 RE: 1994 KERN RIVER WATER SUPPLY FORECASf The February I, 1994 forecast, issued by the State of California Department of Water Resources for Kern River runoff during the 1994 April through July snow-melt period is 43% of normal, or approximately 200,000 acre- feet. Snowpack verification was performed by the State of California and United States Forest Service during the last week of January 1994 with measurements obtained at twenty-one established snow courses and remote snow sensor sites located within the Kern River basin. The February I, 1994 forecast of Kern River runoff assumes median precipitation amounts will occur over the Kern River watershed subsequent to the date of forecast. According to procedure, actual precipitation received after February I, 1994 will be reflected in the first of the month forecasts to be circulated by the State for March, April and May of 1994. KERN RIVER FORECAST SUMMARY 1994 April through July runoff = 200,000 acre-feet (43% of normal) April-July 80% probability range = 110,000 acre-feet (24% of normal) to (actual runoff should fall within 520,000 acre-feet (113% of normal) the stated limits eight times out of ten) 1994 March-October runoff = 270,000 acre-feet Based upon this February I, 1994 forecast, the following table reflects City of Bakersfield Kern River water supply during the March-October period of 1994: I. CITY ENTITLEMENT SUPPLY: 43% OF NORMAL RUNOFF MARCH-OcrOBER Period = 65,000 acre-feet Less: River Losses = 7,000 acre-feet Isabella Reservoir Losses = 5,000 acre-feet = Estimated City supply available for diversion MARCH-OcrOBER = 53,000 acre-feet 1000 BUENA VISTA ROAD . BAKERSFIELD. CALIFORNIA 93311 . (80S) 326.3715 -~- -- ----- -- - ------ . February 15, 1994 1994 KERN RIVER WATER SUPPLY FORECAST Page 2 II. BASIC CONTRACf DELIVERY (March-October): As outlined above, a 43% of normal runoff will not yield a full supply for "Basic" delivery obligations of the City during 1994. However, through utilization of City's available carryover storage at Isabella Reservoir, the "Basic" delivery contracts for 1994 should be met as follows: 1. Lake Ming and Hart Park = 700 acre-feet 2. North Kern Water Storage District = 20,000 acre-feet 3. Cawelo Water District = 27,000 acre-feet 4. Kern-Tulare Water District = 20,000 acre-feet 5. Rag Gulch Water District = 3,000 acre-feet TOTAL = 70,700 acre-feet The City also has a commitment to deliver 10,000 acre-feet annually to Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District. This water is normally delivered during the period of October through February, if and when short- term supplies become available to City. III. BASIC CONTRACf PRIOR-YEAR DEFICIENCIES: As of January J, J994, prior-year defu::iencies in delivery of Basic Contract water were as follows: 1. North Kern Water Storage District = 1,9J9 acre-feet 2. Cawelo Water District = J8,8J2 acre-feet 3. Kern- Tulare Water District = 48,594 acre-feet 1) 4. Rag Gulch Water District = 7,384 acre-feet J) Total Prior-Year Defu::iencies = 76, 709 acre-feet 1) Includes 1983 Contract water as per terms of August 31, 1988 Settlement Agreements City entitlement yield as projected for 1994 would be insufficient to allow for delivery of prior-year deficiencies in basic contract water under Maximum Delivery Schedules. Should City Kern River entitlement yield increase substantially from current estimates, the delivery of basic contract deficiencies during 1994 would be made in accordance to the following schedule: 8 First Priority: 1. North Kern Water Storage District = 1,919 acre-feet --------- ~--~------ . February IS, 1994 1994 KERN RIVER WATER SUPPLY FORECAST Page 3 . Second Priority: 1. Cawelo Water District = 5,000 acre-feet 2. Kern-Tulare Water District = 3,700 acre-feet 3. Rag Gulch Water District = 550 acre-feet TOTAL OF 1ST AND 2ND PRIORfTIES = 11,169 acre-feet IV. OiliER DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS: 1. Water for use on lands owned by the City and/or on lands within City boundaries = 0 acre-feet 2. North Kern Water Storage District "BorrowlPayback" water, normally delivered between May and September = 0 acre-feet It is forecasted that 1994 Kern River runoff will not yield the City sufficient supply to deliver HOlliER DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS" as set forth above. V. MISCELLANEOUS QUANTITY WATER: In view of the 43% of normal forecasted Kern River runoff, miscellaneous quantity water would not be available during the March-October period of 1994, except in very limited amounts. The priority rights to purchase miscellaneous water, should it become available, are as follows: 1. Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District = 33.33% 2. North Kern Water Storage District = 19.05% 3. Cawelo Water District = 25.71% 4. Kern-Tulare Water District = 19.05% 5. Rag Gulch Water District = 2.86% TOTAL = 100.00% Under the City!fenneco Agreement No. 77-71 dated May 2, 1977, assigned to North Kern Water Storage District effective March 20, 1990, North Kern Water Storage District has the first right of refusal to miscellaneous water following the four Basic Contractors and Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District, as follows: a.) Forty percent (40%) of all water City has available for use within City boundaries solely for irrigation. b.) Fifty percent (50%) of first 24,000 acre- feet of other City miscellaneous quantity water including water recovered from I City's groundwater banking operations. I -------- -- " . I February 15, 1994 1994 KERN RIVER WATER SUPPLY FORECAST Page 4 c.) Fifty percent (50%) of any other miscellaneous quantity Kern River water that City would otherwise use for groundwater banking and replenishment. VI. DELIVERY SCHEDULES: On the basis of the below normal water supply forecast for 1994, the City will deliver all available basic contract water in conformance with the "Normal Delivery Schedules" as set forth in Exhibit "B" of the Basic Contracts. Due to City's "power floW" obligation, unstorable conditions are likely to occur at Isabella Reservoir this spring. Adherence to the monthly contract delivery schedules may enhance the opportunity to receive full basic contract delivery during 1994. If significant changes to the current water supply projections occur, our office will inform you with an updated supply forecast as soon as the new information is procured. Should you have any questions regarding the above information, please do not hesitate to call our office. Sincerely, GENE BOGART Manager By: ~ FIorn Core Water Resources Director Attachment I I . ,. . c ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~WW~ ~~ww 000000 ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ :E ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~I~I~ ~~I~ I~~ ~~ë2 ~N ~N~æNN Ng~æ~ ~~g~ ~~ ~ a:W ~~ ~ a:~ 00 ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ VI ~~Z~ ~.-~~.~~~ ~~~~N N~~~ ~~- < <z-u a:I 3:0 Z a:: u - w ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ a:: ~ ~m~~o m~~ ~OON~ WmN~ ~.~ W~ N--NN -~~ NNNNN ~~NN NN~ Z Z-- a:: W w C ~ ~~ 00 ~~~~N --~ m-oo~ ~~~O ~-m a:: 0> ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~d~~ ~~~~ ~~~ 0 Z... ~N -N NNN -N.~ --NN N- ZW-U u.. 000 Z ~ - < 0 C W wwwm~~~ww m~ww- oomm wmm Wa: NNNNNNNNN NNNN~ ~~NN NNN > 1-::1 IIIIIIIII IIIII IIII III <00 -----~--- ~~~~~ ~--~ ~~- W CLtj ~ :E ::) ", I-W l- v, W~a:Z ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ -<WW ~-~~ømoøø~W~~.~o-~mom~ø~ > ~a:I-~ NN----N--N--NN-~-~-N-- - ~ Œ ~ ~8 (J) < i I- 000000000000000000000000 >wW ~~~ooo~~~o~o~ow~oooo~o~~ w ~~om~~www~~w~omm~~..~~ww ,.. ...J LL. ~ ~ -" ô ô ô ô ô ô ô 0) 0) 0) 0) aj aj as as as as as as ...: ...: - w~ -----~-~-- ,.. > a:: ,a:w WO-N~~.~~~~wm~O~mONN.~~O < LL. ~~~~~~~~~~~~W~~-~WWWWWWW ~m ~NNNNNNNN~NN~N~~NNNNNNN~ ::) <:::E a:: (.) ::I a:I Z W u.. ~ ~ ~ ~ $ m; ñš m ~ 'E~ :::E 0 a:" :E ~ ~o ~ i ~&S ~ :B ~8 œ ~i :>~ :::E ZZ '- '- 0 œ::æ .r:; w~ ~ ~ ~ ~:§qs ~ Æ ~ (.) u ~ ~~ (.) m ~ ~ . ~ m ~ "0 ~ìi 0 m ~ 'g:E' êi)u; ~~ m~~-g ~~:::E ~ ~>-! æ~o "'~ 1ií~ìiœ œ"O >-..10:"" :Eœ""" C)"" œ5 w ~ð~~ 1¡j"'"¡g ê ¡g s~ c¡g¡g Ææ O~~ c~æ$ ~~~ ~~:::E ~~:>~ æ:::E:::E - ~ ~c_'- -~>- ~~" .r:;;> c~.r:; °œ Zo .r:;.2æ:ë 2."" ;>..10: C Euœ~ c.'!:: 0 >-ãí 00 C)-.Q~ ~cc 010 ~ -ð .-c~ ~~ (.) -0-'- ~>-~ _0 0 ~== ~oœ 0> muw(.) ~I-W ma: a: a:~ Omm I ----- ~.J ~ . . -- B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy. City Manager February 17, 1994 Mr. Michael S. Abril 1420 Emery Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93304 Dear Mr. Abril: The Budget and Finance Committee of the Bakersfield City Council met on February 14, 1994 to discuss the 39 applications which had been received to fill the seven positions on the City's Ad Hoc Prevailing Wage Research Task Force. They were very impressed with the pool of applicants, unfortunately, nine were not considered because of their non- resident status. Of the 30 remaining applications, the Committee agreed unanimously to forward the following six names to the full City Council: James Andrew Chilko, James Dale Hawley, John Lencioni, Robert Edwin McCarthy, John Richard Tarjan, and Leroy Charles Weygand. The committee is recommending that the Council accept the list of six and choose a seventh member from the remaining 24. The Council will review the list of nominees and the Budget and Finance Committee's recommendations at its February 23, 1994 meeting. You will be notified once the City Council has made a final decision on who will be appointed to serve on the Task Force. If you are not selected, the Committee would like to assure you that you will still have an opportunity to contribute to the Task Force work. On behalf of the Budget and Finance Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your interest in serving on the task force. Your application indicates your continuing commitment to the City of Bakersfield in its efforts to grow and prosper. Sincerely, ~~ Alan Tandy ~ City Manager AT:jp City of Bakersfield. City Manager's Office. 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. California. 93301 (ROS)12h-17~1 . F~x (Rn~) 1)4-1R~n ; ~ Distribution for letter of February 17. 1994 to applicants for the Ad Hoc Prevailing Wage Task Force Mr. MichaelS. Abril 1420 Emery Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93304 Ms. Carolyn P. Arnold 4205 Glenbrook Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93306 Ms. Mary B. Bedard 3111 Christmas Tree Lane Bake~fip.ld, CA 93306 ' "' Mr. Jose R. Benavides 10608 Gold Cup Lane Bakersfield, CA 93312 Mr. John A. Braun 144 EI Cerrito Drive Bakersfield, CA 93305 Mr. Colon G. Bywater 3800 Planz Road Bakersfield, CA 93309 Ms. Patricia G. Callagy 6104 Terra Vista Court Bakersfield, CA 93308 Mr. James A. Chilko 5608 Muirfield Drive Bakersfield, CA 93306 Mr. Marvin Dean 3800 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. James C. Durbin 3800 Valley Springs Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Bobby L. Embrey 1904 Montmedy Court Bakersfield, CA 93311 Mr. John E. Grindstaff, Jr. 4204 Wood lake Court Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Scott W. Harrison 9503 Clemens Way Bakersfield, CA 93311 .-- -, . I Mr. James D. Hawley 2708 EI Berrendo Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93304 Mr, Edwin L Ingalls 3612 EI Hogar Court Bakersfield, CA 93311 Mr. Daniel J. Kane 5312 Appletree Lane Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Dave M. LeDiaev 2004 Mountain Oak Road ., , Bakersfield, CA 93311 Mr. John Lencioni 2030 Oscar Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93304 Mr. G. Jerry Lusich 6109 Ridgetop Terrace Bakersfield, CA 93306 Mr. Robert E. McCarthy 353 Garnsey Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93309 Ms. Florence M. Mulock 2450 Beech Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mr. Terry W. Osburn 8824 Duncanson Drive Bakersfield, CA 93311 Mr. James R. Painter 6405 Ambergrove Street Bakersfield, CA 93313 Mr. Robert A. Patterson 4816 Hasti-Bob Court Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Randy W. Rankin 7608 Feather River Drive Bakersfield, CA 93308 Ms. Anita L. Reaves 2408 Westminster Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309 , -- ------- ------ . . . Mr. Michael A. Sabol 5301 Blake Court Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Richard A. Scott 5404 Krista Street Bakersfield, CA 93313 Mr. John R. Tarjan 6312 Bronson Lane Bakersfield, CA 93309 Mr. Leroy C. Weygand 12110 Ba(',kdrop Court Bakersfield, CA 93306 ---- ~- ., ' ~ . . ¡ -- B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy ~ City Manager February 17, 1994 Mr. Timothy M. Ashlock 3739 Green Hills Bakersfield, CA 93306 Dear Mr. Ashlock: I I Thank you for your interest in serving on the Ad Hoc Prevailing Wage Research Task , I Force. The Budget and Finance Committee took action at its February 14, 1994 meeting to recommend members to serve on the Task Force. Unfortunately, your application was not considered because the City Charter, Section 43, requires that members reside in the City of Bakersfield. The Committee was very impressed with the pool of candidates and would like to assure you that you will still have an opportunity to contribute to the Task Force work. All meetings and work produced will be open to the public. On behalf of the Budget and Finance Committee, I invite you to remain active in the City of Bakersfield and help us to grow and prosper. Sincerely, ~~ Alan Tandy City Manager ~ AT:jp City of Bakersfield. City Manager's Office It 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield. California It 93301 (RO~) i2n-i7t)1 . Frlx (ROt)) 174-1Rt)O 'T' ~ , ..' . i Distribution for thank you letter of February 17, 1994 to non-resident candidates for the Ad Hoc Prevailing Wage Task Force Mr. Timothy M. Ashlock 3739 Green Hills Bakersfield, CA 93306 Mr. Gregory J. Fowler 7809 Olcott Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 Mr. Bart L. Freer 7125 Brookshire Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93308 Mr. Gary L. Lasater 6100 Krebs Road Bakersfield, CA 93308 Mr. Stanley R. Meek 1543 Alameda Street Bakersfield, CA 93305 Mr. John J. Michelson 925 Dwina Oildale, CA 93308 Mr. Harold G. Matt 1768 Camino Sierra Bakersfield, CA 93306 Mr. Jon W. Waters 26800 Clear Creek Road Keene, CA 93531 Mr. Edwin W. Wilson 1225 Fairway Drive Bakersfield, CA 93309 . I I ~ - I'