HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/01/94,- y`'" ;
. �
B A K E R S F I E L D
MEMORANDUM
T0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
COUNCI /-�
April 1, 1994
1. Hotel Update: The Operating Engineers Local No. 12 would not compromise
under any circumstance. Hammons will now be proceeding with the Hotel
without a settlement with the Trades Council. Even though the vast
majority of locals were willing ta compromise, the same pickets and lawsuit
are faced through one being out of harmony. Thus, there is no reason for
Hammons to settle without all being in the "deal."
Please reserve your calendars for May 3rd (both afternoon and evening),
when we intend to have a celebration for the beginning of construction. We
are thinking about having a dinner, if that works out, as well as an
afternoon event.
2. Assemblyman Costa wants to look at moving the location of the new Amtrak
Station from behind Mercy Hospital to the area behind the Old Corporation
Yard, in the vicinity of the Hotel, as a better enhancement to downtown and
the Hotel. The idea has merit, however, the questions revolve around the
technical costs the railroad imposes for the track additions, and who pays
for those. We are working with the railroads and other involved parties to
review feasibility.
3. You probably have heard, or will be hearing, that Riverlakes Ranch is
proposing a General Plan Amendment which would result in a plan for a 300-
acre golf course being converted to housing. We expect that this carries
the potential for controversy a couple of months down the road.
4. We lost on the LAFCO appointments. In fact, those cities that pledged to
cooperate with one another only got three votes. We need to continue to
work with the other cities to show them that we are going to represent
their interests and deal with them in good faith in order to overcome the
psychological hurdles which led to us losing on this issue.
5.
�
A letter from the County staff on the issue of Service Level "C" or "D" is
enclosed for your information. The Board of Supervisors delayed action on
this item.
We are pushing very hard on a prospect for the Incentive Area which would
now employ up to about 600. We are competing with a West Virginia site.
�,�
�;� ` _ .
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 1, 1994
Page -2-
7. It is my understanding that Mr. Grider, the gentleman who appeared before
you at your last Council Meeting, had no costs associated with complying
with Building Code requirements.
8. We had two meetings on the Fire Fund with the County this week. It seems
like substantial positive progress was made. There are still some open
items. Another meeting is scheduled for next week.
9. Water in the Kern for the summer is not looking good. A related letter is
enclosed on that subject.
10. You will find enclosed status reports on several items. One is an update
on the status of Clinica Sierra Uista. There are also Council Referrals
relative to comparing our Parks development costs with those of North
Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District, street signal warrants at
Chester Avenue/8th Street, a van pool group parking on Allen Road, and the
Vaughn Water Company rates.
11. We are trying to work with the other cities in the County to resolve the
new County tax split policy. A mema to the Mayors and City Managers is
enclosed for your information.
AT.alb
Enclosures
cc: Department Heads
City Clerk
,�i
i' II
II
,
� - . -�^ ,�
`�� RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY ,IOEL HE�NRICHS, AGENCY D/RECTOR .
AI� Pollutlon Control District • Englnee�ing d� Survey Servlces Deparlment � Ptenning d� Development Senlces Depa�tment
Transportatlon Managemant Department • Waste Management Deparlment
Phone: (805) 881-3502
FAX: (805) 861-3429
Mazch 29, 1994
Board of Supervisors
Kern County Administrative Center
1115 Tnutun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
�' �uF,� �.
i� .�1�:..... -
;:.... ; h�.
� "'��~
�� � � •, L \
` • � c �F .-:'•%�. '
: . ,_, .
` f' ' �=i�,:, \, �;
. J ,. .. , :�. ,.�s!.: _ ,/
`'ti��'.t: �• - '-�� ��l�l v
UF,.�;AAAF
� � ��
swy�'
`4 e
2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 350
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
no2,� ��o
C�TY MANAGER; �C�
RE: TRANSFORTATION SUBCONIlVIITTEE REPORT, LEVEL OF SERVICE
"C" VS "D", METROPOLITAN BAKF.ItSFIF.LD AREA (ALL S.D.'S) -
REPORT BACK FROM FEBRUARY 1, 1994 �
FUNDING: NO FISCAL IlVIPACTS
Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors:
On February l, 1994 the above-referenced report was presented to your Board.. At that time,
you directed. staff to contact the City of Bakersfield to determine their position and to report back
including information on possible effects of Transportation Control Measures (TCM's).
On Mazch 10, 1994, County staff inet with the Urban Development Committee of the City of
Bakersfield and reviewed the February 1, 1994 r�port in some detail. Councilmember
McDermott, Chair of the Urban Development Committee, generally summarized the City
Council position as being firmly committed to Level of Service (I,OS) C as a goal. Attached
is an excerpt from CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, Citv Council: Goals. Objectives and Action
Statements: (February 10, 1994 Draft). Theie was aclrnowledgement that some additional
review and potential adjustment of the fee program should be pursued. Further, the obligation
of providing LOS C should not be placed solely on new development.
The potential effect of TCM's on vehicle travel has been analyzed in the 7anuary 1994, S�n
7oa�uin Valley Transaortation Control Measure Pro�ram Final Renort. The purpose of the
program is to serve as a long-range, "blueprint for action" to reduce emissions of carbon
monoxide and ozone precursor's. The report describes the TCM's recommended to attain
Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) of 1.5 during the peak commute hours by 1999. Current
AVR is approximately 1.1. AVR of 1.5 equates to appro�cimately 4.5 Ro reduction in peak hour
vehicle trips according to the report.
Golden Empire Transit (GE'I') District recently completed a Long-Range Public Trans�ortation
Svstems Studv which describes a potential bus system expanded from the current 53 to 200
buses. This bus-only system is estimated to capture 2.6 % of daily home-based work person trips
by 2010. The 200-bus system combined with a 22 mile light rail system is expected to capture
B08id O� .SII�CtY180i8
Merch 29, 1994
Page 2
�J � ..
1
slightly more ridership. Both transit system alternatives are based on aggressive incentives (or
disincentives), to encourage transit ridership (i.e.: average $3.00/day downtown parldng cost,
sufficiently dense ai'►d^ Jsupportive land use buildout).
-. .. . , r.:Y`,+�1
. �!
The' TC� report.,�notes� that the 4.5 % reduction in vehicle trips will be dependent upon or
interconn�ted with' several .TCM measures: Trip Reduction Ordinance with an AVR Target,
Traffic -Flow Improvements;, Public Transit and Rideshare Program are listed as having higher
degre�s of<effectiveness; siz other measures are�listed with lower degrees of effectiveness. Due
to interaction of the measures the total estimated trip capture of each measure is. not d'uectly
additive. TCM trip capture of 4.5% and 2.64b tranait trip capture will not equa17.1'% (4.5 +°
2: 5)--;.ata�-trig-cap�.iree - - _ _ _ � _ _ _ _ _
It does not appear the effect of TCM's would be significant in reducing road and highway needs.
For illustration purposes the following table indicates � the effect of 5 9b and 10 % vehicle trip
reduction on sample road segments:
Roadwav
Allen Rd.
Buena Vista Rd.
Olive Dr.
Future ADT/
Lanes/LOS
22,599/4/A
22,599/2/D
17,000/2/D
17,000/4/A
42,000/6/B
42,000/4/F
95% ADT/
Lanes/LOS
21,469/4/A
21,469/2/D
16,150/2/D
16,150/4/A
39,900/6/B
39,900/4/E
= - - - {t�rterial-�apacity a�sumeai 1-O,OOQ vehicles/lane, KCOCa -Ndodel.) - -- -
90% ADT/
Lanes/LOS
20,339/4/A
20,339/2/D
15,300/2/C
15,300/4/A
37, 800/6/B
37,800/4/E
Allen Road operates at LOS A with a four lane arterial and LOS D with a two �lane arterial with
or without the 5 9b and 10 % potential trip capture of TCM's. .Two lane Buena Vista Road would
operate at LOS D with 5 9b trip capture or C. with 10 90 trip capture. Olive Drive would require
a six lane arterial for LOS better than E, with or without TCM trip capture.
Obviously, actual roadway analysis is extremely more complex than the above examples.
TCM's will have some effect. There will be some roadways that could s ne a widening
project for a short period of time on the basis of very effective TCM's along the corridor.
However, it must be aclaiowledged that relatively congestion free streets (LOS C) make some
�_ TCM's less effective and therefore higher trip capture rates less likely.
� _ ��
�
Board oi Sapervigors
March 29, 1994
Page 3
� Implementation of TCM's will require significant furiding, in most cases competing for the same
dollars as other existing transportation programs. The current funding deficiencies discussed in
the February 1, 1994 report does not include TCM funding. For example; the capital, operation
and _ maintenance costs of the above mentioned 200-Bus system would excee� $500 million
thmugh 2010. The 200-Bus plus 22 mile Light Rail would exceed $1 billion through 2010
ezcluding right of way, design, engineering and contract administration. (Recall that the
February 1, 1994 report indicated local twentv year roadway�pital fundinP needs of
� approximately $250 million and $160 million for LOS C and D, respectively. )
Shortage of Transportation Funding is and will remain an extremely critical issue for years to
come. . __ .
The primary options available to the Boazd of Supervisors as presented in the February 1, 1994
are restated with appropriate revisions:
1. Take no action;
2. Direct staff to initiate the public hearing process necessary to revise the 2010
General Plan to LOS D standard and determine approximate $100,000 funding
- source for EIIZ process;
3. Direct staff to initiate the public hearing process necessary to revise the impact
fee program to fund LOS C; or �
4. D'uect staff to further pursue revision of the 2010 Circulation Flement and to
provide a future status report. .
Option Number 2 would require the preparation of an EIR with estimated costs of $100,000 to
be borne exclusively by the County and 9-12 months to complete. There is no known funding
source at tnis time. Q►ption numi�er 3 would involve fuliiier `review of %e alternatives to fund �
LOS C, potential effects of TCM "credits" and coordination with 'the City of Bakersfield. The
time-frames of both Options 2 and 3 would probably overlap and potentially be inconsistent with
work to be done by Kern COG. �
Option Number 4 appears to be most desirable at this time for the following reasons:
Kern COG has just started an extensive project involving an update of the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Congestion Management Plan (CMP)
including a consultant contract for preparation of an EIIt. This process shall be
completed by September/October 1994 and shall for the first time incorporate new
air quality conformity requirements,� the above-referenced new TCM program and
requires a financially constrained Transportation Impmvement Plan (from
currently identified funding sources). . ;
. �--�-_._:. -.
Board o[ Supervisora
March 29, 1994
Page 4
Kern COG has also affirmed its intention to perform a comprehensive analysis of
tiansportation fa�cility nceds and funding options available in Fiscal Year 1994/95
as part of their role as Regional Transportation Planning Agency.
Kern Transportation Foundation is currently worldng to develop a County-wide
organization committed to resolving our transportation needs. The Foundation intends
to build an education pmgram which is; consistent with, and supportive of, the analysis
currently underway.
Thus, at the conclusion of Fiscal Year 1994/95 as a comprehensive analysis of available options
___ _=. shc��ld_b� c.�a�plete, a C�unty-wide publi� dialogue relative to the policy choices avail.able well
underway, and, hopefully, an emerging consensus relative to appropriate local actions necessary
to build and maintain a balanced transportation system.
T�iEREFORE, TT IS RECOMMENDED that the Board of Supervisors provide policy direction
to staff, and receive and file this report.
Sincerely,
� " �7ce1 ' 'chs .
' irector
JH:LI.N:dc
BLi.B3
Attach.
cc: County Administrative Officer
City of Bakersfield
Plan For Gmwth Committee Mailing List
_ - - ---'I'R�iD; PADS___ . _ _
_____ _
.-
• _.3...^ . v�.:.r.
�
I
� CITY OF BAICFr�SFiF%D
� City Councrl �
Goals, Ob�e��JVes and Ac�ion State�nen�s
GOAL � 1: EIUHANCE 7HF CtTY'S TAANSPORTATION NEiWORK
1. Maintain and improve ihe quality of existing, surface streets arrd arteria/s
a. synchronize traffic srgna/s
b. p/an new irrfrastructure to mairrtain "Service Level C" as a goa/
2. Support the development of beltways
a. secure necessary rights-of-way and adequate funding
3. SuAport and assist in ihe development of new rail systems
4. Promote and encourage puti/ic transportation
5. Suoport efforts for adeauate air irans,00rtation ,
GaAL �2: PROVlDF OUALITY PUBLC SAFFi'Y SFi?V1CFS
1. Exp/ore ways to fund aoditional pofice and fire services
2. Suoport communinr-orienred poircmg
a. implement crty-wiae eiforts to address gangs and drugs
. b. exoand nergn6ornooa warch
3. Desion a graifiti prooram that educates the cammunriy and actnrery
enrorces eradreaUon
a. organrze communriy volunteers
Drart �4: February 10, 1994 � _ - 1
�> _,_,.�; _
City 'of �oicer:field
TRANSMITTAL SUP Date...�?.. _....�....�..." ��:........._.........._
To........�l.�1,� ...�Q�p�'... ....��.t:%1'.._.. . . . . .Cx�'�' ............................�...
_
From... ��O:.�l�.... .-�-- �-� . .... .............................�--....................... _.._
For Your:= �/'
❑ Signature ❑ Action L� Information ❑ File
Piease:—
J"
❑ Return O See Me O Follow Up ❑ Prepare Answer
Copyto :..................................................................................._........__.._........._.
Memo: T�J�C�f:�T.....�?i,��_�...��.1.�_...T�.........._.._.__
........SEE... -C.F.�.L�........�`.-_...1_99� _�S�Sµ/�P1t�lG�.__._...._..
........�P, AS....A.�C���.-.. �R� ..o�E..�.. !��.._.._....._..
....... �.?�......�.�...�T... C�os E�.... To.....PpR�.�..1. j�.._._.._._....._
----�-�T�-�---�-:�1�5....�� ��=......(M.►.� �.!1[�A�....��5_._. __.
...---...T...o..._..:�uX:���...��u..=:...-- .t�...�s---.��nw±�� ....................
...... W��:�-:....����....`�ou....�s`��� ...................._.........._..............
..................................
. ,�
_ -- -1�
� i
KERN COUNTY
- - WATER AGENCY
March 18, 1994
Direccors:
Fred L Starrh
Division 1
Tecry Rogers Florn Core, Director
D���s�o� 2 City of Bakersfield
Pecer Frick Department of Water Resources
President 1000 Buena Vista Road
Division 3 Bakersfield, CA 93311
Michael Radon
Division 4
Adrienne ]. Mathews
Division S
Henry C. Gamett
Division 6
W. T. Balch
Divuion 7
Thomas N. Clark
General Manager
RE: Dry Year Operations in 1994
Dear Florn:
� �l
.. . il// : ` _
��."',�' `' . ,,.,
:� rr c�;- +-
'l:^..Tr;-.. �'hr�����
,;F_;?C�rr;"�� .
:;-:
�� ���
�pR 2 81994 ��
YY MANAGER'S O�FECE
Up until last week we anticipated replenishment in the Kern River Channel
of up to 14,000 acre-feet of 1994 SWP water. Now the number is down to 12,000
acre-feet and the recent USBR allocation of 6096 Class I(32% overall) has led Kern-
Tulare to tentatively request repayment of up to 9,000 acre-feet of prior deliveries
to ID4. So, for a11 practical purposes, we appear to be out of the river spreading
business until conditions improve for the feds, the state or both.
]ohn F. Stovall �e Truxtun Lakes operatioas are marginal in this scenario but I do not
General Counsel _ _
contemplate any changes there until we discuss the matter with the Urban Bakersfield
Advisory Committee in April. Also, by that time we will have a better handle on
water supply.
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 58
Bakersfield, CA 93302-0058
Phone: 805/634-1400
Fax: 805/634-1428
However, you aze requested to commence storing, for delivery later in the
year, all Kern-Tulare and Rag Gulch water not required for treatment plant flow and
a minimal delivery to Truxtun Lakes. ` We are awaze that this is contr,ary to the
original and modifie� delivery scheciule and we are prepared to replace the
incremental evaporation losses by increasing the balance owed by ID4 to the Truxtun
Lakes exchange. Also, the current generous deliveries w Truxtun Lake should be
curtailed because they are inappropriate in a dry year scenario. Your proposed outlet
pipe project may fit nicely into this summer's operations.
Another conservation mode would be to dry the river below Rocky Point and
use the Carrier Canal for delivery to ID4. Also, Rosedale has advised Kern-Tulare
that they wish to make their annual payment for purchase of Kern-Tulare's capacity
in the form of 4,000 acre-feet of Kern River water delivered to ID4 in Kern-Tulare's
name. The proposed delivery period is October 1994 through February 1995. I
�
I Y
.q - T._�?>�
Florn Core
� March 18, 1994
Page Two
a
assume you may have had input in this scheduling since it compliments the City's
March-September modified delivery schedule for Kem-Tulare and Rag Gulch water.
If there is any flexibility in this Rose�ale delivery schedule, it may be more useful
in mid to late summer to meet Kem-Tulare's needs by direct delivery to Arvin- '
Edison.
In spite of all this dreary information, I still plan to run ID4 water past Beach'
Park on May 21 and also possibly May 7 for the "Project Clean Air Rally" if that
is appropriate. I thing it would be a more efficient use of both money and wafer if�
we use the ICem-Tulare/Rag Gulch river deliveries for brief runs on these two days
rather than activate the now idle CVC. I understand you have typical weekend cuts
to contend with anyway.
Please call if you wish to discuss this or the above matters.
Very truly yours,
�—
Robert K. Bellue
Chief Engineer
RKB/bla
_--- �--
�.: -.1���.
� ~
C�
Also Operating:
Frezier Mou�tein Community
HeaMh Center
3545 Mt. Piras Way
Fraziar Park, CA 93225
Kem River Heaflh Center
67 Evans Road
Wottord Heights, CA 93285
East Bakersiield Community
He.nn c��se.
234 Baker Streat
8akersfield, CA 93305
MeFarland Communify
HeaHh Center
308 Loekwood Ave.
McFarland, CA 93250
Death Ve�ley Heekh Center
Old Hiway 127
PO 0ox 158
Shoshone,CA 9238d
Homeless Heekh Care Center
1800 East Tru�ctun Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93305
Proyrams Ineludinp:
• wnc �,z i�uo�s�
• Heafthy Stert-Black Infant
Perinatal Program
• Maternal(Chikf Outreach
RogramJCPSP
• ISE / ENABL
• CHOP
• Family Planning
• Better Families
• Kern Lite�ine Projed
• HIV Consortia � Fiscal Agent
• ElderLi(e (Developmental ADHC)
Clinica Sier�a Vi�t�, Ir�c.
PO Box 457 • 8787 Hali Road • Lamont, Ca 93241
March 23, 1994
Jake Wager, Director
Community Development Department
City of Bakersfield
515 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Proposed EBCHC - Lakeview Avenue
Dear Jake:
IV�
�
�
\�
r
..
�^
�
�
�
^d
`J
d
�
4
�
-�'s{,�+"
� �_
k Y
The purpose of this correspondence is to bring you up to date
as to the status of our future clinic on Lakeview Avenue.
1) Land - As of todays date, we have pretty much abandoned
the idea of acquiring the land north of Clarendon. We have reached an
impasse with the owners there, who are still very bitter about the City's
decision to condemn their property many years ago. I have eniisted
the assistance of inembers of the community, as well as current and
past members of the Council, to try to heip convince these folks that
our price was fair. All of this to no avail.
2) Engineering - We have completed our engineering studies
S�bs,a;e��: with Porter Robertson. It is likety, based on these reports and
CKemn C iy HtyeaMh Ce�en of drawings, that we wili not have as much diffieuity .with the parking
�, °e'�°�^�e ^°°. requirements as earlier anticipated.
8akersfield, CA 93304 �
• Bakersfield
• Delano
.R�ae°`�` 3) Architecture/Design - Our architect continues working on two
Toiye�elndianHeatlhCenten o tions; one inciudin onl the existin arcel of land; and an
(Sea 330) p' g y 9 p
BishopxCA993515 alternate including the additional space afforded to us with the
(3locations:inyo&MonoCounties) Purchase of the property north of Ciarendon. We have now advised
him to proceed forward with finishing the design on the proposed
construction incorporating only the land we now have title to.
Business: (805) 845-3731 FAX: (805) 845-4511 TDD: (800) 342-5833
Providing medical, dental and health education to the peopfe o( Kern and Inyo Counties /or over 22 years.
- _�=�;
�.
�
Jake Wager
Paqe 2
4) Tax Exempt Status - We have now filed for tax exemption
status with the county assessor on ail parceis.
5) Financing - I have now received a formal letter of commitment
from the Nationai Cooperative Bank for permanent financing for this
project. We have initiated discussions with our local bank regarding
construction financing and now with the permanent "take out"
financing letter we wili be able to firm up construction financing.
6) Construction - I have had meetings with a couple of
contracting firms. I am discussing with them a design/build
construction management arrangement, each with a fixed/guaranteed
"not-to-exceed" maximum. As soon as the preliminary design work is
finished we will be prepared to execute a construction contract.
I hope this captures the current status of affairs regarding this
project. Will keep you posted as things continue to develop.
SWS:rp
e:�wp�sw,ocrrMerensa
Very truly yours,
� .
Stephen W. Schillin
Executive Director
�
,:_ _ .=�.
=��;)ll1l�l���,,
.. �� . .
MEMORANDUM
�- - �7
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager �
FROM: Frank Fabbri, Parks Superintendent ��--
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL # 13032
PARK DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON--CITY/NORTH BAKERSFIELD
DATE: March 29, 1994
During Council statements at the February 23, 1994 City Council Meeting, Councilmember Brunni requested
staff provide a cost comparison for park development between North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District
and the City.
The request was prompted by a city staff cost estimate given for development of a seven and one-half (7.5)
acre park in the Tevis Ranch area and the much lower cost estimate given by the North Bakersfield staff, at
one of their Board meetings, for the development of the ten (10) acre Emerald Cove Park in the Riverlakes
area. '
At the December 1993 City Council meeting an additiona12.5 acres of land was purchased in the Tevis Ranch
area to supplement the existing 5 acre park site owned by the City. At that time Councilmember Brunni was
given a figure of $500,000 to $600,000 to completely develop the 7.5 acre site. These development costs are
calculated by Public Works and are based on bids received from current Park or Public Works projects. The
costs are adjusted for inftation each year by the Council. The Ciry's current cost estimate for park devetopment
is $75,000 per acre without street improvements and $89,000 per acre with street improvements. Actual park
deyelopment costs are determined at the time of construction and varies according to the selected
improvements.
At the February 1994 North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation Board meeting the Board approved an
expenditure of $162,000 plus a tree grant for $20,000 for ap rtial development of the 10 acre Emerald Cove
Park. The trees would be planted by volunteers.
Upon discussions with the North Bakersfield staff the $182,000 will cover fine grading, electrical service,
security lights, irrigation, turf and trees. Their cost estimate to develop the entire site is $605,000 and does not
include street improvements.
Attached for your information is the current City park development cost estimate by line item. Also included
is the line item cost estimate for the Emerald Cove Park which was provided by North Bakersfield Parks and
Recreation District.
Please keep in mind the per acre cost of each item will differ between agencies because they are estimates
based on standards and preferences of the agency and design engineers. Fxamples are: The City requires a
booster pump for irrigation purposes at a cost of $21,000 and North Bakersfield generally relies on static
pressure; design/development/personnelcosts for the City is $3,000 per acre, while North Bakersfield has no
itemized cost breakdown. When North Bakersfield constructs a restroom facility it contains a restroom;
concession stand, and storage room at a cost of $130,000; the City builds only a restroom and storage facility
for $85,000.
�
Page 2 of 2
29 March 1994
COUNCIL REFERRAL #13032
North Bakersfielc!'s park development costs are estimated by the most recent park development project
completed. They do not list item by item as we do in estimating development costs when constructing a park.
It is the City's objective to include many of the same amenities in each park, but with a different theme which
will have an affect on the total development cost.
FF:pah
cr#13032
cc: Lee Andersen, Community Services Manager
Allen Abe, Assistant Parks Superintendent
Georgina Lorenzi, Business Manager
Fred Kleopper, Acting Public Works Director
; �
CITY OF BAKEFiSFIELD
FEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF PARKS BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1. EARTHWORK/GRADING (F)(FLAT, HII.LY, PLAYFIELD, ETC.)
2 . UTII..IT'Y (ELECTRICAL/WATER/SEWER)
� 3 . IRRIGATION SYSTEM (�
A. HEADS 102 @ 130EA. $13,260(17HDS/AC.)
� B. VALVE - (12 VALVES)
C. BOOSTER PUMP (1 PER PARK)
D. MAIN LINE (900 FI'. AT $3.90/FT.)
E. LATERAI.S
II I', F. MISC. WIRES, FITTING, (GLUE, TAPE, ETC)
G. QUICK COUPLER VALVE (9 @ $44/EA)
H. IRRIGATION CONTROL CLOCK 24 STA. (1)
HT SYSTEM F 8 POLES OR 1/2 POLE/AC.
4 . SECURITY LIG
)
c )i
5 . UTII.ITY BUILDING (STORAGE ONLY) (F) (i)
6. RESTROOM FACILITIES FOR ITEM #5 (F)
(PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, FIJfTURES 2M, 2F)
7 . PARKING LOT (30 CARS) (F) (W/LANDSCAPING)
8 . CONCRETE WORK;INTERIOR/DRIVEWAY & MOWSTRIP
9 . PICNIC AREA (CONC. SLAB)
A. SINGLE NOOKS 12X30 =$2.30/SQ.FT. (3)(1BBQ,1 TABLE)
B. DOUBLE NOOKS 20X20 =�2.30/SQ.FT.(2)(1BBQ,2 TABLES)
10 . BARBEQUES
A. B.B.Q./PICNIC AREA - (504/EA.X6)
B. TABLES - (600/EA. X 6)
11 . LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL
A. TREE (24"BOX) $2A0 EA. (108 TREES/AC.)
B. SHRUB (S GAL) $12EA. (145)(1,740)
C. LAWN(SEEDS) 2b1,360 S.F. @10 PDS/1000(435.6)X$2.025/PD.
D. GROUND COVER (FLAT'S) (SOX50)(2,500)S.F.
12 . DRINKINGFOUNTAINS (3)
A. 1 - HANDICAP
B. 2 - STANDARD
13 . MiJLTTGAME SLAB (1)
(60X120) BASKETBALL
$5,000 $30,000
$3,637 521,822
�2,210
�608
53,510
$585
$668
�2b0
$66
a270
$5,117
$5,800
58,333
$6�000
$3,154
$720
asoa
�600
$3,600
5290
$882
$2b0
$351
$3,240
$13,2b0
$3,648
$21,060
$3,510
$4,008
$1,560
$396
$1,620
a30,702
534,800
a49,998
a36,000
�18,924
�4,320
$3,024
$3,600
$21,600
$1,740
�5,292
�1, 560
�2,106
$19,440
I: .
, ,I
` I�
;
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
FEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF PARKS BY THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
14 . PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
A. SLIDFS, SWINGS, SAND, TRASHCANS, ETC.
B. SHADE STRUCNRE (1)
C. CONCRETE VARIES (45'X50'X$2.70 S.F.}
D. BENCHES (5) @ $465/EA.
15 . SIGN/MONUMENT WALL (5'X12') (1)
16 . DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT/PERSONNEL
17 ". 1/2 STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON 2 SIDES OF PARK SI'TE
A. 1,100 LF SW @ $15.75/I,F
B. 1,100 LF C&F @ �10.00/I,F
C. 1,100 LF PAVM'T @�2.00/SQ FIY(24 FI'' 1,100 "$2.00)
ESTIMATED SINGLE FAMII,Y COSTS &
CONSTRUCTION COSTS PER ACRE
$6,400 $38,400
$2,000 512,000
$1,012 $6,072
�388 $2,328
$2A0 $1,200
$3,000 $18,000
$2,888 $17,328
$1,833 $10,998
$8,800 $S2,8Q0
EFFECTTVE 10-17-90 $610 $82,186 $493,116
EFFECTIVE 08-2A-92 3-92 CPI 4.20%" $645 $85,638 a513,827
EFNBCTIVE 09—01-93 3-93 CPI 4.00%' $670 $89,063 $534,380
•FEES ADJUSTED BY CPI. •
FEES ALSO ADJUSTED FOR 1990 FEDERAL CENSUS POPULATION DATA.
GENERAI, NOTES:
—THE ABOVE COST PROJECTIONS DO NOT INCLUDE LAND ACQUISITION COST.
— ITEMS #6 AND #7 MAY NOT OCCUR AT EACH PARK.
_ . . <,
I', I� NORTH BAKERSFIELD RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT PARK DEVELOPMENT COSTS
��
�„
EMERALD COVE PARK
QUIMBY COLLECTED (INCLUDES INTERES'I�
LAND ACQUISITION
10.4 ACRFS (NE'1�
FINE GRADING @ $1,000/A
TURF @ $3,000/A
IRRIGATTON @ $9,000/A
ELECTRICAL SERVICE/SECURITY LIGHTING
FIELD GAME DEVELOPMENT
RESTROOMS
PARKING LOT '
PICNIC SHELTER/TRELLIS
CHILDREN'S PLAY AREAIPIRATE SHIP
STORAGE
.PICNIC PADS 4 @ $3,000
MULTI-USE COURT W/LIGHTING
SIDEWALKS/OUTDOOR STAGE
VOLLEYBALL (TURF)
SHRUBS, GROUND COVER, ETC.
QUIMBY BALANCE
,
VALUE OF TREE GRANT
�
TOTAL
$ 394,900
372,900
$ 22,000
$ 10,400
$ 31,200
$ 93,600
$ 26,800
$ 162,000
$ 20,070
$ 15,000
$ 110,000
$ 32,000
$ 60,000
$ 80,000
$ 20,000
$ 12,000
$ 50,000
$ 36,000
$ 3,000
$ 5,000
$ 423,000
�- �
$ 605,070
il
_
`� �
._;
��I
r.
_
i
•
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Fred L. Kloepper, Assistant Public Works Director `��"
DATE: March 25, 1994
SUBJECT: City Council Referral Record #12508
Chester Avenue/8th Street Signal Warrants - Final Update (Ward 1}
Our Traffic Section has completed warrant analysis fox the above location.
The results indicate the location meets three warrants; "Interruption of
Continuous Traffic," "Four Hour Volume," and "Peak Hour Volume." The
location will be added to the list of warranted signal projects for future
funding.
This should suffice as the final update of this refenal.
REF12508.FLR
Attachment
RECEIVED
MAR25G�
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
-=---�—�
�
� x. , -,�
n
M e m o r a n d u m
T r a f f i c E n g i n e e r i n g
DATE: March 23, 1994
TO: FRED KLOEPPER, ACTING PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: ST.EPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER ���G��
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL NUMBER 12508, CHESTER/8TH SIGNAL
WARRANTS, FINAL UPDATE. Ward One.
A review of the intersection to verify previous warrant analysis
has been completed. Minimum volume warrants are satisfied for 3 of
11 traffic signal warrants. A project to install a traffic signal
will be added to the list of warranted signal projects for future
funding.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The location was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer earlier this year
in response to a Council request. Based on existing available
traffic counts, the intersection appeared to meet some volume
warrants. No accident warrants were met. To verify the Traffic
Engineer's estimate, a new study was ordered.
A complete analysis was done with new traffic counts, a new review
of accident records, speed surveys and site review. The results of
the new analysis indicate that the "Interuption of Continous
Traffic" warrant, the "Four Hour Volume" warrant and the "Peak Hour
Volume" warrant were met. These warrants are intended to
accomodate minor side street traffic that may experience delay
crossing or entering the main street. The intersection has a good
accident history and accidents were not a factor in this study and
the "Accident Prevention" warrant was far from being met.
The intersection has been added to our priority list for future
funding.
No further action required on this referral.
cc: Traffic File - Council Ref:
Brad Underwood
Ward 1 file
saved under d:\wp\CHSTR8TH.uAR
�
B A K E R S F I E L D
Alan Tandy • City Manager
March 29, 1994
Mr. Larry D. Smith
9712 Green Oak Place
Bakersfield, CA 93311
Dear Mr. Smith:
Your letter of March 21, 1994, to Councilmember Conni Brunni, has been referred to my
office.
First, I would like to applaud your group's efforts in van pooling to work. The City of
Bakersfield does encourage this type of activity, and realizes its value to our community.
Second, we have removed the "no parking" signs along Allen Road. I am sure that with
your group's effort to keep the early morning noise to a minimum, there should not be
any further problems with your parking in this area.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
���
��
Alan Tandy
City Manager
AT. al b
cc: Councilmember Conni Brunni
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Fred Kloepper, Public Works Dept.
City of Bakersfield • City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield • California • 93301
(805) 326-3751 • Fax (805) 324-1850
� —_=� "� ,. •
B A K E R S F I E L D
MEMORANDUM
T0: KERN COUNTY MAYORS
KERN COUNTY CITY MANAGERS
FROM:
MAYOR BOB PRICE, BAKERSFIEI
ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: JOINT MAYOR/MANAGERS MEETING
April 1, 1994
The Ci ty Manager' s Associ ati on met on February 25, 1993 i n Bakersf i el d to di scuss
the issue of the County's new policy regarding annexations which will
significantly impact all cities. That topic ►vas again discussed among those City
Managers and Mayors attending the Kern County Association of Cities meeting in
California City on March 24th.
The County is.proposing a substantial revision to the property tax split policies
that have been in effect since 1978. They are demanding that the County retain
approximately 80qo of the property tax and 809'0 of Sales Taxes. Cities would be
allowed to continue collecting all other taxes normally associated with
annexation. The provision of Sheriff and Fire contract services are not affected
by this formula.
In exchange for all this, we are told, the County would then rely on the
judgement of all cities in their annexation policies and will not oppose
annexations. It appears that the only way cities will be able to annex
unincorporated areas is if we allow the county an extraordinarily high revenue
capture on every annexation.
Not only is this proposal unfair to cities but it reflects the County's desire
to act just as the State has done by looking to cities to solve the County's
fiscal problems. Many of the assumptions made in the County's proposal are
flawed. A copy of a memo to the City Manager's Working Group on Annexations is
provided for your information. As yoU can see all cities would lose considerable
revenue under the County's proposed policy.
City Managers have been discussing this issue with the County for several months
and have not arrived at a reasonable resolution of the issue. The implementation
of this new county policy is contrary to attempts by the Cities to work
cooperatively together with the county to effectively address concerns about
annexations and to generate new ideas and approaches to efficiently provide
public services. The County has approached annexation negotiations with a divide
and conquer strategy. One by one, cities would go in with an annexation - the
County would threaten deniai unless their 80%/80% proposal is accepted. After
a few cities have conc2ded, the potential opposition group is reduced in size and
strength until there is not enough cohesive opposition to get them to change the
policy. Their primary focus appears to be keeping as much revenue as possible
while shifting ser�vice responsibiliLies to cities.
, —� �
� _ �.-=�= -- �
KERN COUNTY MAYORS
KERN COUNTY CITY MANAGERS
April 1, 1994
Page -2-
This policy would also leave developers in limbo until the end o
annexation process. They cannot rationally plan to be in the City,
they cannot guess the outcome of the negotiations.
f the lengthy
or not, since
Some cities have many annexations - others may not have them immediately. In the
end, however, every city in the County can be negatively impacted by this issue.
At the Februar�y 25th City Manager's meeting, there was considerable discussion
about cities working together to overcome problems associated with processing of
annexations, tax distribution, and other issues involving City/County
cooperation. It was suggested that it might be effective to have periodic
meetings with both the City Managers and Mayors of each City in order to brief
policy level officials on the details of these issues so we can work together to
effectively address and resolve them.
It was suggested that a central location, such as Tehachapi, would allow for the
most participation by all Kern County cities in such a meeting. A meeting should
be scheduled as soon as possible in April so we can begin to deal with these
important issues. We will place some calls to try and establish a time when as
many Mayors and Managers as possible can meet. It is expected that the meeting
would begin around 10:00 a.m. and would continue through lunch and into the
afternoon, depending on the length of the agenda. It is anticipated that the
agenda would include the following topics:
1. Kern County Annexation Policy - LAFCO
2. Revenue distribution upon annexation
3. Audit of County revenue distributions
4
5
Ideas for Kern County Cities to work together
State Budget impacts on Cities
If you have any other issues you would like to include please contact my office
at (805) 326-3751 and we would be happy to include them as part of the agenda.
.alb
� `
�