The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/13/94�� tr� � B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM May 13, 1994 T0: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL �_ FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. On November 10, 1993, in conjunction with setting the City Council Meeting schedule for 1994, you adopted a Resolution which also set the Council Budget Meeting/Hearing dates for May and June. Some modifications have been made to the order in which you will review each segment of the Budget and conduct Public Hearings. These modifications are shown on the enclosed Schedule of Workshops and Special Meetings. 2. In regard to the question of dealing with Police space needs, we did review the possibility of acquiring the City Center Building, which is immediately west of the Police Department, across "H" Street. The bottom line of that situation is that, while it was picked up at auction by a local company and could be bought reasonably, it does not ideally meet the longer term needs of the Police Department. We are planning to put it on the back burner, and will probably be reviewing plans that more precisely meet the needs of the Department. 3. You have probably seen that Valley Communities released information to the press indicating that the Fish and Game's efforts to get them to not spread our effluent on their farm could cause dire consequences. We have not updated you on this for several months because, when last we heard, it was the local District Attorney they were attemptirrg to get to file criminal charges. When that did not become possible, apparently, they kept seeking entities which would, and eventually found a federal agency willing to pursue it. It is not a short-term threat, but it is a long-term threat which we will continue to monitor. 4. There is a response to a Council Referral enclosed on how many disputed bids we have had recently. We note, in reviewing a Board of Supervisors Agenda, that the Griffith Company was also protesting one of their recent bid awards. 5. You wi 11 f i nd a report encl osed i n regard to a Counci 1 Referral on the status of a variety of railroad crossings. 6. There is a memo enclosed from Public Works giving a status report on the speed bump program, which was discussed at the Urban Development Committee meeting this weeic. That subject seems to be controversial from a variety of perspectives. The two recent Council Referrals on this topic were raised but may not yet be fully responded to. � _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ . . � .°� � HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL May 13, 1994 Page -2- 9 7. A memo is enclosed from the Economic/Community Development Department on the requirements imposed upon the CDDA by AB 1290. This will consume a good deal of discretionary money in the Redevelopment district, as well as the time of staff for next year. 8. The Art Museum is looking at a new location. If they find one, and move, it would free up the building we own in Central Park for another use. A memo is enclosed on that subject. 9. We thought the issue of the Fire Battalion Chiefs requesting to be in the Union had gone away, however, we received a new document raising some legal issues and, again, advocating that they be recognized as a Union. We are reviewing the legal ramifications. As soon as we understand all of those issues, we will respond to their request. 10. Surprise! The County Board �f Supervisors took an action. It looks like, for the moment, they are going to go with our green waste program, and will be dropping the efforts for the recycling facility at Bena. 11. You may or may not, have heard that Tracy Corrington is leaving The Bakersfield Californian and moving to the east coast. We do not yet know what reporter will be assigned to the City beat. 12. A few weeks ago, I gave you a communication indicating that we had attempted to accommodate DeWalt Corporation relative to a incomplete application for a General Plan Amendment for Riverlakes Ranch. We did accommodate them; you will find a letter enclosed, however, indicating that they decided to delay the proposal to the next General Plan cycle. 13. The County again rejected the tax split on Rosedale #5. We are preparing an appeal to the Board. 14. Through the efforts of the City, Wells Fargo has agreed to contribute $10,000 to the Kern Small Business Loan Fund. A press conference will be held on May 16th. AT.alb Enclosures cc: Department Heads City Clerk SCHEDULE OF WORKSHOPS AND SPECIAL MEETINGS DATED: MAY 13, 1994 ------------------------------------------------------------------- REGIILAR MEETING WORRSHOP MAY 4, 1994 VISTA PROGRAM (JAKE WAGER) (10 MIN) (WEDNESDAY) CLOSED SESSION MAY 4, 1994 . CITY ATTORNEY SCREENING (60 MIN) (WEDNESDAY) ------------------------------------------------------------------ REGULAR MEETZNG WORRSHOP MAY 18, 1994 CITY MANAGER BUDGET OVERVIEW (5:15) (WEDNESDAY) ------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDGET MEETING MAY 23, 1994 BUDGET MEETING (NOON) - GENERAL GOVERNMENT (MONDAY) EXECUTIVE FINANCE REVENUES CITY ATTORNEY ------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDGET MEETING MAY 25, 1994 BUDGET MEETING (5:00 P.M.) - FIRE (WEDNESDAY) WATER/SANITATION ------------------------------------------------------------------ WORRSHOP JUNE 1, 1994 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUDGET PRESENTATION BUDGET MEETING JUNE 6, 1994 (MONDAY) ------------------------------------------------- BUDGET MEETING (NOON) - POLICE ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------- BUDGET HEARINGS JUNE.8, 1994 BUDGET HEARINGS (5:15 P.M.) - MAINTENANCE (WEDNESDAY) DISTRICTS FEES FOR SERVICE ----------------------------------------------- � Alan Tandy City Manager ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIIDGET HEARTNGS JUNE 9, 1994 BUDGET HEARINGS (5:15 P.M.) (THURSDAY) (CONTINUED IF NECESSARY) ------------------------------------------------------------------- BIIDGET MEETING JUNE 13, 1994 BUDGET MEETING (NOON) - PUBLIC WORKS (MONDAY) ------------------------------------------------------------------ BUDGET MEETING JUNE 15, 1994 BUDGET MEETING (5:00 P.M.) - COMMUNITY (WEDNESDAY) SERVICES ------------------------------------------------------------------ BIIDGET HEARINGS JUNE 22, 1994 BUDGET HEARINGS (5:15 P.M.) - (WEDNESDAY) OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BUDGET FOR: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ------------------------------------------------------------------ bz/SCHEDULE.WS • 5/t3/94 2:12p� ,; t . � B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy • Ciry Manager May 10, 1994 The Honorable Pete Wilson Governor, State of California State Capitol, First Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 ° �` '1 �� i � Re: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Valle� Communities as it Relates to Sweet Home v. Babbitt Dear Governor Wilson: I wish to call your attention to the recent decision by the San Francisco Field Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, to prosecute a local landowner in direct violation of the recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Sweet Home v. Babbitt. As I am sure you are aware, the court in Sweet Home made it very clear that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service's regulation defining "harm" to include habitat modifications is invalid. Nevertheless, the Solicitor's Office has filed a twelve-count Notice of V�iolation against Valley Communities, a local farm business that has a contract with the City of Bakersfield to spread treated effluent from the City's sewer treatment plant. Interestingly, the investigative report, which appears to be the basis upon whic!� the charges were filed, indicates that the plowing of farm land (and, apparently, spreading of effluent) by Valley Communities constituted nothing more than a potential destruction of habitat (i.e., habitat modification) for Tipton kangaroo rats and blunt-nosed leopard lizards. While the City of Bakersfield is not directly involved in the litigation at this time, it is the intention of the Solicitor's Office to ultimately seek injunctive.relief against the further use of the farm land should their. office not be able to settle the ma�ter with Valley Communities: Such injunctive relief would have disastrous results for the City of Bakersfield because it is absolutely essential for the City to spread the treated effluent as a part of the ongoing operation of the sewer treatment plant. Any injunction would effectively shut down the sewer treatment plant and, obviously, cause a health problem of catastrophic proportions. City of Sakersfield s City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue Sakersfield • California • 93301 � Governor Pete Wilson May 10, 1994 - Page 2 In light of all the above, I am respectfully requesting that you take whatever action is necessary to assist in seeing that the law is followed (as set forth in Sweet Home v. Babbitt) and that the prosecution of Valley Communities is dismissed. For your information, Valley Communities issued a press release pertaining to this matter, a copy of which is enclosed for your perusal. Thank you very much for your assistance in this very important matter. Sinc rely, _� i/ ' an Tandy City Manager Enclosure � RMS: rb corr711etters\wilson � � c;Ht�r�rr r��,�ocic�tES ��5 F.�i e•�� F•.e� �- �41 ..-'� �a��UN�TiC C�NSTRUC�'�QN. �NC. � � .. � _.. _ _ _�_._.� -- ._�.. . 531 California Av�nue, Bakers�Ield, Catifornia 93304 � (805) 327-7912 �AX {805) 327-3592 ! ICE'�SE i?34582 �RESS R�LEASE FOR lMMEDIAT� RE EL ASE Contacts: Mr, Randafl Abbott Vica President ` U.S. �ish and Wiidiife Service files more ch�rgss against � Kern County Farming Campany, A locai �griculturai partnership, Vai(ey Communities, Inc., has been charged with violating the'Endangered Species AcY' for farming properly IoCated in Western Kern County. Valley Communities, Inc., owners Jim Trigueiro, John Thomas and Eldon Hugie, claim the civi! charges are a result of being harassed by both the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. �ish and Wildlife Service for more t)�an three years. The partners farm approximately 5000 �cres (ocated adjacent to interstate 5, near Taft Nighway. The agencies ciaim iarming the property h�s damaged the habitat of endangered speeiss, suCh �as the "B�unt Nosed Leopard Lizard" and the `Tipton Kangaroo Rat" and are seeking civi) penalties totaling �300,o00,Q0. ._ � F' L��E��IJTT H`.-.'_.iiC,IPii��. N�t'7� E.?.1 >c:'f��i F'.tt.j � '2' Most of the property is presently being farmed with cotton, alfalfa and graln crops. A portion Of the site is used for water percolation purposes. All of the property is subject to a contract with the City of Qakersfield to receive treated effiuent water from City Wastewater Treatment Piant No. 3. Devetoprnent ot the property occurred as a resuh of the sefection of the site for disposal of Gty wastewater as early as 1984. The City prepared an oxtensive Environmental lmpact Repo�t, conducted pubiic hearings, and executed a wastewater contract that established this property as the effluent disposai site. Vall6y Communities, Inc. stated that this property is the only place the wastewater can go. If F'►sh and Wildliie are successful in stopping the farming of this property, then every toilet and sink in Southwest Sakersfield would back-up and overflow. Why have these agencies waited ten years to attack this project?� The recard is very clear that they were fully aware of the EVR and public hearings �hat occurred in 1984. 0 As recently as slx weeks ago, both the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wiidlife Service offered to compromise if Valley Communities, Inc. would agree to "blackmail` tactics that wouid eventuaily result in giving up their land. The an5wer was, "No tivay! We have the right to farm this land and we intend to continue.° The �ish and Wildiife Service was toid to fi1e their charges and Va11ey Communities, Inc. wiil fight the taking of their fand a11 the way to the Supreme Court. . � � � (�� . �� , `�, + , s � . V a B A K E R S F I E L D Alan Tandy � City Manager May 10, 1994 The Honorable Phil Wyman Senator, State of California 1326 "H" Street Bakersfield, CA 93301 Re: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Valley Communities as it Relates to Sweet Home v. Babbitt Dear Senator t9yman : I wish to call your attention to the recent decision by the San Francisco Field Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, to prosecute a local landowner in direct violation of the recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision in Sweet Home v. Babbitt. As I am sure you are aware, the court in Sweet Home made it very clear that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's regulation defining ".harm" to include habitat modifications is invalid. Nevertheless, the Solicitor's Office has filed a twelve-count Notice of Vio�ation against Valley Communities, a local farm business that has a contract with the City of Bakersfield to spread treated effluent from the City's sewer treatment plant. Interestingly, the investigative report, which appears to be the basis upon which the charges were filed, indicates that the plowing of farm land (and, apparently, spreading of effluent) by Valley Communities constituted nothing more than a potential destruction of habitat (i.e., habitat modification) for Tipton kangaroo rats and blunt-nosed leopard lizards. While the City of Bakersfield is not directly involved in the litigation at this time, it is the intention of the Solicitor's Office to ultimately seek injunctive relief against the further use of the farm land should their office not be able to settle the matter with Valley Communities. Such injunctive relief would have disastrous results for the City of Bakersfield because it is absolutely essential for the City to spread the treated effluent as a part of the ongoing operation of the sewer treatment plant. Any injunction would effectively shut down the sewer treatment plant and, obviously, cause a health problem of catastrophic proportions. City of Bakersfield • City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue_ Bakersfield • California • 93301 � Senator Phil P7yman May 10, 1994 Page 2 In light of all the above, I am respectfully requesting that you take whatever action is necessary to assist in seeing that the law is followed (as set forth in Sweet Home v. Babbitt) and that the prosecution of Valley Communities is dismissed. For your information, Valley Communities issued a press release pertaining to this matter, a copy of which is enclosed for your perusal. Thank you very much for your assistance in this very important matter. Sin re y, � j � -,� an Tandy City Manager Enclosure RMS:rb corr711ettcrslwyman •. R L� F+NPI�TT ASS�JC1HlE� l�l�S t.31 �J'16�T f-�.E1�: � �o��T� �a�s��uc��oN. ��c. "� _ •. .. r - - �. ... � .. � . . . i _a��r+�-+ � ..� • .�...�.. . . . � 531 California Avenue, Bakerstield, California 93304 - (805) 327-7912 FAX (805) 327-3592 UCE"�SE 1�333582 pRESS RELEASE FOR lMMEDIATE RELEASE _ Contacts: Mr. Randall Abbott Vica President U.5. �ish end Wildiife Service fifes more charges against a Kern County Farming Company. A local agricultural partnership, Vafiey Communities, lnc., has been charged with violating the "Endangered Species Act" for farming property IoCated in Western Kern County. Valley Communities, 1nc., ormers Jim 7rigueiro, John Thomas and Eldon Hugie, claim the civil charges are a result of being harassed by both the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more tl�an three years. The partners farm approximately 5000 ac�es (ocated adjacent to Interstate 5; near Taft Highway. The agencies claim farming the property has damaged the habitat of endangered species, such as tha "Blunt Nosed Leopard Lizard" and the `Tipton Kangaroo Rat" and are seeking civii penalties totaling $300,OOO,QO. . � h• L f. f.; L' i� 1 1 H'..'_, i i i. ( H 1 L:_. ;.� �� i'-_. .:. � ,. �., ,. �� Most of the property is presently being farmed with cotton, aliaifa and grain Crops. A portion of the site is used for water percolation purposes. All ot the properry is subjeCt to a contract with the City of Bakersfiefd to receive treated effluent water Nom City Westewater Treatment Piant No. 3. Devetopment of the property occurred as a result of the selection o( the site for disposai of city wastewater as early as 1984. The City prepared an extensive Environmental lmpact Report, conducted public hearings, and executed e wastewater Contract that established this property as the effluent disposal site. Valley Communitles, Inc. stated that this property is the only place the wastewater can go. If F'ish and VYiidliie are successful in stopping the farming of thisproperty, then every toilet - and sink in Southwest Sakersfield would back-up and overflow. Why have these agencies waited ten years to attack this project? The record is very ciear that they were fully aware of the �IR and public hea�ings that occurred in 1984. As recentiy as s(x weeks ago, both the Cafifornia Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offered to Compromise if Valley Communities, Inc. woutd agree to "blaCkmail` tactics that would eventually result in giving up their land. The ^answer was, "No wayE We have the right to farm this land and wa intend to continue.' The Fish and Wildlife Service was told to �fi1e their charges and Va11ey Commun�ies, Inc. will fight the taking of their land all tha way to the Supreme Court. � ' � D �i ( � . u . B A K E R S F"I E I. D Alan Tandy • City �tilanager May 10, 1994 Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary United States Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, North West Washington, D.C. 20240 Re: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Valley Communities as it Relates to Sweet Home v. Babbitt Dear Secretary Babbitt: I wish to call your attention to the recent decision by the San Francisco Field Office of the Solicitor, Department of the In�erior, to prosecute a local landowner in direct violation of the recent U.S: Court of Appeals decision in Sweet Home v. Babbitt. As I am sure you are aware, the court in Sweet Home made it very clear that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's regulation defining "harm" to include habitat modifications�is invalid. Nevertheless, the Solicitor's Office has filed a twelve-count Notice of Violation against Valley Communities, a local farm business that has a contract with the City of Bakersfield to spread treated effluent from the City's sewer treatment plant. Interestingly, the investigative report, which appears to be the basis upon which the charges were filed, indicates that the plowing of farm land (and, apparently, spreading of effluent) by Valley Cornmunities constituted nothing more than a potential destruction of habitat-(i.e., habitat modification) for Tipton kangaroo rats and blunt-nosed leopard lizards. While the City of Bakersfield is not directly involved in the litigation at this time, it is the intention of the Solicitor's Office to ultimately seek injunctive relief against the further use of the farm land should th�ir office not be able to settle the matter witH Valley Communities. Such injunctive relief would have disastraus resul�s for the City of Bakersfield because it is. absolutely essential for the City to spread the treated effluent as a part of the ongoing operation of the sewer treatment plant. Any injunction would effectively shut down the sewer treatment plant and, obviously, cause a health problem of catastrophic proportions.. City of 6akersfield • City Manager's Office • 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bake�sfield • California • 93301 � Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary United States Department of the Interior - May 10, 1994 Page 2 In light of all the above, I am respectfully reques�ing that you take whatever action is necessary to assist in seeing that the law is followed (as set forth in Sweet Home v. Babbitt) and that the prosecution of Valley Communities is dismissed. For your information, Valley Communities issued a press release pertaining to this matter, a copy of which is enclosed for your perusal. Thank you very much for your assistance in this very important matter. Since ely, �--- Tan y ity Manager / Enclosure a t�ts:�n cort7Vetters\babbitt �• � f-�HHU7 r c.:._.�_��_ �HiE�� 1c,: f.st «•�� H_c�� _ �y =� � � ��Mt��IT�' ��NSTRUC��ON. �NC. . 531 Calitomia Avenue, 8akersfiaid, California 93304 _ (805) 327-7g12 FAX (805) 327-3592 LICENSE �34582 pRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contacts: Mr. Randall Abbott Vice President U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fifeS more charges against a Kern COUnty Farming Company. A local agricuitural partnership, Vafiey Communiti8s, lnc,, has beer� charged with violating the'End2ngered Spec�es ACt" for farming property located in Western Kern County. Valley Communities, Inc., ovmers Jim Trigueiro, John Thomas and Eldon Hugie, claim the civil charges are a resuft of being harassed by both the Califomia Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for more than three years. The partners farm approximately 5000 acres located adjacent to Interstate 5, nea� Taft Highw�y. The sgencias claim farming the property has damaged the habitat of endangered specias, such as .the "Blunt Nosed Leopard Lizard" and the `Tipton Kangaroo Rat" and are seeking civii penaities totaling $300,040.40. � F• L r+k:F;�_� 1 1 H::.�_.i_ii_ 1 N I k_ �, :_,��-, r. '. � r,:'.�._. � � 1.. - t, '2' Most of the property is presently being farmed with cotton, alfalfa and graln Crops. A portion of the site is used for water percolation purposes. AII ot the property is subject to a cor�tract with the City of Sakers�ield to r�ceive treated effluent water from City Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 3. Development ot the property occurred as a resuit of the selection of the site for disposal of city wastewater as early as 1984. The City prepared an extensive EnvironmentaJ lmpact aepo�t, conducted public hearings, and executed a wastewater contract that established this property as the effluent disposai site. Valley Communities, Inc. stated that this property is the only pl�ce the wastewater can go. if F►sh and Wildli�e are successiul in stopping the iarming of this prqperty, then every toilet and sink in Southwest Bakersfield would back-up and overflow. VYhy have these agenCies waited ten years to attack this projecYl Ttie record ls very clear that they were fully aware f of the EIR and public hearings that occurred in 1984. As recently as sIx weeks ago, both tha California Oepartment of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wiidlifa Service offered to com�romise if Vallsy Communities, Inc.. would agree to "b�ackmail' tactics that would eventually result in giving up their land. The answer was, "No way! We have the right to farm this land and we intend to continue.' The �ish and Wildiife Service was told to fi1e their charges and Valley Commun�ies, Inc. will fight tha taking qf their Eand all the way to the Supreme Court. r, x.. _� °��:� RECEI!/ED �,�,.a ' 6 V� .� f.,� ; ;,-i � CITY iVi,4fV,qGER'S O��iCE May z, �ssa T0: Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director FROM: Darlene Wisham, Purchasing Officer � REGARDING: City Council Meeting Referra/ No. 13232 At the City Council meeting of April 20, 1994, Councilmember Brunni asked for a report on all of the disputed bids that Council had dea/t with over the /ast twenty-four (24) monfhs. Using information from Council minutes, I noted that from approximste/y 170 bid items p/aced on the agenda for Council review, five (5) items were disputed and brought to the Council's attention. I did not include the current issue on the annual contract for Type "B" Asphali Concrete as it has not yef been resolved. Annua/ Contract for Chemica/s On January 12, 1994, staff recommended the annua! contract for Chemicals be split three ways. Abate-A-Weed, a usual bidder and contract ho/der, had not bid this time. Joe Feil, ofAbate-A•Weed, claimed he had been denied the opportuniiy to bid because an invitation to bid had not been mailed to him. Unfortunate/y, severa/ names were de/eted from our vendor file during a transfer and program update by Daia Processing. A notice requesting bids had been advertised in The Bakersfield Californian. The Council chose to reject all bids and have staff rebid the chemica/ contract giving Abate-A-Weed another chance to bid. This resulted in the contract being split and awarded to four (4) vendors; Abate A-Weed, Wilbur-Ellis, Van Waters and Rogers, and Kern Turf Supply. � 1 . Refuse and Yard Waste Containers In April, 1993, staff so/icited bids fo provide 2600 yard waste and refuse containers to the City. Specifications were compiled and furnished by ihe Sanitation department based on the results of a three month actua/ use pilof program using carts from twe/ve vendors. Five bidders responded in April. Two of the five offered carts that did not meet the minimum specifications and protested when their bids were not considered. In response to Counci! concerns, staff supplied additional information and the award was made as originally recommended by staff. Request for Proposals - Safety Shoes !n November, 1992, the Risk Management division, in conjunction with the Purchasing division, requested proposa/s from vendors to provide uniform footwesr (safety shoes) to some City emp/oyees. Suppliers that had expressed interest in submitting proposa/s were notified and an advertisementrequesting proposals was p/aced in The Bakersfield Californisn newspaper. Proposals were received and opened December 4, 1992, with the /owest cost offered by a vendor from Los Ange/es. A/ocal vendor, Moon Wa/ker Boots, protested, saying he didn't know of the request for proposa/s and the City should keep the business /ocal. A contract with the /ow bidder was in effect and so allowed to continue unti! comp/etion. Moon Walker Boots submitted a request to be added io the City vendor list, and was then notified when the contract was again available for proposa/s. Atomic Absorption Specfrometer On September 30, 1992, Council supported staff recommendaiion to accept a bid from Hitachi Instruments for a spectrometer for the Wastewater Tresiment plant. Mr. Craig Beasley, ihe representative from GBC Scientific, spoke to Council and objected to the minimum specifications set by the using department. In a memo to Council, WastewaterTreatmentdivision staffdefended the minimum requirements as bid and Council awarded the bid as recommended. 2 Traffic Signa/ Modification -"L" Sfreet and Truxtun Avenue June 5, 1992, bids were opened for the signal modification at "L" Street and Truxtun Avenue. The award of the contracf to the apparent low bidder, Ante/ope Valley Signal, lncorporated, was challenged by the Center for Contract Compliance (CCC). The allegations made by the CCC were investigated and determined to be unfounded, as stated in a/etter from Robert Sherfy, City Attorney's Office to Mr. Mark Griffith, Center for Contract Compliance. On Ju/y 15, 1992, Council awarded the contract to Ante/ope Valley Signal, lncorporated and the project was satisfactorily completed in January, 1993. DW:Ijm AIMEM034.DW 3 . -, • �, . � Additional information.for Greg regarding Kenko projects. Kenko, Incorporated has been awarded the following projects: 1992 -.Hosking Trunk Sewer 1991 - Jewetta Trunk Sewer 1990 - McCutcheon - Stine Road Sewer Main Replacement 1986 - Buena Vista Trunk Sewer My research indicates no protests on the Hosking project. The award of the Jewetta project to Kenko, Incorporated was protested by the Center for Contract Compliance (CCC). The matter was referred to Budget and Finance Committee. The Committee met with representatives from the Center for Contract Compliance; Operating Engineers, Local No. 12; and Kenko, Incorporated. After reviewing the documents presented, the Committee recommended the project be awarded to Kenko, Incorporated. Staff was directed to closely monitor the quality of work, payroll records, and issues of safety during the construction period. On February 1, 1991, the CCC opposed the award of Sewer Replacement at McCutcheon and Stine Road project to Kenko, Incorporated. The award had been made by Council January 30, 1991. Kenko, Incorporated completed the project. I do not have information on the 1986 project. - - � w: . I� • y ' _ • B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT . MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager :;;F�=: RECEI�OED : � � �� 6 ��9� 'i ��3� �/iA�l�E��'S O�G�GCf�� FROM: Fred L. Kloepper, Acting Public Works Director � � DATE: May 5, 1994 SUBJECT: RAILROAD CROS5ING UPGRADING STATUS REPORT Council Referral Record #13199 Ward 1- Councilmember Lynn Edwards California Avenue, Crossing BT 314.15 Minor patching work has been done, the Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) Roadmaster, Jerry Maxwell has requested management's approval to remove planks and pave the crossing. We will follow-up with an encouraging letter to Mr. Maxwell. Brundage Lane, Crossing BT-315.2 Mr. Maxwell of SPTC has agreed to trim and patch raised pavement. We will include this crossing in our letter. Potomac Avenue, Crossing BT 314.4 At the first of this year this crossing was reported as being in good condition. No work is contemplated. Ward 2- Councilmember Patricia J. DeMond East Truxtun Avenue, Crossing 2-886.2C We are unaware of any improvements completed on this crossing. We will transmit a request for repair to Mr. Stan Reidenbach of The Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company (AT&SF). Page 1 of 2 �. ._ � � � Alan Tandy, City Manager May 5, 1994 Re: Railroad Crossing Upgrading Status Report City Council Referral Record #13199 Ward 4- Councilmember Conni Brunni Coffee Road, Crossing #2-891.7 Complete replanking and reconstruction will take place June 25 and June 26, 1994. This work will require a 48 hour closure of Coffee Road. Rosedale Highway, Crossing 2Q-113.2 Calloway Drive, Crossing 2-892.6 These crossings are in the unincorporated area of the County. Kem County was notified by the Public Utilities Commission in January, 1994 of planned work by AT&SF Railway Company on Calloway Drive. The Rosedale crossing is owned by the Tulare Valley Railroad Company. That company has been notified to improve the crossing. ### R8F13199.FLR Page 2 of 2 -� _ _ _ ` . , f .�, � , ' � , ' . I • `'" � - __-.__ _ - -- t� =1 a��,,-'r'__Ji�� ij -- � �- .� � _ . ._ _ � �.�_ �_ - - - - _ - - -. .� _. .w< =�-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ � � CITY COUNCIL REFERRA� �_, � ;,� °>.� P R 1� 1954 � � MEETING OF: 04/06/94 ; 4UBLIC INCR�S C�*aRTMENT REFERRED TO: PUBLIO WORIES R ROJAS ' ZTEM: RECORD# 13199 Railroad crossings. (Brunri, ueMond, Edwards) ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL: ��q 1 EVIEW THE ISSUE OF ��,y�,�,.�GO'1- G"taf�" RAILROAD CROSSINGS AT ROSEDALE HIGHWA �( NEAR �, LANDCO) CALLOWAY DRIVE AND CO D THAT HAVE NOT B N.UPGRADED AND TO PROVIDE A STATUS REPORT TO COUNCIL AND MR. ALDRIDGE, PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. 2) EDWARDS RE{?UESTED STATUS,REPORT ON REQUESTS FOR REPAIR �F RAILROAD CROSSINGS AT CALIFORNIA AVENUE, BRUNDAGE LANE AND POTOMAC AVENUE. 3) DEMOND REflUESTED A STATUS REPORT ON THE EAST TRUXTUN RAILROAD CROSSING REPAIR. BACKUP MATERIAL ATTACHED: NO DATE FORWARDED BY CITY CLERK: 04/�s/94 i � ; wr: '. ^� o �� , �-�,. B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 11, 1994 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTO SUBJECT: SPEED BUMP UPDATE At the May 11, 1994 Urban Development Committee, the Public Works Department presented a revised notification letter that will be mailed to property owners within the vicinity of speed bump installations. Additional revisions were requested and a new draft letter written (copy attached). Maps showing proposed areas of notification were reviewed with the Committee. Based on comments from committee members, some of the notification areas will be expanded to assure that residents that may be indirectly affected will also receive notice of the test speed bump installations. The Committee also requested that a public hearing be set for residents to voice their views on the selected test locations. We will be working with the City Attorney and Ciry Clerk to set a public hearing date and begin notification of residents and property owners after a date is confirmed. Revised list of speed bump installation locations: Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Clifton Street - Texas Street to East 3rd Street Beech Street - 2Ath Street to 30th Street Flintridge Drive - College Avenue to Country Club Drive Toluca Drive - Hidalgo Drive to Boca Del Rio Drive HIeinpell Avenue - Rio Bravo Drive to Winston Drive DROPPED Parsons Way - Panama Lane to McCleary Way C:\data\wp\trafinemo\spdbumpl.mem 3rd DRAFT LETTER Month� Day, 1994 Dear Property Owner: The City of Bakersfield is proposing to install a speed bump on (Street Name) to slow traffic on this street. This action is in response to past complaints received by the Traffic Engineer, various petitions or inquiries from other sources. The installation of a speed bump on (Street Name) is part of a City-wide pilot test of effectiveness of speed bumps, and will be paid for with State Gas Tax Funds at no cost to property owners. Traffic Engineers will monitor the speed and volume of traffic on your street before the installation and again several times after the installation. If our results indicate the speed bump pilot program is successful, City staff and the Council will considered developing a policy on installation of speed bumps, where needed, throughout the City. The policy will specify the required fee to be paid by residents to have speed bumps installed, petition requirements, description of street types that can be considered for speed bump installation and other details. If the test speed bump is a detriment to the neighborhood and does not reduce speeds, it will be removed at no cost to property owners. For your information, a plan showing the approximate speed bump location and a sketch drawing that shows what a speed bump will look like, is enclosed. A response card is also provided for your convenience. Please take a few minutes to fill out the card and drop in the mailbox. If no response is received within 10 days we will consider that you are in favor of this improvement. If 25 percent, or more, of the responses are negative, the project for.your street may be eliminated. A public hearing for this street, and other streets in the test program, will be held on in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue. Thank you for your assistance in this test of speed bump effectiveness. If you need more information on this traffic project, please contact Brad Underwood, during normal office hours, at 326-3993, Very truly yours, Raul M. Rojas Public Works Director by: Stephen L. Walker Traffic Engineer cc: Councilmember Ward i�� RETURN ADDRESS: i �� G Brad Underwood ' City of Bakersfield Department of Public Works �� 1 1501 Truxtun Avenue � Bakersfield, CA 93301 I, I �I I� i ; RESPONSE CARD TEXT: Please complete and return. [] I am in favor of the installation of speed bumps. [] I am neutral toward the installation of speed bumps. (] I am opposed to the installation of speed bumps. (optional; please telephone me at ) Comment: ** Property owner address labels will be affu�ed to the response card for identification. Advanced Warning sign Height = 3 in. max • , r- ------ ___..., � .. Reflective white pavement marking � ii a— � � �� 12" Reflective White Stripes � 6' O.C. � Typical Street Plan View Direction of Trave 1.5 .ft � �� Length = 12 ft BUMP 10 MPH Advanced Warning Sign �face Cross Section & Bump dimensions Exhibit "A" Traffic Engineering � �� . • B A K E R S F I E L D �� Economic and Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M Honorable Mayor arid Members of APPROVED BY: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: SUBJECT: Jake Wager, Economic Development Action Plan for AB1290 Compliance. �<, _ .., � April 11, 1994 INTRODUCTION AB 1290 went into effect on January 1, 1994. The driving force behind this legislation was an attempt to cure the most blatant abuses of redevelopment as they have been generally perceived. Primarily AB 1290 affects the way a new redevelopment project area is adopted. It also sets in place the tax sharing formula for all of the affected taxing agencies when a redevelopment project area is being established or amended. Perhaps of more critical importance to us are a number of modifications which apply to both existing and new redevelopment project areas. I have recommended to the Central District Development Agency that we take assertive action to ensure our conformance with the new requirements prior to December 31, 1994. There are two sets of issues which must be addressed. The first set of issues can be dealt with rather quickly since our discretion is limited, time limits. TIME LIMITS AB 1290 requires that the redevelopment plan be amended by ordinance to incorporate three time limits. The City Council must adopt this ordinance by December 31, 1994. Those limits are outlined below. A. TIME LIMIT ON INCURRING DEBT In rega.rds to the time limit on incurring debt, AB 1290 sets the limit at twenty years from adoption of the plan or January 1, 2004 whichever is later. Under our current plan our ability to incur new debt is set to expire on August 14, 2007. Because our existing time limit on incurring debt is later than what AB 1290 allows, the redevelopment plan must be modified to reflect the January 1, 2004 time Iimit. ni� �` B. TIME LIMIT ON PLAN ACTIVITIES = The second limit we must adopt is a time limit on the cessation of plan activities. AB 1290 states that all activities must cease forty years from plan adoption or January 1, 2009 whichever is later. Due to amendments to our project area we can maximize the time limit for each separate amendment. The recommendation, for the time limits we would adopt are the following underlined dates: Project Area Adoption/Amendments No. 1- August 14, 1972 No. 2- November 25, 1974 No. 3- August 30, 1976 No. 4- December 12, 1979 Forty Yeazs from Plan Adoption Aug,ust 14. 2012 November 25. 2014 Au�:ust 30, 2016 December 12, 2019 Upon the passage of the latest date, the Agency's authority to act (except to carry out previously incurred obligations) expires. Plans cannot be amended to exceed this time limit. C. TIME LIMIT ON REPAYMENT OF DEBT The final limit required to be established by AB 1290 is a time limit on the repayment of debt. AB 1290 now requires that all debt must be retired. The time limit applicable to our redevelopment plan is the later of January 1, 2019 or fifty years from adoption of the plan. The recommended time limits for adoption are underlined below. Project Area Adoption/Amendment No. 1- August 14, 1972 No. 2- November 25, 1974 No. 3- August 30, 1976 No. 4- December 12, 1979 Fifty Years from Plan Adoption August 14, 2022 November 25, 2024 August 30, 2026 December 12. 2029 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The next element of AB 1290 requires more time to put in place. AB 1290 now requires that each agency that has adopted a redevelopment plan prior to December 31, 1993 must adopt, through a public hearing process, an implementation plan prior to December 31, 1994. The implementation plan must include the following: • Specific goals and objectives • Specific projects, including an action and expenditure program that will be implemented within the following five years. • A description of programs that will alleviate blight. • Implementation of programs that will increase, improve, and preserve low and moderate-income housing. In many respects the Central District Development Agency (CDDA) already has certain components in place which will assist us in the development of an implementation plan. The agency has already developed a set of goals and objectives, adopted the AB315 (Affordable Housing Plan) in 1993, and as a subcomponent of our updated Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (as required by HUD), a consultant analyzed the best type of housing and the best suited location for such housing in our downtown area. Both the AB315 Plan and the consultant's analysis should assist us in forging the housing component of the implementation plan as required by AB 1290. Based on the above, it is my opinion that we only lack two � necessary ingredients in order to assemble the AB 1290 implementation plan: a blight survey and a market potential analysis. As a component of our implementation plan, I have recommended that staff develop the blight survey that would describe the blight that still exists in our project area in 1994. This would be done in accordance with the more sharply defined forms of blight enumerated in AB 1290. By way of example, if we make an administrative decision that the lack of off-street parking and the concentration of URM buildings a.re blighting influences on the downtown (and our survey would provide the supporting data) then we will be able to refer to our 1994 survey to support the finding. Therefore, in this example the CDDA would be allowed to provide assistance since the projects would produce additional parking and eliminate URM buildings. The final element that I believe would prove to be extremely valuable is the incorporation of the findings derived from a market potential analysis. The analysis would consist of an objective and quantifiable review of the locational advantages/disadvantages of downtown development opportunities. The study would focus on the constraints and opportunities that exist in the downtown based on the following: • Private/Public Infrastructure • Transportation Issues • Consumer Amenities • Housing • Demographic Profiles • Aesthetic Environment • Activity Centers I do not believe that our staff has the technical expertise to complete the development potential analysis while at the same time completing the blight survey. I have recommended that this be performed by a consultant. I have also recommended that this same consultant be retained to assemble the various components into the �nal implementation plan. In closing, questions have been raised as to the need for specificity in the implementation plan. It is my opinion that while AB 1290 does require some level of specificity, I do not endorse the position that we must describe the exact location or in other ways explicitly quantify a project identified in the implementation plan. Instead, it is my opinion that if we identify a blighting condition and we define through which programs and projects we will eliminate that blighting influence, this will meet the spirit and intent of AB 1290. � SUMMARY OF ACTIONS REOUIRED In terms of timelines we have already initiated a process to establish the time limits required by AB 1290. Our pian calis for those limits to be established by June 1994 or Ju1y 1994 at the latest. It will require action by the CDDA and the City Council. In regards to the implementation plan, I would hope to have the CDDA approve such a plan at its October 1994 meeting and submit it to the City Council for its review with an anticipated approval date in the month of December 1994. This would provide for a public review and comment period of nearly two months. In order to meet this timeline, we have taken the initial steps to design the blight survey and plan to have it completed in July 1994. During this same time period a consultant will be selected who would complete the development potential analysis by August 1994. If � managed properly the implementation plan could provide the clearest blueprint yet of the tie-in of state-mandated requirements for housing to the missing pieces for the continuing revitalization of our downtown, including the needs perceived by downtown users and property owners and to the resources available. cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager dlt:db7 a612903.mem �� . � AB 1290 Timeline Task 1. Staff sends out RFP 2. CDDA adopts time limits ordinance and forwards to City Council. 3. CDDA selects consultant to complete implementation plan and perform development potential analysis. 4. Staff completes blight study. 5. City Council adopts timelimits ordinance. 6. Consultant completes work. 7. CDDA adopts implementation plan and forwards it to City Council. 8. Public Review Period (4 weeks). 9. City Council holds public hearing and adopts implementation plan. �7 Scheduled Completion May 1994 July 1994 July 1994 July 1994 August 1994 August 1994 August/October 1994 October 1994 November 1994 `'r .`. .- _'r/` `. J. __ 1-2� � �� ' �! � \. • �-•�-�--�--� �-' . i . . . bd' � . , � . . . � � .��'/ ,j . `� � ��-� ' i�: Q+ f _ I � �-,�. ��y� �/ . 'a� �: \i !y` v � ., 7 �____�_ L. _. � �:;.�-,�� . i . c. � � � �; � 003 -� it� . , . itt • � �-- �.-_--�- - .•--_�—�-�. _. ' - ,�)�, � 1 ' `�� ,• \,./ _ I: �. �� I �' . ' . . �. . . . � �. ,' ��y� . `1��_ . .- _.��._ � � , j . , i. •.°;�.3 �.;`� _.�, .�..;. � � :-�_��,_�_.,� -��.-�-�---- ;�-�--{;� `�. � �� ,� ... � i • �� ; � ,,� .�. � , . . .� , ;�f" `�-• �.%�• y;• '� /�`�~- r i � + � * : '. � `�� i-_� :' � _ �--� ____.�� i�' ---- � �: . ' ',' �.n .�. �, , • �� , �'' _ ! �� ._�: \�i . _ �__' � _v'G:_,��- -�' � � ! ��ij '\ `.��. , . _ y_: ��i.�\:`�� r' � , ~' . . . } . . . . a� �.. ,�• . j fi:�. �., t � : .� . � �. !� �. � -f'T'`h , i: � i f. ... � � �� '/�, � ' � :7 � : .� q'-' ( �t�-fi't � � �;. � S� : . �. �' �' � _ . f _—.-_---» :_� ti=--� : - ��.'�✓..,�• ♦��`� �.i_�.: A,�,.k� 1 '��-! � �` �'`_1 �;.'.�� Z " -_ P. . . . . � . . �' !. , `X':� (,. 1 /�`' . • 1 lr � Ii4f� � � .��.-�� - - �- ir� �� / ��.� �� . ~ 1. . . . � � �.; 3' ��' s� st�r r� . �_,__�__'�� -�-� 'ifr� �:�� /�/� •ir � Q� ; . .. � .�: (i; ;�� ! :�,;�``�f i! �; Ik � ' 4. � � �, �. . � �. . . :r' ' / . � �• ��" ; Z ' � ti.�i-! s �i-lt_: �! : �,. , i = it _ � � \ ..�-�, � :� •�-- � � . : l,r , , � S .. . ,..�. ,., � , , :j:.., /• ,� •r J;: `,t% ' : ' " : • � : ' �'-�:', �_ T'.""T1 r. J�r19,l� . `\ .' .�` �^- . . .i , . :� � �' �'�" :'�� • ,�� ► � ��1 ; � � ' � : � I # � :� � ��v' ,. • � »_ _,____--_____� - � �y: �/�- ' /. �r• +�. _ } : ij t _ 1 � J �,�i,_ �� j :�.��J L'-�l-.] � ` + �� . . . _, , �. . �d/ •' �� . .,.,�. � .. �..,.• � � .- "°' . ' \ .�� -, . �; •/ � ►-� ��--�� r.-: i �yi' �l ("i�.�jT�}, • � • � ��7,..'+f---�- ��,r,��E �.�..j{ •: "__j�••••�•••��_� �' i�;i•'i7�i i"" _'� � � ��• ` 1 '-�•� ,°, �'..� .•+.�/ -(�+� �� , . ► ,� Ci.�-...:.� �� ..�:.,-.J 1�.:� _;-�' � :" , � I .� -1 ��• i �,.�s. _ .� ,�. '�r r%�\ �t •{ . � 'rF rr• � � �� + `j � \�� . � - l ��-. f �M� rYy i . �. ._ , ~ ' _ _ �� _ � � S � \ .su� ` '� � :t � � :� � " • ��_ _j . Ei-; ''• ! �_ �,� � � -� � _ � _ ! ��.. �`�. � �\ ,..., '�• . ti � �L#� ��'.U� � ��il �1� ..�.� :� `v., � - �«, �r ' � . - `.. ''' .` �` s- � r -T • � � ��. �a� . ! _ ^�'+ t t . '.(�.�Ti'�':�rf ,` ,� � � - � j ��= � -i. �, � �J�;�. �:�:�� i�:l ,� u ; .� a.,, �.� -� � ; '�� s {, C:: :�� .�.__. :i :j.� /�'�/�. y, � � . � � � i �1� +1 � � ��. r� Q ' �n� .Y ��y i • • �� . � ��-f � � _!� _' i'.�:'�;� �. �Gy ;--'" -� '� K: - �-' �1 C� ji' ':% ; � ,. . �� •�t `� .+? �� f. 0 �I�:._i!� 1' °�'�-I' ��-' �d �� 1 i` �� . . � .i,� `t �� ' � � �� _ _'=� 1��''� . �t . `�t._- g � ` ' � \� -� - - - �� - . t ; :� �^ , �'_�zl�•"''�... .�`'�?^T�l!-F�':i . ?-�T; � : ll ' t � : li {-i �� 1 �k�- v_Ai�; _.w? -�.__ � or�-_��. ��rt��Ti��. r-.... . -. -- - - � i F. � � L._4; .; I = �, �•� - +_�� Wy,'�1I �1p�\ ,,� J .J'� � � �� 1 ` + + � _ + 4 T�'-' ` , _. - - � -� i�-- � . . � - - , �r�J ' 7, -, �.-��' � 1 � - CE�TRAL � � - PARK ni � � � t= '_ � ` . -----,, •. � - ---�,; � ' _ .�'v� �. .. � � • , �1...._...�:: ;_ . , f." ; Tn''_'...� j ; �S;-= i �-#��'_. i • 1 � ^--r.�i�_�j ,�_��,'o��=:=.- _�. , . J.i__�_ ._ �.�J...�..._ TpUkiUN AVEI '` t . .--. .J` s,. .. r- �=�-__ �_ _ �..' � _t '" ' �_i_.}. ;: , aeQar ;� !�� j � �r, � � � .+� ��ae�et �� ( � �Iq O � fi'R A•� �� MI� Rli�a �IF� I� � 1�l�i �oe� � ��aa�� ;�� a - � ,- � �i- -, - �,� � � �:��u�� a s B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM T0: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIU ANALYST SUBJECT: BAKERSFIELD MUSEUM OF ART , ��. � / May 10, 1994 �' /� i In materials handed out at the Bakersfield Art Foundation Board of Directors meeting last night, the Executive Director announced that the Building Expansion Committee, due to security and visibility concerns, as well as retention of the Foundation's current assets, had voted to seek a new location. They are currentl y 1 ooki ng at a bui 1 di ng on F Street i n Westchester ( formerl y known as the Pepper Tree Market) as a possible donation from the owner, who may consider gifting the foundation with the building for the tax advantages and to commemorate her husband's name. If the Foundation were to leave the building owned by the City at 19th and R, it would vacate that building for other city purposes. It may be prudent at this point to review the conditions under which the City obtained both the land and building at the site for possible future uses as well as the continuation of "the Cunningham Art Gallery" and the "Bakersfield Museum of Art" as the Bakersfield Art Foundation would no longer be affiliated with the city. Any possible move would not occur in the immediate future as considerable remodelling would be needed after a building were either donated, built or purchased. Thus, this memo is to inform you, essentially, that the Foundation's Expansion Committee has committed to seeking a new location. (m0510941) cc: Gail Waiters rL`5� �`-�- MRY 62 ' 94 15: 52 DEIJALTCORP 128 P02 � DEIAIALT • FNGUIF,�RINti • PLApNING • y�qy�NG � tAN b DEVEIOAMENT • Cqrg7qUCT�ON MANAGEAIENT � • ' M�► 2, i�{ Mr. � Q�� , Pf�ting p� �/ Of �dtcerefleld 1T90 Chegt�r qygnue 8�a�e�d, GA 9:i30'1 Re: General Ptan Amendment 2-94, Sep. I Rw� Speoific Plsn Amendrr�t 1-94 Deaz NI►. Cauthler: � �� ly over the past �ew w�eeks with the Nbrtl� 8aket�ld peaeation and Perk fon�ftze the �ideas ttr� ��d�d� has bevome app�arp�t � ��me Is rieecJed �o You awan9 the �Sing for the �� C°mmun In the Rhre� Howeveir, we feel the add�oriai time wi� resWt in ��,u6rnost i�porter� to oiu pmJect, , a�. We re4uest that o� propo�d proJect be i�ard at the September�15,�994 Plannh�g t�omm�lp �� • - . ple� Pro�►ide us wifh new dates !or �e Nottce and ��p� �anoe. A1so, let us know !f there are enY a�(t�onal fees to be Pa1d becat�ss af tha ch�e hear�g da�e. �ly, � � � � , � � �� • •-- . . - �, . _ �- . .. .� . �� : oe�s w. oewatt, oewa� oorporatton Colon BYwa�r. North 8ak�'iold Recreation and Park Dkb�ct 25�0 NILEBSTRFET BAKERSFELD. CA 93306 j8�j a71-3300 • FA%(8061871�302 5,..,.s��0�� a�xx --��____ �.'' �1994 ci�v nna��E�'� p�FfC� _� _ � s B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM May 11, 1994 T0: JOE DREW, COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICFR COUNTY OF KERN �� FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: ROSEDALE #5 ANNEXATION PRO EDI GS We have received your communication of May 10, 1994, which, once again, rejects the City's offer on the Rosedale #5 Annexation. This is to notify you that we wish to appeal your decision to the County Board of Supervisors. A Resolution based upon the verbal offer we have made to you is enclosed. Please advise us of the time and place of the County Board of Supervisors Meeting when this item will be heard. We would appreciate enough notice so that we can properly prepare a presentation to the Board. We understand that you will be recommending denial. We appreciate your consideration in responding to our request, however, we do feel that it is appropriate to get Board disposition in this instance. AT.alb Enclosure la " L RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADJUSTMIIVT OF PROPERTY TAX REV'ENUES UPON LOCAL AGENCY JURISDICTIONAL CHANGE RESULTING FROM ANNEXATION NO. 377, LAFCO PROCEEDING NO. 1158, ROSEDALE NO. 5 ANNEXATION (WARD 4). WHEREA5, Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code (enacted by Chapter 282, amended by Chapter 1161, Statues of 1979) provides that prior to the effective date of any local agency jurisdictional change, other than a city incorporation or formation of a new district as defined in Section 2215 of the Revenue and Taacation Code, the governing bodies of all agencies whose service areas or service responsibilities would be altered by such change shall determine the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged between and among such affected agencies; and WHEREAS, Section 99(b) of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that no such jurisdictional change may become effective until each county and city included in such negotiation agrees, by resolution, to accept the negotiated exchange of property tax revenues; and WHEREAS, Section 99(b) of the Revenue and Taxation Code further provides that in the event that such a jurisdictional change affects the service area or service responsibility of one or more special districts, the Board of Supervisors of the County in which such district or districts are located sha11, on behalf of the district or districts, negotiate any exchange of property tax revenues; and WHEREAS, the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission has requested that the Kern County Board of Supervisors and the City Council of the City of Bakersfield deternune property tax revenues which should be exchanged between and among the local agencies involved in the pending jurisdictional change identifed as: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Annexation No. 377, LAFCO Proceeding No. 1158, (Rosedale No. 5 Annexation); and WHEREAS, the County Administrative Officer, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors, and the City Manager, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, have examined and conferred regarding the Notice of Filing regarding LAFCO Proceeding No. -1158, and found and reported to their respective governing bodies the determinations set forth in this resolution. � x� � as follows: NOW, T��F.REFORE, BE IT RFSOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield 1. That, provided the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern adopt a resolution concurring in determination made herein, a determination is hereby made that there will be no transfers of service responsibilities to the City of Bakersfield from local agencies currently serving in the area of the proposed City of Bakersfield Annexation No. 377 by reason of such annexation, except as follows: County of Kern General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partial as described below � and, accordingly, that 78.8 percent of that amount representing the current 1994 base revenue j of the property tax revenues be left with the County of Kern and 21.2 % of said 1994 base revenue ' shall be transfened to the City of Bakersfield together with 44.4986 % of all the remaining amounts including both base and factor for all future years, a11 of which accrue within the tax rate areas comprising the proposed City of Bakersfield Annexation No. 377 for iiscal year 1994-95 and thereafter should be transfened to the City of Bakersfield. It is estimated that the amount that would have been transfened for the fiscal year 1994-95 is as follows: Kern County General Fund Tax Rate Area 070-003 "Base Amount" % Annual Tax "Factor" T� Rate Area 070-004 "Base Amount" % Annual Tax "Factor" Tax Rate Area 070-008 "Base Amount" % Annual Tax "Factor" Tax Rate Area 070-009 "Base Amount" % Annual TaJC "Factor" Cunent Entitlement -2- $557,066.89 33.3016 % ($686.23) 33.2736 % $0.00 36.3496 % $13,490.25 32.3264 % Transfer to City $118,098.18 14.8175 % ($145.48) 14.8063 % $0.00 16.1751 % $2,859.93 14.3848 % . i Tax Rate Area 070-012 "Base Amount" % Annual Tax "Factor" Tu� Rate Area 070-016 "Base Amount" % Annual Tax "Factor" Tax Rate Area 057-038 "Base Amount" % Annual Tax "Factor" $0.00 33.3016 % $756,742.83 33.3016 % $0.00 29.4852 % $0.00 14.8175 % $160,429.48 14.8175 % $0.00 13.1205 % The same dollar amount of base shall remain each future year with the County and the amounts to be transferred to City in future years shall be whatever remains of the base revenue and 44.4986� of the annual tax "factor" determined in the same manner using then current "base" and "factor" figures. From Kern Countv Structural Fire Protection Fund, the entire amount of the property tax revenues collected on behalf of the Kern County Structural Fire Protection Area from the area of the proposed annexation will be paid to Kern County only because Kern County has formally agreed to provide fire protection service to this area after annexation. 2. The Clerk of the City of Bakersfield is directed to inform the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern, the managers of service areas named herein, the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission, and the Kern County Auditor-Controller of the aforesaid determined by transmittal to them of certified copies of this resolution. ---------000--------- -3- i �a . . P{r I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: CITY CLERR and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield : -;• � � BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE By: JUDY K. SKOUSEN Acting City Attorney JKS/meg R-5\TAXSPLTl'1R0.SEDAIS. RFS 5/11l94 -4- `4! i . ' �=,�"�RESOURCE MANAG�IIAENT AGENCY .IOE� HEINR�CHS, AGE/VCY DIRECTOR Air Pollutlon Control District • Alrpo�t� Department • En�lnee�ing 8 Survey Servl�e Depa►tment • Planning Departrnent Transportatlon Management Departrnent • Waste Nlmagem�nt Department Phom: (80S) 881-3502 FAX: (805) 881-3429 May 10, 1994 Board of Supervisors Kern County Administrative Center 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 350 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 `�� ECEOV�D ��.��: � i�,-�Y 5 � 199� ��7Y �A�4�+GER'S OFFBCEj RE: METROPOLITAN BAI�RSFIEILD AREA, SOLID WASTE DIYERSION MODEI. ASSESSMEIVT (All S.D.'s) FUNDING: NO FISCAL II1�iiPACr The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (aka AB939) mandates that each county and city in California achieve a 25 9b waste diversion goal by 1995 and 50 °rb by the year 2000. In 1991, the Kern County Waste Management Department (KCWMD) conducted a Waste Characterization Study (WCS) to examirie and quantify the composition and volume of the Kern County waste stream. Concunently, the KCWMD inidated a number of pilot diversion programs (blue bag, drop-off centers, greenwaste/woodwaste diversion, mixed waste separation at the landfill). As a result of the Waste Characterizadon Study, local pilot programs, and evaluation of programs initiated in other jurisdictions, a strategy emphasizing low cost, phased diversion projects was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in December 1992 (see Attachment A). - � - - - The adopted strategy has been very successful. 1fie current countywide diversion rate is at �_ - 30 �._ Land use fees have not been increased for two years and are not projected to increase �� next year eithei. ''. The $29 commercial gate fee first implemented in July 1993 is also projected� , to remain unchanged. 'Thus, the 1995_,goal has been met cost effectively and ahead of schedule. ,� It_ is now time to develop and begin phased implementation of a year 2000 diversion strategy. The Metropolitan Bakersfield waste stream represents 62.5 °6 of the Kern County waste stream. 'Perhaps even more importantly, 58.5 °!o of the County unincorporated waste stream is within the ` Metropolitan Bakersfield area. Tfierefore, the initial focus for the year 2000 diversion strategy should be in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area, where economies of scale for diversion facilities may be realized. : - - Other areas of Kern County are proceeding according to the December 1992, Diversion Strategy. The Tehachapi Recycling Facility serves most of the southeast portion of the County. The Northwest, Southwest, and Northeast portions of the County are developing greenwaste, woodwaste, inert and scrap � metal programs which are cost effective in rural areas. These PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .� � Metro Model Assessment Report Apri129, 1994 Page 2 programs will be further evaluated as we approach the year 2000 to determine if supplemental diversiori efforts are necessary and cost effective. As requested by the Board of Supervisors, the following report oudines primary diversion options available for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area, evaluates costs for each option, and identifies potential "spin-off" benefits which have not been quantiiied. The estimated costs for each option was initially developed by staff. Integrated Recycling, Inc., a consulting iirm with extensive experience in solid waste system modeling, reviewed those initial estunates and recommended several assumption adjustments based on comparisons to existing operating costs for facilities in California. `, � OPTIONS An exhaustive list of options has been identiiied and received preliminary evaluation by the study team (County Administrative Office, County Counsel, and Waste Management Department). A complete list of the options reviewed is included in Attachment B. A full description of the assumptions used to evaluate these options is contained in Attachment C. The essential options, however, can be broken down into two basic approaches. General Approach l: Construction and operation of a private "dirty" Material Recovery Facility (MRF� in the vicinity of the Bakersiield Metropolitan Sanitary Landfill (Bena). The primary advantage of this approach is the ease of implementation since no changes to the existing collection system or consumer disposal practices are required. The primary disadvantages aze cost and reliance on a single technology/facility. As summarized below, this approach appears to have the highest cost per ton of refuse when hauling, processing, and disposal costs are all considered. The costs associated with Approach 1 are summarized below. �lpproach 1 General Approach 2: Implementation of a two phase program including: 1) sepazate greenwaste collection and 2) construction and operation of an Intermediate Processing Center (IPC) with Transfer Station. The i� :: Metro Model Assessment Report April 29, 1994 Page 3 primary advantage of Approach 2 is its apparent cost effectiveness. The prunary disadvantage of this approach is a requirement to modify the collection system and site/construction/operate an IPC with Transfer Station. The costs associated with Approach 2 are summarized below. Approack 2 Waste Import: The two general approaches to waste diversion in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area were also analyzed to factor in the impact of imported waste. Should the Boazd of Supervisors desire to explore the possibilities associated with importing waste, a third approach becomes available. General Apnroach 3: Approach 2, which appears to be the most cost effective means of processing local waste could be supplemented by a private MRF in the vicinity of Bena, designed to process waste unported by rail. The profit accruing to the County following landfill capacity replacement could be used to reduce land use/gate fees or allocated to the General Fund for high priority services. The potential revenues associated with this approach are summazized below. �Lpproach 3 Metro Model Assessment Report April 29, 1994 Page 4 Other Considerations: There are a number of other considerations the Board of Supervisors may wish to take into account other than cost alone when selecting an approach. 1. Degree of complexity to implement 2. Nature and number of jobs created by various oprions 3. Economic stimulus effects of locating a facility in different locations (i.e. proposed industr�al parks, economic incentive areas, etc.) 4. Legislative and regulatory trends The Benedor Corporation, for example, has made an offer to the County to process greenwaste in conjunction with a large agricultural facility. The details of this proposal, and the associated "spin-off ' benefits, are described in Attachment D. COORDINATION WITH THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD The analysis presented in Models 1 through 15 (see Attachment B) of this report assume that a single, Metropolitan Bakersiield diversion strategy will be pursued. However, should the City of Bakersfield and Kern County ultimately not agree on a common diversion strategy, County only approaches were tested in Models 16 through 18 (see Attachment B) using the unincorporated waste stream only. At the scale of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area waste stream, very little difference occurs in the estimated processing cost per ton. However, no attempt was made to quantify the cost of splitting the City and County haul routes. Separation of haul routes would be required if a common strategy is not pursued. Further, ongoing annexarion by the City of Bakersfield could result in a continuous realigning of haul routes. These costs would be, added to Models 16 through 18 if a independent waste diversion strategy is pursued by the County. CONCLUSION The primary options available for Metropolitan Bakersiield waste diversion have been identified in this report and preliminary cost estimates developed. A number of steps are required to implement any of the identified approaches. Therefore, it appears appropriate that the Board of Supervisors make several policy choices at this juncture (unless further research is desired). Policy Issue #1: Should �staff develop an implementation plan for a MRF at or neaz Bena (Approach 1) or should staff develop an unplementation plan for a sepazate greenwaste collection system and IPC with Transfer Station in the Metropolitan Bakersfield azea (Approach 2)? Policy Issue #2: Should staff further evaluate the option of importing waste? � :, ` : i��• �� : � - Metro Modei Assessment Report Apri129, 1994 Page 5 As noted above, importation of waste can be considered with either option. However, Approach 3 appears to provide the best combination of low local diversion costs and maximum potential profits from, waste import. . IT IS RECOMMENDED that your Board: 1. Select a general approach and direct staff to enter into negotiations with refuse haulers, waste processors, and the City of Bakersfield to develop an implementation plan for Board of Supervisors approval; or 2. Refer back an approach or approaches for further research as directed by the Board of Supervisors. Sincerely, . JH:DHW:NLE:ys:dlw bl-Misc.2/R4(b2) cc: Camty Administrative Office . Cwmy Counsel SWMAC i-�' � - '��I . , � WASTE DIVERSION PL��1 FISCAL YEAR 1992-1993 IMPLEMENTING A COUNTY-WIDE STRATEGY .. �I . , ; �� by . � ca,acy w� ��t n��c _ . necember 1992 with modifications requested by KGCn County Board of Supervisors �.� on Decembez 15, 1992 ' � I � i INTRODUCTION The current emphasis on waste diversion is a result of statewide concerns regarding: 1. Dwindling landfill capacity; 2: Potential environmental impacts of landfills; and 3. . Perceived need for improved resource consetvation. Numerous � waste diversion and landfill permitting and operating requirements have been deveioped through legistation. operating landfills everywhere. These requir+ements have significantly increased the cost of � ` The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (aka A8939) mandates that each county and city in California achieve a 259� waste diversion goal by 1995 and 5096 by the year Z000. Each jurisdiction was required to develop a plan (Source Reduction and Recycling Element) that describes programs for achiCVing , these goals. Rern County has completed this plan and submitted it to the California lntegrated Waste Manag+�t Board (CIWMB) for review. The eleven cities within Kern County have also completed their plans. Those plans are based upon an extensive, county-wide Waste Characterization Study and Analysis that identifies waste stream components and volume by saurce (resideatial, commeraal and iadustrial). CONTEXT Attempts to develop and imp2ement programs for diversion are complicated by several factors which are: 1 _. ,� I r I� :� �� ** High cost per ton for those divezsion pmgrams necessary for full compliance with the divezsion goals. . - *'" Wide range of praposals available for mxting the divession goals. ** Presently, the cost for landfilling mattiial is more economical than recyciing. ** Markets for ra;}rcled :matGrial are not re�dily available in some regions of the county. � ** Recent rule change� as to what materials will count towazd diversion goals and what �rtaterials will not count ** Recent change from a waste genrrated ba.�ed diversion a�counting method to a waste disposal based diversion aocounting m�hod fo� the purpose of d�rtGrmuung � whether diversion goals were achiewed. OVERALL DIVFRSION GOALS Given the compleuty aud a�iliness of eatmsive waste diversion, a ctearly articulated set of diversion goaLs is nocessary to guide County waste diversioa planning efforts. These goals are: 1. Implemeat those programs first that malae tl�e moat economic and public sezvice sense. . 2. Implement anly thoae piogcan�s th�t will allaw us to comply with the law in a P��. P�� and cost-effaxive manna. 3. Ma�aimize the cwt-effe�tive life of onr existing facilities. 4. Implemeat all programs in a manner that maumizes c�tomtr s��tisfa�ction. _ ---- -- 2 � . �� i HIERARCHY OF DNERSION PROGRAMS Consistent with these overall goals, the basic diversion program hierarchy will be as follows: First: Implement waste diversion strategies that ara essentially "no cost." (i.e. Support ezisting voluntary, private sector r�cycling efforts.) Second: Structure waste management fee schedules to support and stimulate additional, voluntary private sector "no cost" divezsion alternadves. ('The imposition of gate fees will, for eaample, cre�te privatz incentives for additional diversion at no direct cost to the taxpaying public.) Third: Conduct waste audits for large quantity generators in unincorporated areas to promote voluntary on-site reduction or recycling. Fourth: Implement fundamental, low oost waste diversian �es. (Educational programs that stimulate private rocY�B �P off P='o8�g� �•) Fifth: Impl�meat hauler ba.ged diversion ptograzns whtre appiopziate and cost effe�tive. Sixth: Im�emmt additioaal diversi� programs as appropriate and c�st effective. 3 i : �; ��I �b Seventh: Encourage additional market developmeat. - es�hance County procurement policy - promote use of recycled inert materials in County road projetts - pmmote use of wood/grera waste products in County parks and other facilities. - encourage these same pra�ctic�es with othtr gavernmeatal agencies and the private . sxtor within Kern County. STRATEGY To implemeat the goals outlined aba�ve ia the most cost-effective manner possible, the County waste stream has beGn evaluated to det,ermin�e how to get the lar�est divtrsion "bang for the buck." The following strategic approach has beea idmdfied: • -�- * The County will work with tl� citie� �o impkmmt waste dive�rsion sttategies that targa the waste strrdms of �na in the r�o� or sub-region. * � The County will jant vmaue with �ities, the �anchised haulers, and/or other eatities , . .�u J�� .1� �l��vl' �i './�..-'i�L�. �i� «� v � 'The subsequeat discussions are listed in orda acx,o�+ding o� d�e volume of waste geaerated in the , P�g area, The pl�n�ng area c�rresponds to the map sbown on page 7. 0 -? I Metrovc�li Bakersfield - Planning Area 4 The County will cooperate with the City of Bakersfield in the ezpansion of their green waste/wood waste program. This expansion will take effect this fiscal year. The County will cooperate with the City of Ba�ersfield, the franchise haulers in Zone 2, and/or other relevant entities to establish a Metro Bakersfield Waste Processing Center which can include a.small volume transfer stadon, a composting operadon, and a Materials Recovery Facility (1VII2�. This project is intended to bt on-line within the next three to five years to position this region to meet the ye�r 2000 goals. The County's involvement in this cooperative project will include primarily financ�al support and technical assistance, as well as planning and policy development. � Southeast Kern - Planning Area S This region is we11 on its way to mating the 1995 gaals with the e�cistence of a MRF in Tehachapi. . The County will work with the MRF op�sator to enhance its operations and efficiency by: � Expanding the MRF to a Regional Transfer Station•Waste Processing Center and closing the Landfill to t6e public. * Moving towazd univarsal collection to eahance the cost-effectiveness of the operation and minimize the financial unpact a� ihe community. * Explore opportunities for wood and grxn waste divtrsion, possibly thmugh the e�cisting waste processing center. The cities in this region will be encouragai to participate with the County in this plan consistent with the divession program hieiarchy described above. 5 i �� tr Northeast Kem - Planning Area 1 Indian Wells Valley The Kern County Waste ManaBement Departmeat will cooperate with the Ciry of Ridgecrest, requesting them to be the lead in establishing waste diversion programs. The County will w provide te�hnical support and participate in ttie planning and policy dcvClopment. Kern River Yalley The Kern Coonty Wasu Maaagemeat Departmmt will talae the lead ia the planning and policy developmeat, aad coordinate with the local haulers. If Kern Rivtr Valley's ProBrams cannot be integrated with Indiaa Wells Va11�Y'$ P�B�s+ ihe Couaty will talae tbe lead in attablishing the naressar�► diversion a�ctivities in the area. �•�.� -� ; a�� • � The County will cooptrate with the Cities of Ddaao, M�cFarland, Shafter, and Wasco, requesting them to taloe the lead in esbblishing aaste diversion programs. The County will provide limited techiiical support and c�ordinate �vith fianchise haulers strvin8 the unincorporated area. The County will mxi with the cities to initisLe dialogue on waste diversion - options and encourage the c�tities �o jointly fuad a R�ecyGiing Coordin�DOt fot t�is re�on. PlanninQ �rea 3: SOUthwCu gC� The Cownty will �o�a'a� with the Cities of Taft �ad Maric�pa, the haulers, aad/or other «iddes in impl�mmtins pro�ams in this area. The count�► aad cit�► will a�pt to ioindy funa a Recycling CoordinaLOr for tbis region. DW:dl�r rttstepr.vl(ts�►. i?l1719'I) _ _ _ ., � - � - - �,� � / � � oms .�� — - , � ,� -�'� � M �� '��':�i�`� � . ��='� '°��► � —�-= � �; , M�r � f1��Vr- � � , ��i�! ��• . �:..71tO��7or��1�O�GO r � �r -u�--� o�iie�� w ��e�• o��a��■ ■��■��■ • ��, �"�0� � ■00r' '7 �I/ O�oE �' :` -�i / � "��, �� k_ il�� e'.�.. .. �1 _:. � ��IIe.:..�.�..�ais�.adr..r•�---��dir �r�w••�s,q•�.7..-� „ _ � �--� --•�wi.��e�� C'T,i� R� � • • � �' � + R ,`� � �� '�,-.• WI�� .`�IB�� , -� ! -, �� ; !, � � , � �� ! � ,' 0 .. �� a■ i�� , i��6is.��__�,.____.� �I I�t._� _ . ... _... . \ ). (,.�4i) �. __._ . I � � _ I v i� Attachment "B" �fetro Waste Faca6$i� �for�ed un$i Costs METRO FACILITIES $ENA FACILITIES � „+ •,p° !� � � : at � ,». � a 'C h* m ,� ,��, m �..: ;`� � � � �. � � �.. : � � 1�4:: ;'� � � '*' � ,� � � ' "� >: � � � � : � � � �� w �� ,� ,�� ' � �� ' � � �� .. � ; �� °� ' � `�' � � � �� ; ; aA� _:� �: � � � � ' � ��' � :;�.. �� ;: ,... .. :: ; _ _ ;.�: ;... _ _:, ..... .. Tons/Day 1400 1400 1400 1 30q6 Cost/Ton $6.40 $22.60 $29:00 Cost $8,960 $31,640 $40,600 Tons/Day 200 200 1200 9400 2 409fo Cost/ToII $20 $10 $6.40 $29.51 Cost $4,000 ($2,000) $7,680 $31,640 $41,320 Tons/Day 1400 1000 1400 3 50�yo Cost/Ton $30 $6.40 $57.17 • Cost $42,000 $6,400 $31,640 $80,040 Tons/Day 1400 600 1000 1400 495 ¢ 50qb Cosf/Ton $30 $6.40 $57.17 $22.60 ' Cost $42,000 56,400 $31,640 $80,040 $4,027,320 Tons,/lDay 200 200 1200 1000 1400 5 50g4o Cost/ToII $20 $10 $30 $6.40 $54.31 Cost $4,000 ($2,000) $36,000 $6,400 $31,640 $76,040 Tons/Day 200 200 1200 800 1000 1400 660 6 50q6 CosUTon $20 $10 $30 $6.40 $54.31 $22.60 . Cost $4,000 ($2,000) 536,000 $6,400 $31,640 $76,040 $5,369,760 Tons/Day 1400 1400 1400 1400 7 3096 CosdTon $7 $10 $6.40 $26.00 Unit Cost $9,800 ($14,000) 58,960 $31,640 $36,400 Tons/Day 200. 1200 1400 1200 1400 $ , 409fi Cost/Ton $20 $7 $10 $6.40 $26.94 Unit Cost $4,000 $8,400 ($14,000) $7,680 $31,640 $37,720 � Tons/Day 200 1200 1400 1000 1400 9 50g'o Cost/Ton $20 $14 $10 $6.40 $32.03 Unit Cost $4,000 $16,800 ($14,000) $6,400 $31,640 $44,840 MHKNLE 4R&94 Page 1 Kem Counry Waste. Management Departrnent , �1et�o Waste Fac$��t� �loded uni6 Costs �� a METRO FACILITIES BENA FACILITIES � � e � � � o � . � � �. � � a '� �. � ,"� � : � � ,� a h � � � °.: wW � .�, �/'a : � � 'V ,,p U� , � G�i � �rey � ry f° � ; i� : �. p � . .,�r �yY .. , � ; �� i� � � 6f �" � � �� r � . � `�. : . � � ;; m .. � � :' � :� ri' � : � . � � � w � � � � � � - � � ` � - � � ��„ Q �': .(��; �; '��i' rw�'s '� ;; �g ; cs, r , ;. ,� c� ; p , � � � �E � � aa � � ,� �" ,. � r�' � ;', >: -< � a" ` "" �; �;;: _ , , . ' ; ! ':� �. :>... '� :� ... ...:: - . . ... . .:: ... . ...;; . Tons/Day 200 1200 1400 2000 � 1000 1400 1650 1� ? 50q6 Cost/Ton $20 $14 $10 $6.40 $32.03 $22.60 Unit Cost $4,000 $16,800 ($14,000) $6,400 $31,640 $44,840 $13,424,400 Tons/Day i400 1400 1400 3000 1400 11 so� Cost/Ton $7 $10 $30 $6.40 $54.17 Unit Cost $9,800 ($14,000) ' $42,000 $6,400 $31,640 $75,840 Tons/Day 1400 1400 1400 600 1000 1400 495 1� 509b Cost/Ton $7 $10 ' $30 $6.40 � $54.17 $22.60 Unit Cost $9,800 ($14,000) $42,000 $6,400 $31,640 $75,840 $4,027,320 Tons/Uay 200 1200 1400 1200 1000 1400 13 50� Cost/Ton $20 $7 $10 $30 $6.40 $51.74 Unit Cost $4,000 $8,400 ($14,000) $36,000 $6,400 $31,640 $72,440 Tons/Day 200 1200 1400 2000 1200 1400 1650 14 40� Cost/Ton $20 $7 $10 $6.40 $26.94 $22.60 , Unit Cost $4,000 $8,400 ($14,000) $7,680 $31,640 $37,720 $13,424,400 Tons/Day 200 1200 1000 1400 15 50q6 Cost/Ton $20 $12 $6.40 $40.31 Unit Cost $4,000 $14,400 $6,400 $31,640 $56,440 Tons/Day 90 90 540 450 630 630 16 50q6 Cos1/Ton $20 $10 $30 $6,40 $22.60 $54.31 Unit Cost $1,800 ($900) $16,200 $2,880 $14,238 $34,218 � Tons/Day 90 540 450 630 17 50�yo Cost/Ton $20 � $12 $6.40 $40.31 Unit Cost $1,800 � $6,480 $2,880 $14,238 $25,398 , Tot►s/Day 90 540 630 2000 450 630 1650 1$ 50�yo Cost/Ton $20 $14 $10 $6.40 $32.03 $22.60 UnitCosi $1,800 $�,560 ($6,300) $2,880 $14,238 $2Q178 $13,424,400 MHKNLE ' � � � � � . ' 4rz8194 � � . f a9B 2 � � � . � Kem Counry Wasla Management Deparonent MODEL i . . ._ . _ _ . . .. . . .. - � ' :i . . . . . � �. � _ I Tons/Day 30% CosVfon - Cost Sanitary Landfill 1400 1400 1400 $6.40 $22.60 529.00 $8,960 $31,640 $40,600 \y i .. i� � MODEL � Tons/Day 200 40% Cost/Ton $20 Cost $4, 000 200 $10 i$2,000) 1200 $6.40 $7,680 . ,�� ,��.� $7L60 I 529.51 $31,640 $41,320 � � MODEL 3 Private Bena MRF � a ::::: :::::: ::: � F---� � . . . � � ....................................--,. ----- °^,�xptma�ae �� ;,>„ �::: Y ,::: 7� ` / � f!� � t�� : � I �:s::. .. �:�:- a .... ...... ... ... . � � ' , .♦ ♦ • • ♦ :: s: �.:2:;:<ww ' <.�c r:•fGYdGF'Sir� - :::: �; �: .>:::, � iifr,....�.,,y :, � ;� ::�:.. �:,. -�. . . ...... ... ...... .. f � , � .� i i • � / � I � I �� . ... . -. � ::: �::: . . . . . , � :�..�,:.:. ..�..:�.. . � R`4 / �.;":��'�:`::ii^. :::::.; :::. �:,...... °"'" ..::>c:::;::: c.: . .�. //� _ ..,: t ..^ . _ � �: : . .:: .: ' � � �mlCOea": ":. �•"'"'"`�9� .' ':�I �^ tltl ��% :: .: �!�/�,i: i i . � . � / j �:iJ��Q i� :� ;:: ' � . % : . .......: .::..... .. �� 1 i �� — � \ _ _. � I Tons/Day 50% Cost/Ton _ . Cost • n Area Existing Diversion Inerts -.280 Tons/Day Paper- 70 Tons/Day Misc. - 30 Tons/Day Total = 380 TonslDay :2\:2\4 t\2`:t �:` `�.:.••,2C• •••:2CY222" : .. }»}�}}kk��:47.7k::.'.V}h`::J?:`::`:`\} 1400 1000 1400 1400 $30 $6.40 $22.60 557.17 $42,000 $6�400 $31,640 $80�040 f > >� il _ � V � MODEL 4 Driv�tn Ron� MQ� Recoverables L_- - - ----- -- - -___._ _ _ . Sanitary Landfill MOI�EL S Bena MRF -`::::»:::::°::::::::°:::`:::::°:::::::::>:<:: - G � I� I I I I I �• i', - � � .. . � . �t - . . . . .. . � �\ ' �O � � C � Land Application - Mixed . � Feedstock Composting _... ....__._ .... ... ...... U� I'i � 200 Tons/Day GWMIW � 200 Tons/Day Additional GWMIW T0� � � i. I ' i � � , . ! . . � ( � ' _ ' j METRO FACILITIES i , . II Tons/Day 200 �� 5�% COStlTOn $20 COSt $4, 000 Sanitary Landfill • . � i // / � � i � � j % � / %,. jjjj��//o. �, J. I .^�x � Existing Corrrr�ercial , ;�?; Diversion ;�` � I Inerts - 280 TonsJDay '�`: � Paper - 70 Tons/Day >K� Misc. - 30 Tons/Day �� <i z Total = 380 Tons/Day ��;z `` Y. ' I �`�",., ,1......::a�l ��; :>.�iii>�zi?z��i.0 1 Tk\}\�}.\4 :�i}��}�..4}1.�v}�.}��y}}}:ii;.titi� � � '1'� 1'P� �� . � . � - � :ri . � , �� . �� . ��i .�� , . �•� i� .,� � 50% Tons/Day Cost/Ton Cost � MODEL 6 Private Bena MRF 200 $20 $4,000 200 $10 ��) Recoverables .�.� .� �, . �� ;T� � Sanitary Landfill �� . �� 1400 1400 $2Z.60 s54.31 $31,640 $76,040 .� �. i . � .� MODEL � _ . _ � JIEfRO FA�qLJT1ES BBNf� FiQGILJTIES Tans/Day 1400 30% Costlfon $7 l�tit Cost $9,800 1400 $10 ($14,000) Sanitary Landfill 1400. 1400 1400 $6.40 $2Z-60 3�26.00 $8,960 $31,640 $36�400 _ .; } i' , j tir � ��; �� 11�iODEL � - itary Landfill Tons/Day 200 1200 40% Costrfon $20 $7 Unit Cost $4,000 $8,400_ 1400 $10 1200 1400 1400 $6.40 $22.60 526.94 $7,680 $31,640 $37,720 I � Mo��L � . 9 � Recoverables , Sanitary Landfiil MEfRO FACILITIES BENA FACILITIES. . . . .- .� � �' •.: . �y � .: �. . � � � 1200 1400 $14 $10 - $16,800 ($14,000) �� -�� .�� ':. � 1 'y/ :1 +fr IK •�� c .�� i � __ �� - �- � , � �. MOi��L i0 � -� i Private Bena MRF ' Patentiat ' . � z:':;�;:i::?::`: Assume 2000 Tons/Dav Si��id WBS�� i:;l d ��Yl. „ , I �\ �� Land Application - Mixed Feedstock Composting _....._ ....... .... . ..... . ... .. _ _ � � 200 Tons/Day GW/WW � 200 Tons/Day Additional GW/WW Sanitary Landfill A�ea IPC and Transfer Facility Existing Diversion � I i<: >.�r Inerts - 280 Tons/Day Paper - 70 Tons/Day �«r Misc. - 30 Tons/Day :�` Total = 380 Tons/Day ;<�? Tons/Day 200 1200 . 1400 2000 1000 1400' 1400 1650 li 50% Cost/Ton $20 $14 � $10' $6.40 $22.60 532.03 $22,60 Unit Cost $4�000 ' $16,800 ($14,000) $6,400 $31,640 $44�840 $13,424,400 MOIDEL i i Dri�i�tn Rnn� MRC : _ . � . � - O � y . . . � : . .CT � . . -�- � _ ,, - � - - o .� � . ". i " `::i:«::;;::_>::.;;>::>.:;._>:?:::i:`<::<::�::>;;:��:;:;:;�::>;-;-::>:::::::>:;:>::>.�::�:;:::::::::;;»»»»�:�»>�. j , 200 Tons/Day GWNVW i . Recoverables Sanitary Landfill MEfROFACILITIES BENAFACILITIES . - Ta�sl�y 1400 1400 50%0. CAStlfon $7 $10 lhit Cost $9,800 ($14,000) •�� •�� .�� K�� :. � � �Y� : � �. • .:, 111 . �11 ?c .•1 :�1 ,; , if _ � .�. �, :. _ MOD;�L I� Private Bena MRF 50% ICast/Ton l�it Cost .�� •• :11 �aoo I - $10 Recoverables Sanitary Landfill . �� :�� . �� . �� c�� ,. • � yi : � � 111 . �11 `G .-1 :•1 Yi :� ,. �r v,� � I , � � II . MO Bena MRF Reco�+erables IDEL i� 3 �EfRO FACILITIES BENA F�ILITIES . _ �- .�� .�� •�� .�� ' .; . �:�.� � ��c�� .; 111 '?: • 11 111 '!C. 111 Sanitary. Landfill. 1000 1400 1400' $6.40 $2260 551.74 �6,400 $31 �640 $72,440 _. �� > J �� r., 40% Private Bena MRF . . � - '� � �.: . •Y.� .: �� .� � �� MOIT�L �i 4 Recoverables 1400 $10 ($14,000) ,�e� .� � � �, : : � Sanitary Landfill 1400 1400 $22.60 �26.94 $31,640 $37,T20 1650 �.� $13,424,400 7 ✓ - MOD�L i _, S R@COV@rdbl@S ` " rrvperry Land Application - Mixed ' Feedstock Composting on Bena Landfi{I Property . � .:.� 200 Tons/Day GW/WW � L . � 200 Tons/Day Additional GWM/W i _ � : NEfRO FAI (. i. � '?;: :�:;::>:::::::::: ':::::>::::::;:>:::>::;:;::::>:::: »:'::::;;:: ':;'::::;>::::: :;;:::::;:;:::>;::;;>:; c... ,...'e�i.: ;�.;:: � "::>[>::::t0[:�.::i::. ::�:�?'�':::E:i;:::i;� �;<�ii::i :i:<:i::;:��i.::. .:::;.�.: `_:;:<.:..:.G�:. :� a.:. . : �..., '<'<��' :::: �::<:: <:>:::<z: . ;::;> >:;;::;>::m<:; 1 �:: : ::::::`;:::;?< .: : _; :::�. ::::�:� : ;�; .�;; ,�; I :> ::�>:�::::: :::>:> :::>:�:> ::>:: : �:::: :::::: �.; � ,� 7 i iii;:;;i:��ii::�:iiii; iii;Eiiii;iii;i;;:;;::::::;:ii� z;i;iiii:'17.�f ;>;; �;>;;:��.;::. �:.;.;:!�::�:::::i;::�i� �;::�;;��:�:�;:�:_:� i.................... .................... ........._......... ............. � Tons/Day 200 '� � � 50% CostlTon $20. Unit Cost $4,000 1200 $12. $14,400 Sanitary Landfiil 1000 1400 1400 $6.40 $22.60 540.31 $6,400 $31,640 $56,440 �� 4� � G�� MOD�L i6 ate Bena MRF Land Application - Mixed Feedstock Composting , ::.:: � � 80 Tons/Day GWNVW � 90 Tons/Day Additional GWNVW • , �_ •� •.; . •.v.� .; :�� .� '� 1 •L�� Sanitary Landfill Recoverables uninco�po�ated �Ylet�o�o�itan A�ea .� .�.� ', . .�� . � � y ::� Existing Unincorporated Diversion Inerts -126 Tons/Day Paper - 32 Tons/Day Misc. - 13 Tons/0ay Total = 171 Tons/Day � � �� $14,238 $34,218 MO�EL i � County IPC on Bena Recoverabies Landfill Property Land Application - Mixed ' � Feedstock Composting on - Bena Landfill Property -�>�'"<<r�. . . ;>:<:�«.:.. :;;> �z<;:. :�.:::.>:.:»:::>::: , ._;.;::. . <:>:........ < :.::.. _ 90 Tons/Day GWMIW '_ � 90 Tons/Day Additional GW/YVW unincorpo�ated � �etro o�itan A�ea � p � . � . � t � . � , ., TonslDey 90 50% Cost/Ton $20 ,. lhit Cast $1,800 �7'1�/ $12 $6,480 � Sanita Landfill - ry � � �� ,. . . ;��. . � ; . Existing Unincorporated Diversion , � � z?t: Inerts -126 Tons/Day Paper - 32 Tons/Day . . Misc. - 13 Ton§/Day ?;� Total = 171 Tons/Day ,;:2 . � {7 7�7 � �7�! � ' . $6.40 $22.60 . ' 5�.31 _ $2,880 $14,238 $25�398 I - .- ' '� i r. M�ODEL i8 Landfill • � ; , , � ;I : Attachment ��C�� . - � � . � , . � . - . . . �'i � � -� . . ; . . , � -. � . . � . . - . - �, . . '� . ji � i� - METRO WASTE FACILITY - � UNIT COST ANALYSIS All unit costs are based on tonnage received lthroughput). � 1. GREENWASTE/WOODWASTE PROGRAM A. Existing Program: Metro Bakersfield Greenwaste/Woodwaste Facility � . January 93 thru June 93 - S 13.10/ton July 93 thru Decembe"r 93 - S 10.00/ton (CoB reports present material is 50% greenwaste and 50% woodwaste) � . B. "AGRtCULTURAL MARKETS FOR COMPOST AND .MULCH: Costs; Benefits. and Policy Recommendations" December 1993 - Cost of Compost and Mulch Use in Agriculture Transportation - S50 .to S60/hour for a truck hauling 25 tons � S5/ton within 50-mile radius Application - 54/ton, typicaily � Land Application -= S9/ton (exciud�n9 cost of iand) Assume Unit Cost of Gieenwaste/Woodwaste Processing @ S12/ton 2. CURBSIDE GREENWASTE COLLECTION � Existing Greenwaste/Woodwaste Processing @ $12/ton Greenwaste Container Cost - S60/unit Container Life - 7 years � Volume of Greenwaste lin � yrsl - 1.8 tons x 30% x 7 yrs = 3.78 tons Container Cost (per ton► - S60/unit = 3.78 tons/unit =$15.87/ton Assume one-half of container cost is realized through collection system savings, therefore, marginaF collection cost � S8/ton. Assume Unit Cost of Curbside Gieenwaste System - S 12/ton + S8/ton = S20/ton I . Metro Waste Facility Unit Costs Analysis May 2, 1994 Page. 2 . � ! :` � i 3. TRANSFER STATION W/BALING FUNCTION Haul Cost - ($65/hr x 1.5 hrs) = 25 tons = 53.90/ton . � Operation Cost =� Assume simifar to SLF operations at-same scale ' 52.00/ton � , � 1,200 tpd x S2/ton x 30 days/mo = 972,000/mo , _ Capital Costs- - Integrated Recycling Inc. - . Facility � 1200 `tpd x 25sf/ton = 30,000 sf . 30,000 sf x 65 S/sf = 51,950,000 (facility) � . � � - Facility - � 51,950,000 � , . � . � Equipment - S 1,000,000 Totaf Capital $2,950,000 � . , . _ �' _ Assume S3 million facility - 51.00/ton � ` " ' � 1,200 tpd x S 1/ton x 360 days/yr x 15 yrs = 56,480,000 . . - � - �I . � 4 Assume Unit Cost of Transfe� Stafion in Metro Aiea ,_ �7/ton� � . (additional potential net SLF operation savings) � � 4. IPC AND TRANSFER STATION W/BALING �UNCTION (within Metro Area) �� . : . - . . ! - ` ,Transfer Station Unit Haul Cost �_ $4/ton ` . . Transfer Station �Unit Cap.ital and 0&M Cost =, S 3/ton � . � =IP ni " _ . . . CU a i I n M � 2 t C ta a d 0& S5 /ton P _. ; • . . � �Therefore: � (1200 tpd x.S3/ton) = S 3,600 . . � � ; .� � � f 200 tpd x S52/tonl = S 10,400 ._ _ �I i Total �. � S 14,000 __ ; • . .. i .. � IPC Unit Capital and O&M Cost =$14,000 = 1400 tpd = 510.00/ton �, , . . -- . - : . . . - . � � Assume Unit Cosf of /PC and Transfei Station in Metio Area =. S 10/ton + S4/ton =� 14/ton � � �,, .. II Metro Waste Facility ' Unit Costs Analysis . May 2, 1994 Page 3 5. DIRECT HAUL SAVINGS Traffic Counts / Bakersfield Metro SLF during July 1993 Vehiel:e : T/�/eh '$lrni ' Mile 5f7on' 7ons 5;avings ! CARS 0.07 0.30 30 128.57 25 53,214 PICKU.PS 0.22 0.30 30 40.91 2,350 596,138 SM TRAILER 0.38 0.30 30 23.68 362 58,574 LG TRAILER 1.16 0.40 30 10.34 384 $3,972 TRUCKS 1&2 1.75 1.12 30 19.20 1,202 523,078 TRUCKS 4&5 3.24 1.22 30 11.30 4,238 547,889 DEMO 11.37 1.22 30 3.32 10,244 534,010 PACKERS 6.60 1.44 30 6.55 8,930 558,491 ROLL-OFFS 4.15 1.44 30 10.41 3,283 534,176 31,018 S309,542 Savings of Direct Haul (weighted averagel -$309,542 = 31,018 tons = 59.98/ton � Assume Unit Savings of Direct Hau/ from Metio Area �� 10/ton 6. IPC AND TRANSFER STATION W/BALING FUNCTION (at Bena SLF) Similar to Item 4, analysis w/short haul: Haul Cost - S 2/ton Capital and O&M Cost - S 10 ton IPC and Transfer Station at Bena- S12/ton Assume Unit Cost of /PC and Tiansfei Station at Bena = S 12/ton 7. PRIVATE BENA MRF „ A. Integrated Recycling Inc. Survey of Dirty MRFs in California Average cost of throughput = S32/ton � B. Taft/Maricopa Area (Dirty MRF): Feasibility Study by BCP Associates Proposed Recycling Surcharge -(S5/hh*mo x 12 mos) _(2 tons/hh"yr) _$30/ton Metro Waste Facility Unit Costs Analysis May 2; 1994 Page 4 f. �' . C: Marin Resource Recovery Center (Dirty MRF) Privatefy owned and operated by Marin Sanitation ;i Throughput Cost = 541.00/ton (losing money per J. Garbarino) � . �� Assume Unit Cost of Private Bena MRF ��30/ton , _ � . - � i � � 8. DISPOSAL COSTS � � � � ('' � � , ' 1994 Kern County Gate Fee @ S29/ton ' � �� ' . � ;i I Variable Disposal. Costs '� - IWMB Fees ' ' _ S 1�.34/ton . � - ' Liner Cost . S2_85/ton '.'�'� Operations .Cost - S 1.67/ton � ' Eastin Reserve - 50.54/ton . � Total Marginal Cost . $6.40/ton , Assume Variab/e Disposa/ Unit Cost =�6.40/ton ' . - . .. � i . . _. � Fixed WMD System Costs � � . . . S29/ton - 56.4/ton � 522.60/ton - . _ .. .. Assume WMD Fixed 3ystem Unit Costs �/mport Unit Revenue =�22.60/ton . �I'I ' NLE:nef:ys: . - , Misc.7/R4 . • • �� . ' ,. '� . , • � - . . , . ��, ' _ �i ' . , , . . . . . _ . . . I. _ . . . . ,. _ . , a. . . . .. . . . . . i� . . � . . . � _ � � � . .. - - . � . . . ' , � i. . . . - . . � . . � . _ ' .- . . . . � .. � ' . �. � . � � ' � , � . . . � . • "�. . . . , . i _ � _ . Y _ . . ' . .. . ' - � - . .. I. . . . . . . . . . �. . ` . � . . ' � . . � . . . _ ' - . . , . � . . ' _ . . � , ' �- . . • ' . � . . . , � . . . ' . I _ . , . �� Attachment "D" ��enedor�Co 2.May 1994 ar�tion Mr. Joel Heinxichs Agen�y Dire�tor Resnu,rce Manag�ment Agency 2700 "M" Street su�.te 350 BakersPield� CA 93301 , Re: Request For Tnclusion in the Kern County Waste Management Department's Pxesentation to - the Kern Coun�y Hoard of Supervisors, lO.May 1994.i and Rec�uest foar an 2nstruction from t�he Board to Requir� the Resource Manaqement Agency (RMA>.to Hegin Contrac�-Negotiations with Benedor Corporation Dear J'oe1: Per our conversations, Benedor has asked that the £oilowing description be included irt the "POTENTIAL NE�' FACILITIES" pOxtion of the waste Management Depa�tment's presentation to t�he Kern County Board of Supervisors, Which is -- scheduled for 1p.May 1994: � _ Green Waste Facility and Chicken (Egg) Ranch Adjacent to the South Kem Mdustrial Park - Pnv�te Owrrership �nd Operafion Fc�ncction -_ The facility has aiready been approved for receiving and processing of iarge volumes of green waste� with full and immediate diversion cred"�ts available in compliance with �e mandates of AB 939. A proposal (copy, mcluded hercwithy has been formaliy made to the County and the Department. The wgste source would be trans-shipped from a transfer facility� as described in either "C" or "E" above. tt would not compete with existing waod recyGtng operations. Tt�e facill#y would empfoy approximately 275 peopte. Besides the new ` jobs and resulting job mul�pliers� the operation offers severa! other_ , advantages. fihese indude: the construction of a�53 million facility, with - resulting #ax base benefits; raii use suffcient to retgin area and line service; support for the Iocal water district; and, buoying of agricuitural land values. - 0 484 East Los Angeles Aveaue • Snite 10&343 • Moorpark. CA 93021 (805) 523-2053 . • ; .�� 1 '` Mr. Neinr{chs 2.M$y 1994 • Rage 2 The Board o£ to the Depar�ment time, 8enedor has concerns: Benedor Supervisors first referred our proposal back for review in �c�ober of 19�2. Since that revised its�proposal to address three major 1. Canstruction df Egq Ranch. The primary purpose of proposal is t0 faC�lli�ate .the construction of the �acil.ity. 8enedor has aqreed to place all pro£its the proposed green waste agreement in�o an e�crow account, with the use of these fund� restriCted to constructio» of the egg ranch. These funds are to returned to the County in the event that the ranch not built. this egg from the be is 2. Host Fee. The original propossl. by Benedor allowed for a percentage of the commercial s�le price o� Benedor's gr�en waste to be shared with the County as a"host fee." This provision hss been r�stated to reflect th� paymer►� of the hiqhex of a quarante�d gee on the voltunes del.ivered or a percentage of the comm�rCiaz soil amendment sales. 3. VoZume. Benedor's original prapasal may have gs.ven the impression �hat it was seeking a].l of the avail�ble volume of material produced in the County: The propos�l has been modified to reflect a portion of the available volumes. A key element of our proposal has aiways been that it is rtot desiqned as a waste proqram. it is� designed as an alterr►ati.ve economxc development package wY►ich creates jobs in a stable �ndustry. A side benefit is the disposal of green wast�, in a t'orm and manner advarltageous the County, but the purpose is the construction and operation og a larg� scale egq facility. T have attached anether copy of �he one page out�ine of Benedor�s amended proposal, to be attached to the Department�s presentation. This sets out the b�sic pravisions that we have disGUSSed. ' Sas�d on the s�udies done by your department and the conclusions resched as to cost (projected tio ri.se over the years), Benedor respectgully requests that you include our proposal as, an a�tactunent to your presentarion to the Board of Supervisors oa ].O.May 1994.. Benedar further requests that the Soard of Supervisors refer our proposal. back to the K�rn County Resource Management Agency with iinstzuctions to negotiate a contract Yor green waste delivery that is consistent with Benedor's proposal. Th� time i 1 Mr. Heinrichs Benedor � ' 2.May 1984 �' � �. , . ; Pa9e 3 I I � , ; frame for this negotiation to be thirty {30) �iays. And, aF ' course, the contract �.s to be subject to app�ovai' by the Board. � Thank you for consideration and support in this matitier. '� � �ee have appreciated th� opportunity of working with you and your � � staff and look �orward to a lang term relationship. ! espect . ' � : � . �I � Riahard �'. Carxott i'. Chrm.� &. C.E.o. _ � ;', . . , � ;I � � � � � � � � � w:/a��aciimeat � . � - b94/066 . . , - , . . . � . (i _ ' . - _ • , ` v : ' _ . I , .- . . , _ ,. .- i . . . _ , - I!, - �, . . ''� _ - . - . � . � ' - , . . . . . . . j . : _ . � . , ', I . - - , � i _ � - I � _ . �" � i . ' i � i ' � . � . . I, , I , � • � . i - ` , , i. . . j . � • • I . i �� ' �- � �I� Y A KERNT401.XLS Kern Courity Propasai . Revenues (@�20 per to�): 250 tons per day: $5,000 5 days'per week: 25,OOQ 260 days per yea�: 1,300.000 20 years: . $26,000,000 Provision #1 Profits to be escr�wed, with the use restricted to egg ranch. Funds to be retnrned ta the County if tl�e egg c�anch is not bvitt. Provisioa #2 Cou�ty, ta be paid a guaranteoc� "host fee", as set aut bclow, � a� ;n� the higher of 5%0 of Baiedor's ccmmcccial sales. Guaranteed pa�ment, against 5% of sales: r� �� Years s-io Ye�cs ��.�a $50,040 $300,000 $558,000 100,400 350,000 800,000 150,OOQ 400,OQD BSO,d00 zao,aao aso,oao �oo,000 250,000 500,000 750,000 . $750,000 �$Z,OOO,Q00 $3,�50,000 Cruaranteed miszimum funds to Cow�ty: Usable revenue stre�m (in excess of guarantee): Years t�8 Year$ 6-10 Years 11.16 Si,250,000 �1,000�000 $750.OQ0 1,280,Q80 950,04C 700,004 1.150,000 90Q,000 650,OOb 1,100,p00 850,OQ0 600,000 1,050,000 8a0�OQ0 550,000 � $5,750,000. � $4,SOO,OOQ $3,25d,000 Funds avai,lable for chicicen ranch: r� as,zo $$00,000 850,000 900,000 sso,aoo 1,00O,OOQ $4,540,000 a10,544,000 Yeara t6,20 5500,040 450,000 400,oaa 350,000 300,000 $�2,00O,OOQ $15,5�,000 S/2/94 ACTING CITY ATTORNEY I JUDY K.SKOUSEN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS ROBERT M.SHERFY ALAN D. DANIEL JOHN D.CLOSS LAURA C. MARfNO ALLEN M. SHAW /`��' ::� s� �,�,�, c=+ �� .. �� ' ts _ ��'/ �' CITY OF BAKERSFIELD OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 1501 TRUX7'UN AVENi1E BAKERSF�LD, CA 93301 Richard E. Elder, Jr., Esq. Attorney At Law 3107 Clayton Road Concard, CA 94519 RE: Dear Mr. Elder: May 3, 1994 Owen v. City of Bakersfield WCAB Case No. Unassigned DEPUTI' CITI' ATTORNEYS WALTER H. PORR, JR. MICFIAEL G. ALLFORD JANICE SCANLAN ADMINISTRATOR FRANCES E. THOMPSON 7'ELEPHONE: 805 -326-3 72 I FACSIMILE: SOS-325-9162 The City of Bakersfield rejects your demand for settlement for stipulation and award of $51,375.00. I wi.1T r-ecommend to my client an amount of $40, 075 ( stipulation and award) ` less advances. - This offer is subject to receiving approval from ' the City. � 0 AMS/meg WC2\Owen\Elder.Ltr Very truly yours, � /// � � Allen M. Shaw Assistant City Attorney ,_ _ _.. _ _ :.. . . - - S ' � cc: _Alan Tandy, City_Manager ___ _'� Jerry Weber, Claims Administrator Jofin Stinson, Assistant City Manager `��b��E�E�VED :;9� � � . . ,,r � 9��F CITY iVIi4iVA,�El�'S OFF6CE STATE CAPITOL � SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0001 (916� 445-8498 DISTRICT OFFICES: ❑ 100 W.COLUMBUS STREET SUITE 201 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301 (805) 324-3300 ❑ 821 WEST MORTON AVENUE, pC PORTERVILLE, CA 93257 (209�783-8152 �ay 2, 1994 The Honorable Alan Tandy City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: COMMI7TEES: AGRICULTURE RULES WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE HEALTH ��=� �E��VED i�t�ti:. a�5��'a;�� +�49� �i; is � ? ! r,lf � 1991� �. ' l^ ;.Y� �} CBiX 6�AIVP�GER'S �3FF9CE Thank you for taking the time to contact me on the issue of emergency medical services. Two bi11s, AB 3156 and AB 3721, were introduced this year by Assemblyman Tucker to address the ongoing battle between cities and counties regarding the provision of these services. As you are probably aware, this issue has been one of the most heavily lobbied this session, this year as well as last. I certainly appreciate being contacted by the constituents who will be affected most by the legislation i vote upon. Although I voted in support of AB 3156 this year, as well as similar legislation last year, I would like you to know that this was a difficult vote -a;�d that your com�-tienLs wEre carefully considerecl in my deliberation on this issue. AB 3156 has passed the Assembly Health Committee and will be heard next in the Assembly Ways and Means Committee. However, during the contentious hearing process,�the=provisioris of-�AB.-3721= were-amended-into-AB--3156; and several additional amendments were _ ., taken. I--have�-=enclosed "the�-latest version-of--AB 3156-which- �. �incl-udes -_these- changes .-:- - r � In short, these amendments allow those entities which are currently providing EMS services to continue to do so, and grants "first-responder" service rights to fire departments. In addition, the--provisions�.of- AB �3156 will -not-�prevent� municipal -- a-nd-.fire-service --pr-ovider-s-=from competing_ for_-the-provision of- -; zambu-lance- ser-vices :-, Printed on Recycled Paper —__ 4 -. _. . _ . n a May 2, 1994 � The Honorabl�e Alan Tandy City Manager � City of Bakersfield ` Page 2 - While I understand your concerns regarding local control of the services provided to city residents, I was a supervisor in Kern � County in.1980, when the Emergency Medical Service Act.was passed to improve service level within counties.. A primary reason for its passage was the fragmented delivery system that_resulted from municipal service boundaries._ _Regardless°of the--1egal-battles � being--fought-;�-counties are still responsible for-the-provision of__, �emergency-medical---servicss-- to =a11 county _residents-,-inciuding--- ; those_v-in��-incorpor.aied -areas .: Without a county-level authority to �implement a competitive bidding process for the provision of � these services, I am concerned that the residents of areas which are more difficu�t to serve will be unable to receive quality service. Again, thank you for taking the time to let me know your position on this issue. I hope this information has been helpful. , Sincerely, . , �i/ e G�G�� TRICE HAR.VEY Assemblyman, Thirty-second District TH:mba:cl Enclosure AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 28, 1994 • CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1993-94 REGLTLAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 3156 Introduced by Assembly Member Tucker February 23, 1994 � � �e a� See�ie� �-885 �a #�e �e�k a� �� An act to amend Section 1797.201 of, and to add Sections 1797.205 and 1797.207 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to ambulance services. � LEGISLA'I'IV.E COUNSEL'S DIGEST � AB 3156, as amended, Tucker. Emergency ambulance . services: implementation and control: county board of supervisors. Existing law; the Emergency Medical Services System and the Prehospital Emergency Medical Care Personnel Act, `. authorizes a local emergency medical services agency to create exclusive operating areas in the development of a local plan for emergency medical services through a competitive bidding process. Competitive bidding is not required if the local plan continues the use of existing providers under certain circumstances. Existing law makes the local EMS agency responsible for implementation of advanced life support systems and limited -� life support systems, and for the monitoring and training programs. This bill would, a� e�ke� �e�sie� e€ }�a� ; �3 �e e�ee�e� a€ �s�e �€e � se��iceg; �er�e with certain exceptions, declare the county board of supervisors to be the sole public entity to authorize the implexnentation, and control the operation of, the system for the provision of • emergency ambulance services in the incorporated and ss so AB 3156 . —2— unincorporated areas of the county. This bill would provide that, within a county, the county board . of supervisors shall take actions that the board determines are necessary to regulate medical quality and dispatch, and that are consistent with other state and federal laws. By requiring the board to perform these functions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. To the extent that the control exercised by the board pursuant to this authority would increase the duties of local agencies providing these services, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Ttri� � �� e #�a� � e�ee a� �e �s�e#� --•� & °°"cvr�si-� �i&9 �i �is�i�a �6i � �i6�i9i@13 6� 8H3�}&ii� 4P�?�PP�? � �$, 6i ii3 ".� ,. �FT}��3; & �33t'9� ��6�i9i63i 6� �ft'df�; �3iB � �6'6�i�� 9 �69@ 9�'YoziCe9 63i� �3633 `.. � `: 6� �� ' ` - cvizrri�� Existing law requires a county, upon the request of a city or fire district tbat has contracted for or provided prehospital emergency medical services as of June 1, 1980, to enter into a written agreement with the city, or fire district regarding the provision of emergency medical services for the city and fire district, and prohibits reduction of services until the agreement is reached. This bill would instead require a county, upon the request of any city or fire district, to enter into a written agreement with the city or fire district regarding the provision of first responder prebospital emergency medical services, as defined, excluding emergency medical transportation services, for the city or fire district, as part of the emergency medical services system of the local EMS agency, and would make conforming changes. This bill would in addition provide tbat prehospital emergency medical services to be provided pursuant to the agreement may be reduced where the city council or governing body of a fire district, pursuant to a public hearing held in accordance. with specified provisions, determines that the reduction is necessary. Byrequiringcounties to enter ivritten agreements witb.any city or fire district that requests an agreement regarding the provision of first responder prehospital emergency medical services, tbis bill would impose a state-mandated local program. ' ss ioo � U � � U �: • � � � � —3— AB 3156 The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates which do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to those statutory procedures and, if the statewide cost does not exceed $1,000,000, shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION l. Section 17�7.201 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read: 1797.201. (a) Upon the request of a city or fire district � � �� €e� e� �� a� e€�e �; �98� e��+� � se��eeg, a county shall enter into a written agreement with the city or fire district regarding the provision of "first responaier" prehospital emergency medical services, excluding emergency medical transportation services, for that city or fire district as part of the emergency medical services sysYem of the local EMS agency. i�� s�rek �e �� sg� �s �� , ��es� e��ge�e}� � �c_��ee�a��ess��e�g �e�e�; � #�e �i��n e€ �ekes�i#-� �4S � �-� a� �e ��s ��ese�� r•e��g s�tek �?�±c_� s� �e � � �3ese. et�ies � �e �s�e� e�ec� �ke �e�e� e€ ��e�es� � Prehospital emergency medical services to be provided pursuant to the agreement may be reduced where the city council, or the governing body of a fire district, pursuant to a public hearing, held in accordance with tbe procedural requirements of Sectian 1442.5, determines that the reduction is necessary. 98 130 AB 3156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 —4— a� �ie� e€ #�s � �e ��isiei�s e� � g �3 See�ie� �} � � (b) For purposes of this section, "first responder" is defined as those services involving an initial response to serious medical emergencies by a nontransporting, rapid response unit, that is capable of providing basic life support, limited advanced life support, or advanced life support, as part ofinitial patient stabilization and trained � assistance at the scene of an emergency as part of a local EMS system. SEC. 2. Section I797205 is added to the Health and Safety Code, immediately following Section 1797204, to read: 1797205. {�} "T�}..,��'��g,a�et��i�te€ �a�; �3 �e e3�ee�e� e€Except as provided in Sections 1797.206 and 1797.207, and except for basic life support services, the county board of supervisors shall be the sole public entity to authorize the implementation, and control the operation of, the system for the provision of emergency ambulance services in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county. Within a county the county board of supervisors shall take actions that the board determines are necessary to regulate medical, quality and dispatch, and that are consistent with other state and federal laws. {�-} � ei�ies e� �e ��e�s �ke�e s ° �� s �ee� �� ra�r� �e £eet�e� �8� e� �t °�� a�ees �e � �-�� a�e ��•-�Q � �� e� ��a�ee �g � � e� a� €i�e �e� � �s � e� ° ~�� €e� t�e �e�s� a€ �3ese se�a3ee�s si�ee �e � �� r _�' � ~ � � �3 £ee��t � �nr��.r$irr, �3i9 �3 9�3ft� &�jz ei�yL �e � � � �e � �� a� #�e �� : . SEC. 3. Section 1797.207 is added to the Health and Safety Code, to read: 1797.207: A city or fire disrrict providing prehospital emergency services on April 12, 1994, may continue to provide those services at the same or lesser level of 98 150 � � ��. L_J �� i � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 — 5 — AB 3156 service that existed on that date, without regard to whether those services were provided pursuant to a contractual agreement with a county. The level of prehospital emergency medical services may be reduced where the city council, or governing body of a fire district; pursuant to a public hearing, held in�accordance with the procedural requirements. of Section 1442.5, determines that the reduction is necessary. Chapter 5 (commencing with Section' 1798) shall apply to services provided pursuant to this section. SEC. 4. Notbing in this act shall apply to impair righ ts under contracts existing on January 1, 1995. SEC. 5. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated �by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million dollars ($1,000,000) , reimbursement shall be made from the State Mandates Claims Fund. Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless otherwise specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become operative on the same date that, the act takes effect pursuant to the California Constitution. 0 ss iso . .� i: w � i `�hF.RSf/f�0 � r,� � �� ,�+ ��n'� .��.r�� 'OLIC�', \ `\,��,� .. 'i • .� MEMORANDUM HONORABLE MAYOR PRICE AND STEVE BRUMMER, CHIEF OF POLICE RESOLUTION ON RAMPANT VIOLENCE MEMBERS May 3, 1994 In January, 1994, the City of Pasadena adopted a Council resolution related to violence within that community. The resolution was intended to bring attention to the impact of violence on the quality of life in Pasadena. The resolution expressed support for the federal "Crime Bill" and urged all levels of government to work jointly to combat violence. The Mayor of Pasadena requested adoption of a similar resolution by our city. A proposed resolution was prepared by police staff for council consideration. The proposed resolution is attached for council review. 5EB/vrf cc: Mayor Price Councilmember Brunni Councilmember DeMond Councilmember Edwards Councilmember McDermott Councilmember Rowles Councilmember Salvaggio Councilmember Smith �� , �; � 41994 !' �B1V iiJiANAGEF�°S OFF6CE . s- � � Proposed Resolution Whereas, violence in the City of Bakersfield is a health, safety and economic issue costing lives and destroying the quality of life for residents; and Whereas, the escalation in acts of violence in the City has heightened the urgency of undertaking a multi-faceted approach to combatting a situation which is poisoning the life of the community; and � Whereas, murderous violence is increasingly traumatizing the entire City, and Whereas, residents in all areas of the City are becoming increasingly concerned by the ever growing number of violent crimes committed; and Whereas, the City believes an effective way to combat this problem is to take a holistic approach to the eradication of violence within the community and mobilize residents to deal wi.th this cancer in our midst; and Whereas, reductions in crime and in the fear of crime will require enactment of ineaningful anti-crime legislation at all levels of government as well as the development and implementation of long-term solutions that deal with both the causes and effects of crime. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the City Council of th� City of Bakersfield, that the Council is committed to taking the actions necessary to respond to the escalating threats to the community's physical safety; will seek singly and jointly with other municipalities, or as a part of regional efforts, to enact legislative initiatives; and will support community action to curtail the frequency of violence in the city. To these ends the Council authorizes City staff to take the following actions: 1. Utilize block grant anti-crime funds for programs directed toward at risk youth and the prevention of violent crime. 2. Work with the League of California Cities and county regional associations in developing .strategies for enacting legislation on anti-crime issues at all Ievels of government (federal, state, county and city). 3. Rededicate itself to crime prevention and suppression, and call upon the citizens of Bakersfield to assist in these efforts. r � r �JJ��-� �. � � . �OI�Ol�O ..� 1 Pt� 2' S2 o� ��,�� 3 • n ONE HUNDRED NORTH GARFIELD AVENUE ' V'� C��-="�� ": �' • :_�-1`� 'vl � PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91t09 �'''��r v January 26, 1994 City Council of the City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 .-: i'�"Z:.�. � � �f �-�Q�y_. :�u�_- � =� � :��.: �*- � =*= :Z_ o_ :�: �� =°� _� �,_��m ., � A �; �� .� � -�RATED, �J _.: � = OFFICE OF THE MAYOR (8 t 8) 405-431 1 FAX (818) 4053921 RE: Pasadena Resolution #7045 - Eradicating Rampant Violence Dear City Councilmembers: With each passing day, news magazines, newspapers, and other forms of mass media document the infestation of violence plaguing California cities, and cities across America. That kind of news is deeply troubling. But on a positive note, and in response to that violence, we are witnessing a rebirth of community activism. This time that activism is centered on eradicating violence. Here in the City of Pasadena, the residents are energized and determined to implement concrete actions to address this problem. As the Mayor of Pasadena, it has been personally heartening to see the community coalition which formed after the recent murder of three youngsters on Halloween night. The Pasadena Coalition for a Nonviolent City is an action-oriented grassroots movement. Zts aim is "to reduce violence and its impact on Pasadena citizens and to create a secure, nurturinq community for every resident, especially children and youth." The task of the Coalition is to intervene directly in the immediate crisis of escalating violence, and also to address the str.uctural and systemic causes of violence. On December 14, 1993, one of the steps our City Council took was to adopt a Coalition-sponsored Resolution which focused on some of the contributors to the immediate crisis of violence, including the proliferation of awesome firepower on our streets. Resolution �7045 was adopted at a public meeting with lively public participation. Many of the points enumerated in the Resolution relate to legislative advocacy and community mobilization. Unless we are content with the bloody status quo, local communities must become engaged in this dialogue about the eradication of violence in our midst. 0 City Councilmembers Page 2 January 26, 1994 This is a tough subject to talk about because crime and violence are complex issues. But we need to ask ourselves whether the "pat answers" really make sense anymore and whether we need to rethink all our assumptions about this issue. We also need to listen to one anothAr and attack thi� issue from many different perspectives. ' To that end, I would encourage you to place this matter on your agenda and adopt similar Resolutions and action plans. Staff in the City Manager's Office and the City Attorney's Office are available to assist you with any question you may have concerning this Resolution. Please call those offices at (818) 405-4222 and 405-4141 respectively. As local leaders, we have a responsibility to initiate this dialogue on the eradication of violence. If we do not take action now, there is a very good chance that in a future we will live to see, our beloved cities will be unrecognizable. Thank you for your consideration of this Resolution. Attachment CWII.LIA 11959.\1/14/44 S' re , . G RICK COLE Mayor r� _ "i : z RESOLUTION N0. 7045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PASADENA RELATED TO COMBATTING RAMPANT VIOLENCE IN THE CONIMUNITY THROUGH JOINT EFFORTS AT THE LOCAL, STATE AND NATIONAL LEVELS WHEREAS, the City of Pasadena is committed to working towards improving community safety as a part of the Healthy Cities Project; and, WHEREAS, gun violence in Pasadena is a health, safety and economic issue costing lives and destroying the quality of life for residents; and, , WHEREAS, a recent escalation in acts of violence in the City, including the ambush murder of three teenagers on Halloween night, has highlighted the urgency of undertaking a multi-prong approach to combatting a situation which is poisoning the life of the community; and, WHEREAS, murderous violence is increasingly traumatizing the entire City; and WHEREAS, Pasadena Police Department records show that during calendar year 1993, 27 murders occurred in the City of Pasadena, 24 of which were gun-related; and, WHEREAS, Pasadena Police Department records demonstrate that 34 incidents of drive-by shootings occurred during the same time period; and, WHEREAS, residents in all districts of the City are impacted by the easy availability of guns and ammunition, and the fear of becoming a random victim of violence at some time in the future; and, WHEREAS, the,City believes an effective way to combat �.� this problem is to mount a holistic approach to the eradication of violence within the community and mobilize residents to deal with this cancer in our midst; and, WHEREAS, the City desires to enact or support legislative efforts which offer hope of controlling the availability of guns and restore the average resident's sense of security; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pasadena that the Council is committed to taking concrete actions to respond to the escalating threats to the community's physical safety; will seek singly and jointly with other municipalities, or as a part of regional efforts, to enact legislative initiatives; and will support community action to abate the scourge of violence in the city. To these ends, the Council authorizes city staff to take the following actions: 1. Request an opinion from the California Attorney General's Office as to whether a restriction on the sale of ammunition is preempted by statutory law; 2. Communicate to Congressional representatives the Council's opposition to the production and possession of assault weapons and support of Senator Dianne Feinstein's amendment, SB 1607, "Public Safety and Recreational Fireanns Use Protection Act," intended to restrict the manufacture, transfer and � possession of.certain semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices; 2 a . �>�, . _ ..:1.: � 3. Undertake efforts, in association with the Coalition for a Nonviolent City, to petition state and federal legislative bodies to enact more stringent gun control measures, including the repeal of the preemption statute in the Government Code; 4. Work with the League of California Cities and county regional associations in developing a lobbying strategy on this issue to garner the support of other cities and county governmental bodies to advocate for legislative change at the state level. � 5. Circulate this Resolution to other California cities urging them to adopt similar measures. 6. Take steps to work with the Coalition for a Non- violent City so that the City is joined in partnership with the Coalition in support of the holistic, preventive, anti-violence measures identified by the Coalition's subcommittee working on alterflatives and support for youth; and further, that the city commit a budget line of $250,000 as a resource pool to be drawn upon for initiatives that support youth. , �] -r--�..�,- , - ,• , . A3opted at the regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of December, 1993, by the following vote: Action Item #1 AYES: Councilmembers Crowfoot, Holden, Paparian, Thomson, Vice Mayor Nack, Mayor Cole NOES: Councilmember Richard ABSENT: None Action Items #2 through S AYES: Councilmembers Crowfoot, Holden, Vice Mayor Nack, Mayor Cole NOES: Councilmembers Paparian, Richard, Thomson ABSENT: None Action Item #6 AYES: Councilmembers Crowfoot, Holden, Paparian, Thomson, Richard, Vice Mayor Nack, Mayor Cole NOES: None ABSENT: None APPROVED AS TO FORM: l� 1/1� ,�{/�, a�-►�.-� Carolyn . illiams Deputy City Attorney .�•^ � � v v . � ia S. Stewart, 4 0 I�`� v �� * � �O �� '°b,�� J J� _ � �: �� ,; x B A K E R S F I E L D� May 12, 1994 Pat Kim, Program Specialist VISTA Program 11000 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 14218 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Subject: Annual Monitoring Visit Dear Ms. Kim: This letter is in response to your April 29 correspondence subsequent to your annual site visit to Bakersfield on April 14. I am pleased that your letter seems to conclude that the overall operation of the City's VISTA project is meeting the requirements of the nationai program objectives. With regards to your Observation/Recommendation about utilizing the in-service training funds available to the City, staff is preparing a plan and budget for yow consideration. The proposal will be submitted to you May 13. We are very pleased to be a part of the VISTA program and look forward to working with you as we develop our fourth-yeaz renewal. Your offer of technical assistance in the renewal development and application for supervision and transportation funds is appreciated. As always, the CNCS staff has been extremely helpful and cooperative in assisting the City as we strive to provide critical and needed services to our community. We look forward to a continued positive partnership. Sincerely, �--- John F. Wager, Jr. Economic Development Director � zc: Alan Tandy, City Manager pkim2l.ltr/visu ?I�fJW City of Bakersfield • Economic and Community Development Department 515 Truxtun Avenue • BaKersfield • California 93301 (805) 326-3765 • Fax (805) 328-1548 • TDD (80;5� 324-3631 -_ -_ � CORPORITIO\ FOR NATIONAL VICE Apri129, 1994 Mr. Jake Wager City of Bakersiield � Community Economic Development Department 515 Truxtum Avenue Bakersiield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Wager: � j i i= � � � �� a r n �:: � u i I am writing a follow-up letter on the findings of my annual visit to your VISTA project. As you recall, this evaluation visit was conducted at the Economic and Community Development Department on April 14, 1994 when I met the Project Director, Jan Fulton, numer of site supervisors and the following VISTA volunteers: Louis Armitage - Economic and Community Development Department Robert Chandler - Economic and Community Development Department Sandra Collins - Alliance Against Family Violence Wanda Haskins - Clinica Sierra Vista (in June) Dawn Hill - Kern Co. Fair Housing Donald Johnson - Bethany Services Tracie King - Economic and Community Development Department Margaret Ricketts - Kern Linkage The intent of the site visit was to review the administration and operation of the VISTA project, including issues of supervision, recruitment, training, and volunteer assignments. Supervision: Recently, a new part-time staff, Ms. Hilary Rojo, was hired by the sponsor. One of Ms. Rojo's duty is to provide assistance to Ms. Fulton and the VISTA project. Ms. Rojo was instrumental in submitting the recent Project Application, revising the work-plan to incorporate the new volunteer sites. oo�EgTIC y��Gy r ¢ 'e 9 W � G'f 2 "'y n 1 �' � U.S.A � CALIFORNIA STATE PROGRAM OFFICE FEDERAL BLDG. - ROOM 11221, 11000 WIISHIRE BLW., LOS ANGELES, CA 90024-3G71 TELE: (310) 575-7421 FAX: (310) 575-7422 ,�-., As was in the past year, VISTA volunteers receive on-the job orientation and supetvision from the on-site supervisors. In addition to on-site supervision, the sponsor hosts monthly meetings for all VISTA volunteers for further guidance and support. Recruitment: The project is approved for eleven slots. Nine VISTAs are cunently serving and two vacant slots remain available. All volunteers are locally recruited by the sponsoring agency who had developed a comprehensive recruitment plan which involves the on-site supervisors to screen, interview and select candidates of their choice. This recruitment has proven to be successful in allowing proper matching of volunteers' sldlls and abilides with needs of the various sites. With the exception of three volunteers requesting re-enrollment, the sponsor dces not anticipate any change in VISTAs' status in terms of early terminations or extensions. In the past year, two volunteers have terminated early due to personal reasons. Volunteer Assignments: The service schedule of cunent VISTA volunteers is in accord with VISTA guidelines and their assigned volunteer descriptions. The interviewed volunteers are successfully performing their current assignments; when interviewed individually the volunteers were able to provide detailed accounts of previous year's accomplishments, and successes in generating community resources for their respective sites. . On-Site Sup,grvisor's Trainings, In . addition to meeting with the project director and volunteers, this year's site visit included a training component for site supervisors which consisted of reviewing terms and benefits of VISTA. Those who attended included the following: , Manuel Villicans - Kim Stonelake - Marie Wall - Richard Temple - Gigi Sorenson - Linda Pepperman - Ken Hoff - Q1�servations/Recommendations: Kern Co. Fair Housing Kern Linkage Clinica Sierra Vista Bakersfield Homeless Center Kern Co. Food Bank Alliance Against Family Violence Living Connections - Project staff is encouraged to inform Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) staff to idendfy plans for using in-service training funds assigned to your organization. Please be advised that these monies, $1,318 in total, must be spent prior to the end of September 30, 1994. i � , .,,..; ^�s - It was agreed that CNCS staff will provide technical assistance to the project staff in the following areas: (1) assist to revise the fourth-year renewal in order to expand existing number of sites and VISTA slots; and (2) assist the sponsor obtain information on supervision and transportation grant monies. - In it's third year, this project continues to maintain positive partnerships between the sponsor, supervisor, on-site supervisors and VISTAs. As a result of the above, fhis project is able to provide the necessary support and guidance to the VISTAs, , who in turn are then able to provide critical and needed services to their respective communides. Lastly, as a follow-up to this letter, your written response by May 20, 1994 will be greatly appreciated. Jake, I want to thank you for your support of VISTA, and I wish you much success in the upcoming year. Sincerely, �- � ..,.��,L-L c. - -� Inhui Pat Kim Program Specialist cc: Gayle Hawkins, State Director Mike Gale, P&TO File � 0