Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/95 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM February 24, 1995 TO- HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUN£ FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The Water Department advises me that there will be some level of water in the Kern River until December. Truxtun Lake will be low for the next couple of weeks while the construction of the new pumping facility goes in. After that, it will be a significantly improved facility. 2. We met with the County, this week, regarding wastewater treatment in County Service Area 71. We told them we were unlikely to spend $90 million we did not need to and we gave them several options, as outlined in the enclosed letter. 3. A memo is enclosed summarizing what is involved in creating a new redevelopment district in southeast Bakersfield. 4. We have had difficulty in getting sponsors for the bill that would remove the County from having veto power over tax splits. Three local representatives have turned us down. Delano is now working on a representative from another area. 5. Traffic reports pursuant to inquiries from Councilmember Salvaggio are enclosed. Additional responses to Council Referrals are enclosed regarding angle parking for the Bakersfield Racquet Club, the request for a traffic signal at Chester and 8th Street, a multi-way stop sign at Benton and Holden, and the City's Business License Ordinance. 6. The Vision Conference met to prioritize those projects which need significant fundraising. The ones at the top of the list were downtown water theme, multi-cultural, festival, Kern River Parkway, the sports complex/stadium and a more comprehensive plan for addressing economic "ills" in southeast Bakersfield. 7. The owner of the Casa Royale Card Casino, which is in the Union #10 annexation area, has requested an exemption from the current City ordinance for cardrooms. A memo from the Attorney's Office on that subject is enclosed. 8. The Risk Management Claims Activity Report for the month enclosed. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL February 24, 1995 Page -2- 9. Granite Construction was "shut down" on Friday for building diversion facilities in the river without our permission - we need indemnification. AT.alb Enclosures cc: Department Heads Trudy Slater Carol Williams BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager February 16, 1995 Supervisor Ken Peterson Kern County Board of Supervisors 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Supervisor Peterson: Thank you for your letter of January 17th concerning wastewater treatment and County Service Area 71. I felt the discussion we had at the Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting on February 10th was very beneficial in clearing the air on a number of related issues. As you know, the City of Bakersfield is proceeding with. an evaluation of long-term plans and alternatives for wastewater treatment plant improvements. Several factors are coming together at this time which we need to update you on and discuss with your staff. First, like most major capital improvements, as you go from concept to specifics, costs escalate. New data received shows that to upgrade our Plant II and to build a new regional plant, expenses over the next five to six years could exceed $128 million. We do not believe the building community would accept connection fees at a level adequate to pay off debt on a project of that size. Secondly, there is a direct relationship between recent County land use planning decisions and the sizing and expenses connected with our new sewage facility. The costs for the western most trunk line and related plant capacity are in the $30 million area. Those facilities would serve Pacificana and McAIlister Ranch -both'of which Kern County has approved planning documents for indicating they may do septic tanks, they may build their own plants, or they may tie into the City regional plant. We have to design and build a plant - the debt for it is to be paid from connection fees - we cannot spend $30 million and "maybe" have the debt retired if they opt for connection to our system. That line extends to Western Rosedale and CSA 71. It is over $10 million alone -We cannot get it to CSA 71 absent all the potential connections between - we cannot serve most of CSA 71 without that interceptor and plant capacity. City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 Supervisor Ken Peterson February 16, 1995 Page -2- In addition, the County of Kern has, for over a year, blocked annexations based on a 'new tax split policy. No signs exist of resolving that issue. Absent the ability to annex, we believe we can meet the future wastewater treatment plant demands of our current City limits through expansion of our Plants II and III, at roughly $30 million in improvement costs. That represents a potential savings to our taxpayers of about $90 million. That number will be refined in an upcoming engineer's analysis, but for estimation purposes, it is in the ballpark. Third, the County has no vehicle in place to require the construction of trunk sewers or to finance'them. Under that condition, it is impossible to plan to size future plant expansions since it is unknown what areas will eventually be connected. We will be calling doel and his staff to discuss this issue and alternatives which would include, but not be limited to: A. Modifying environmental approvals on County subdivisions to clarify how sewage will be treated along with resolving the tax split issue. B. Having the County of Kern assume debt service for that portion of the regional plant and trunk lines not needed for the existing City boundaries. , C. Modifying the boundaries of, or terminating, CSA 71. The County may wish to explore other alternatives such as NOR, or a joint plant with Shafter. D. You may have other preferred means of providing sewer service to these areas through a plant you would build yourselves. E. We can go on just as is - with the CSA 71 agreement in place, but with no ability of the City to build the trunk lines or plant capacity to serve the CSA 71 area. F. You might have other ideas about how to overcome a huge financial obstacle that we have not thought of - we are certainly willing to listen to your ideas. As discussed at the meeting on the 10th, the City has served all applicants for service in CSA 71 which meet normal standards of the City and the terms and conditions of CSA 71. One applicant, who wanted to use lift station capacity paid for by others for whom the capacity was reserved, was denied service based on not meeting City or CSA 71 standards. Since there is no trunkline system in CSA 71, there will be some of these instances in the future. Supervisor Ken Peterson February 16, 1995 Page -3- We will call in a few days to schedule a meeting with County staff on these subjects. City Manager c.~ AT. alb / I J _ cc: Honorable,,Maye'r and City Council ~Mr.---R'aul-I~oj ~,-fl'~ I~lie~W~ r ks"Di ~ecTo~ Mr. Joe Drew, County Administrative Officer Mr. Joel Heinrichs, Resource Management Agency Director B A K E R S F I E L D / ~ Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February 20, 1995 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager // ~ FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director ~ SUBJECT: Request by Councilmember Carson regarding process needed to establish a redevelopment project area. In early January I had an opportunity to brief Councilmember Carson on the activities of the Economic & Community Development Department. She expressed a particular interest in the possibility of establishing a new redevelopment project area in Southeast Bakersfield. My understanding is that the Councilmember wishes to examine what additional opportunities could be pursued which might help address the many issues we are faced with in our effort to revitalize Southeast Bakersfield. With that in mind she asked what is the process entailed in establishing a redevelopment project area. The balance of this memo attempts to address the major milestones involved without bogging down in heavy technical terms or finite specificity. As can be discerned in reading this memo, the process is cumbersome and is fraught with pitfalls. However if done deliberately with great attention to detail, I believe it is feasible and may prove quite useful to establish a redevelopment project area in Southeast Bakersfield. In establishing a redevelopment project area, the culmination of a series of events is the adoption of a redevelopment plan by the City Council. The redevelopment plan acts as the Redevelopment agency's charter. The plan establishes long term planning goals as well as the implementation policies and procedures for the redevelopment of a designated project area. It also outlines a financing plan by identifying the use of a set of financing tools. Typically a redevelopment plan is general in scope providing a broad and flexible outline of the policies, procedures, tools, and limits in revitalizing the project area. The purpose of redevelopment is the alleviation of blight. Later on in this memorandum I will provide a definition of blight. One of the primary findings necessary to establish a redevelopment project area, is that private enterprise acting alone or government or both are not capable of reversing ; ' the blighting conditions which exist. A prerequisite in the plan adoption process is that the City must have in place a current general plan conforming to the requirements of State law. Ultimately the adopted redevelopment plan must conform to the existing general plan. A finding of consistency with the general plan is one of the actions required to be made by the City Council. The first active step in the creation of a redevelopment project area is the designation of a "survey area." This is done with the approval of a resolution by the City Council. The resolution must contain a finding that the designated area requires study to determine the feasibility of establishing a redevelopment project area. No notice or public hearing is required. The identification of a survey area essentially translates to the area which at first glimpse is the largest and most likely area to require the assistance offered through redevelopment law. It is important to give attention to the boundaries drawn at this early stage since the project area ultimately to be adopted must fall within the survey area adopted. The designation of a survey area has no legal impact on the properties within the approved boundary lines. The study that is undertaken following the designation of a survey area focuses on a preliminary determination of blighting conditions, feasible land uses, the market demand for such uses, and the financial feasibility. Even at this early point in the process (and throughout the life of the redevelopment plan) blight is a critical issue. The extraordinary powers authorized for the elimination of blight such as design control, use restrictions and the use of eminent domain is the public purpose for redevelopment. Blighting conditions must predominate the project area and be of such magnitude as to "injuriously" affect the entire area to be adopted. Blight applies to the whole area and not necessarily to individual properties. The blighting conditions must cause a reduction or lack of proper utilization to the point that it causes a serious physical and economic burden that cannot be reversed without redevelopment. Current law categorizes blight as to falling into two major categories: physical blight and economic blight. Evidence of physical blight can include buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in. It can include buildings or lots that because of substandard design, inadequate size, market conditions, inadequate parking, are prevented or substantially hindered from being economically viable. Physical blight can include incompatible adjacent or nearby uses which prevent economic development. Finally physical blight also includes the existence of subdivided lots of irregular form and shapes, and inadequate size with multiple ownership. Economic blight may include such things as depreciated or stagnant property values as well as properties containing hazardous waste. Abnormally high business vacancies, abnormally low lease rates, abandoned buildings, high remover rates or excessive vacant lots also serve as definitions for economic blight. A lack of commercial facilities (i.e., grocery stores, drugstores, and lending institutions) normally found in neighborhoods also serves as evidence of economic blight. Under the heading of public safety, an excess of bars or adult only type businesses as well as a high crime rate are also defined as blighting conditions. Recent amendments to redevelopment law eliminated the lack of public improvements as a justification for the establishment of a redevelopment project area. However, once a finding of blight has been made based on the physical and economic blighting conditions as defined earlier, public improvements can be funded through redevelopment. As pointed out earlier the issue of blight is critical. However non-blighted properties may be included in a redevelopment project area if it is deemed necessary for the effective redevelopment of an area. Again the focus needs to be that blighting conditions prevail in the proposed project area to such an extent that they constitute a serious physical and economic burden which cannot be alleviated without the use of redevelopment. Another factor which must be analyzed during the survey area phase is the urban character of the area being considered for adoption. State law requires that a project area be predominantly urbanized. It defines predominantly urbanized as no less than 80 percent of all the land in the project area has been or is developed for urban uses. Other issues that need to be assessed at this early stage include the financial feasibility of redevelopment and the existing versus potential land use as well as the potential market demand. All of the above information is then collated along with a physical description of the area to be considered as a project area (building and population intensities; street lay-out, land uses, etc.). Most critically this is the time when the actual boundaries of the project area are cast. The area chosen can always be less than that of the survey area but not more. The product that emerges from this step is called the preliminary plan and it must be approved by the Planning Commission. Typically it is a concise document which outlines the basic concepts of how redevelopment will be used to alleviate the conditions identified. Once the preliminary plan has been approved by the Planning Commission and accepted by the redevelopment agency, all affected taxing agencies within the project area and the State Board of Equalization are notified. The County's fiscal officer and the State Board of Equalization prepare a report which identifies the total assessed valuation of taxable property, the affected taxing agencies and the tax revenues generated and projected to be generated. This report, by statute, must be provided to the agency within 60 days of receipt of notification. At this same approximate time a new but parallel track must commence. If a substantial number of low or moderate income persons (according to State income guidelines) reside within the project area and the redevelopment plan contemplates that a substantial number of these resident may be displaced as a result of anticipated projects then a project area committee (PAC) must be established. The PAC must include the broadest possible spectrum of businesses, property owners, neighborhood organizations, and religious institutions as possible. The PAC formation process is essentially self-elective. The City Council and redevelopment agency may not appoint the PAC nor can they appoint a single committee member. The PAC formation must be widely advertised both by formal publication and direct mailing as well as other appropriate and available methods. The City Council must provide funding, as it determines necessary, for the operation of the PAC. This could include office equipment, supplies, legal counsel, and staff. The PAC's role is advisory to both the City Council and the redevelopment agency. Their primary function is to review the redevelopment plan and to advise the City Council and Agency on policy matters that deal with the planning and provision of residential facilities for those displaced by a project. The Agency is required to consult with the PAC for at least three years following plan adoption and is thereafter subject to one year extensions to be granted by the City Council. Once the redevelopment plan is submitted to the PAC, they prepare a report and a recommendation to the City Council. If the PAC has recommended against the plan, the City Council may only adopt it by a two-thirds vote of its eligible and qualified members. The PAC is required to follow all requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act. One rather odd circumstance is that the Fair Political Practices Commission has determined that PAC members are public officials and as such are subject to disqualification based on conflict of interest. Yet the basis of their original qualification to serve on a PAC requires them to be vested in the project area being considered for adoption. Finally the PAC must be in place no more than 100 days following the selection of the project area by the Planning Commission. While the County fiscal officer is preparing the report discussing the total assessed valuation and the PAC is being formed, work begins on the preliminary report. This is not to be confused with the preliminary plan which sets out the project area boundary. The preliminary report identifies the types of blighting conditions as well as the scope and purpose of the redevelopment plan. The report must contain the following type of information: · Reasons outlining the selection of the project area. · A description of blighting conditions (physical & economic). · A description of the project area sufficient to determine that the project area is predominantly urbanized. · Total number of acres. · Total number of acres composed of subdivided lots of irregular form and shape which are inadequate in size for proper development and in multiple ownership. · Total number of acres integral to an area developed for urban uses. · Percentage of property predominantly urbanized. · A map of the project area identifying blighted property. · The predominance of urban uses and properties not developed for urban uses. · A preliminary assessment of the methods of financing and the projects financial feasibility. · A description of the specific, projects proposed by the Agency and how these will improve or alleviate the existing conditions. Once completed the preliminary report is presented to the redevelopment agency for authorization to distribute to the affected taxing agency. Although the formula for sharing of tax increment among the various entities is set by law, the preliminary report is designed to assist the other affected entities in determining the potential impact of the proposed project area. It is at this point, after months of studies and consultation, that the final redevelopment plan is prepared as well as an environmental impact report. The redevelopment plan will again include a description of the project area, the existing blighting conditions, and the projects intended to alleviate the blight. The plan will detail the time limit for plan activities for incurring debt, for plan activities and the time within which all debt will be retired. It will also establish the time limit for the use of eminent domain and the amount of bonded indebtedness. It will discuss the use of the low and moderate income annual set aside ( 20% of any year's revenue) as well as a multiplicity of other state law requirements. When the redevelopment plan and the environmental impact report are completed, a joint public hearing of the redevelopment agency and the City Council is scheduled. The purpose of the public hearing is to consider the adoption of the redevelopment plan and the establishment of the redevelopment project area. A report to the legislative body must be provided which in essence is a compilation of much of the material prepared at the various stages of the adoption process. The report reviews all pertinent facts, public testimony, comments received from (and responses to) affected taxing agencies and all other relevant material which provides a full and comprehensive history of all decisions, processes, and procedures leading up to this point prior to the final public hearing. The redevelopment plan is subject to a final review by the Planning Commission and the Project Area Committee. If either body recommends that the project not be approved, the City Council must approve the adoption by a two-thirds vote not a simple majority. The redevelopment plan is then adopted by ordinance. The process as outlined in this memorandum takes approximately six to twelve months to complete. There are numerous critical steps along the way with little room for error. Missed deadlines or failed notices can result in an invalid process with the only recourse being to start all over again. Since most communities are not well versed (due to the infrequency of project area adoptions) in the critical path that must be followed without error, consultants are brought on to manage the process. Typical cost for the establishment of a redevelopment project area can range from $85,000 to $125,000. With respect to the establishment of a redevelopment project area in Southeast Bakersfield, I believe that such a step may be beneficial. Delano has enjoyed some successes in their industrial attraction program in part due to the overlay of an enterprise zone on top of their redevelopment area. I also believe that the 20% Housing Set Aside could augment the funds available to further promote the preservation and enhancement of the area's existing housing stock as well as promoting new housing production. Although redevelopment should not be viewed as a panacea it would provide us with another tool in addressing the multiplicity of issues we must deal with. In regards, to whether this area qualifies to be considered as a redevelopment project area, I have no doubts that given the prevalence of blight (both physical and economic) that we easily meet the most stringent of test. If you would like to discuss this further or should you require any additional information please call me. dlt:jw7 novel.wpd BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager February 24, 1995 Assemblyman Cruz Bustamante California State Assembly State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95811 Dear Assemblyman Bustamante: For in excess of a year and a half, growth in the City of Bakersfield has been vetoed by the County of Kern. From 1978 until 1994, tax splits between the City and County on annexations had always been 55% County/45% City. The County unilaterally demanded 80%, or 5% of our gross City-wide sales tax receipts, and have not moved off that position in over a year. The policy of giving the County the right to veto annexations, through the tax split formula, prevents logical development, it encourages and, in fact, mandates service duplication and service inefficiencies, and is counterproductive to correcting growth patterns in California. , We ask that you consider sponsoring the legislative amendments to the Revenue and Taxation Code which would provide an impasse procedure so that, if a city and county were unable to agree on a tax split formula, the average tax split of the last three annexations would be the required split. This is a fair and reasonable way to resolve impasse between the two governments. We encourage your cooperation and stand ready to assist you in any way possible, or to respond to any questions you may have. City Manager AT. alb City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager 'February 24, 1995 Mr. Wade McKinney, City Manager City of Shafter 336 Pacific Avenue Shafter, CA 93268 Dear Mr. McKinney: ~ In December, you asked the Kern County City Managers for a couple of weeks to try to come to accommodation with Kern County on the tax split issue by debating with them the modeling process which led to their current policy. It has now been in excess of two months. We have not been provided with a status report on the progress, or lack of progress, on your nbgotiations. I believe you have missed the last two Kern County City Managers Association meetings. We put "on hold" other forms of trying to resolve this issue to give you time. I really think it is, however, time that we get a progress report and clarity on the additional time you will need, and whether, at this point in time, you believe that your efforts will be successful. Your cooperation is appreciated. Sincerely, City Manager J .. AT. alb cc: Kern County City Managers City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 · Fax (805) 324-1850 B A K E R.S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ,Man Tand~, Ci~ Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, ~blic Works Director DA~: Feb~a~ 23, 1995 SUBJECT: Council Refers! Record g14536 (Salvag~o) The attached information regarding traffic signals on Planz Road at Wible Road, and Akers Road at Panama Lane, is being provided as requested at the Council meeting of February 8, 1995. REF14536 Attachment BAKERSFIELD Public Works Department Traffic Engineering Memorandum DATE: February 17, 1995, rev 2-22-95 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER ~ SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL No. 14536, TRAFFIC SIGNAL STATUS AT PLANZ/WlBLE AND AKERS/PANAMA LN ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL: "SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE UPDATES ON THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION AT PLANZ AND WIBLE ROADS; AND ON THE NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL A TAKERS ROAD AND PANAMA LANE." RESPONSE: Wible/Planz signal: The traffic signal modification at Planz and Wible Roads was combined with another, smaller, signal modification at Ming and Castro. Bids were received on October 16, 1994. The low bid of $143,495.54 for the combined projects was from McKee Electric of Bakersfield. The Bid was awarded by the City Council on December 14, 1994. Signed contracts were returned to the City from McKee Electric on January 27, 1995. Project administration and inspection will be done by the Construction Inspection division of Public Works. The contract allows only 45 working days for completion of both signal modification projects. Construction Inspection is waiting for the contractor's materials to arrive before start of construction and working days to begin. We will update again when the "notice to proceed" has been issued to the contractor. Page 1 Page 2 Akers and Panama Lane: This location, an existing 4-way stop controlled intersection, is under design at this time. The base map and topographic survey have been completed. The base maps and proposed signal pole location information have been sent out to all utilities for their review and confirmation of their utility locations. Upon receipt of the utility location information, the design phase of the project will continue. The project is proposed for approval of the plans, specifications and estimates in April with receipt of bids and award of contract in May, 1995. Design of the project is on schedule. cc: Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering Brad Underwood, CE III, Traffic Engineering PW Memo Files Traffic Engineering File - City Council Referral No. 14536 slw:. p:\data\wp\1995\CC# 14536.Ref CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL .D I'4EET!NG 'OF: 02/08/95 FEB-1 0 1995 REFERRED TO' PUBLTC WORKS R ROJAS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ZTEM' RECORD~ ~4536 Traffic signals , ~.n~ Wihle ~oads and Akers Road and ~nama Lane. (Sa~vagg~o) ACTZON TAKEN BY COUNCZL: SALVAGGZO REOUESTED STAFF PROVZDE UPDATES ON THE PROPOSED TRAFFZC SZGNAL HODZFZCATZON AT PLANZ AND WZBLE ROADS: AND ON THE NEW TRAFFZC SZGNAL AT AKERS ROAD AND PANAMA LANE. BACKUP MATER'[AL ATTACHED' DATE :^OWARDED BY ,2TTV CLE~,,'· ~ ...... ~.. ~,,10/95 NOTE' STATUS .... ' ..... '~- - , ..... .._ ,~.H,~,i..:,".: ,-..,,,E TO BE ~NTERED FOR ::,'-,un R~:FERRAL AT LEAST ONC~ A MONTH EVEN ZF NO ~nTTON HAS BEEN TAKEN! BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works DireCtor DATE: February 17, 1995 SUBJECT: STATUS OF REFERRALS Enclosed you will find stares reports regarding traffic signal warrant studies at the intersections of Benton at Holden and Chester Avenue at 8th Street; and status of angle parking inquiry by Bakersfield Racquet Club on Pine Street. FEB I INQUIRY2.FEB Encl. MEMORANDUM Traffic Engineering DATE: February 14, 1995, rev. 2-16-95 · TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER~ SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO INQUIRY REGARDING ANGLE PARKING FOR THE BAKERSFIELD RACQUET CLUB ON PINE STREET Background: I have been working with Steve Williford, manager of the Bakersfield Racquet Club, for many months in an effort to alleviate the parking congestion on Pine Street. As a possible improvement, we agreed to try angle parking on the east side of the street. The street is wider than most in the area and it would be possible to maintain two-way traffic. The net gain would be only about 4 to 5 spaces, but we felt it was worth trying to alleviate the impact on the residential neighbors. Due to workload and lack of available funds, we postponed the changes to the fall of 1994. Just prior to sending a work order out to do the project, I was informed that no angle parking should be initiated in this area. This was apparently due to some controversy about the possibility of the Parks Department requesting installation of angle parking on Elm Street, north of Tmxtun and adjacent to Jastro Park. Since Pine Street is only a few blocks away, I did not send out the work order. I was in contact with Mr. Williford and informed him of the controversy of angle parking in the area. Since we had been proceeding on an informal request basis to this point, I suggested that he should write a formal request to the City asking for consideration of the angle parking. Since I am also a member of the Bakersfield Racquet Club, I felt that a formal request from the Club would be more appropriate in light of the apparent controversy. A few weeks ago, I received a call from Mayor Price regarding the angle parking. He had apparently been contacted by Mr. Williford. Mayor Price was not in favor of angle parking and had worked to eliminate most angle parking in the City when he was with the Police Department. I verified that the City did at one time have angle parking on many streets in the downtown area, some of which were higher volume "through" streets. Pine Street is a very low volume street and not used for through access. The California Vehicle Code allows local authorities to permit angle parking via ordinance (CVC 22503). The Bakersfield Municipal Code, Section 10.32.050 paragraph A, allows the Traffic Authority (the Public Works Director) to authorize the installation of angle parking. I have not seen a formal request come through from the Bakersfield Racquet Club. I have not talked to Mr. Williford for several weeks. It is my opinion that this location would be appropriate to try angle parking due to the adequate width of the street, low volume and need for more parking spaces. If authorized, we have some street marking and signing fUnds available to do the job with General Services' Signing and Stripping crews. I request direction in this matter. cc: Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering Brad Underwood, CE III, Traffic Engineering PW Memo File Traffic Engineering file - Pine Street/Bakersfield Racquet Club parking. 2 MEMORANDUM Traffic Engineering DATE: February 16, 1995 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER,/~~ SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO COUNCILMEMBER REQUEST, FEB 16, 1995, REQUEST FOR SIGNAL INSTALLATION AT 8TH/CHESTER. A traffic signal warrant study was performed last spring (see attached memo) at the request of the councilmember for Ward One. Three traffic signal warrants were met. The warrants met were all volume related and included: Warrant One, "Interruption of Continuous Traffic"; Warrant Nine, "Four Hour Volume Warrant; and Warrant Eleven, "Peak Hour Volume Warrant. No accident warrants were met and the accident history was good, showing only one collision reported in the past twelve months of the study period. The future signal project was added to our priority list. The project was unfunded for the 1994-95 CIP and currently ranks about 10 to 11 out of 31 warranted signal locations for the 1995-96 CIP. A recommendation has not been made pending receipt of information on available funding for the 1995-96 CIP. cc: Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering Brad Underwood, CE III, Traffic Engineering PW Memo File Traffic Engineering file - 8th/Chester, Ward One requests M e m o r'a n d u m Traffic Engineering DATE: March 23, 1994 TO: FRED KLOEPPER, ACTING PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER ~ FROM: SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL NUMBER 12508, CHESTER/STH 'SIGNAL WARRANTS, FINAL UPDATE. Ward One. A review of the intersection to verify previous warrant analysis has been completed. 'Minimum volume warrants are satisfied for 3 of~ ~11 traffic signal warrants./ A project to install a traffic signal will be added to the list of warranted signal projects for.future funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The location was reviewed by the Traffic Engineer earlier this year in response to a Council request. Based on existing available traffic counts, the intersection appeared to meet some volume warrants.· No accident warrants were met. T© verify the Traffic Engineer's estimate, a new study was ordered. A complete analysis was done with new traffic counts, a new review of accident~records, speed surveys andsite review. The results of the new analysis' indicate that the "Interuption of COntinous Traffic" warrant, the "Four Hour Volume" warrant andthe "Peak HOur Volume" warrant were met... These warrants are intended to accomodate minor side street 'traffic that may. experience delay crossing or entering the main street. The intersection has a good accident history and accidents were not a factor in this study and the "Accident Prevention" warrant was far from being met. The intersection has been added to our priority list for future ~funding. No further action required on this referral. cc: Traffic File - Council Ref: Brad Underwood Ward 1 file saved un,er d:\~p\CHSTR8TH.tJAR MEMORANDUM Traffic Engineering DATE: February 14, 1995 TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER/y~ SUBJECT: MULTIWAY STOP SIGN WARRANT STUDY RESULTS, REFERRAL FROM WARD 7. As requested, Traffic Engineering staff performed a multiway stop sign warrant study at the intersection of Benton and Holden. No warrants were met. No changes in traffic control are proposed at this time. The last study of the intersection was in December, 1991. No warrants were met at that time. As a result of the study, other traffic operation improvements were proposed. To better define the intersection right of way for drivers, Holden, the main street, was made a "through" street with Benton required to stop. This was implemented in January 1992. There have been no accidents reported for the past twelve months and only one accident in the past 36 months. The volumes recorded for this study are only about one-fourth of the minimum threshold volume to meet the warrant. This is consistent with the 1991 study which had similar volumes. It is the Traffic Engineer's opinion that the perceived problem of the residents is not traffic control at the intersection, but rather the speed of drivers on Benton Street. A copy of this memo and the study data will be sent to the Police Department for speed enforcement. We continue to monitor this, and other streets in the City, for changes in traffic patterns. cc: Lt. Blackburn, Police Department - Traffic Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering Brad Underwood, CE III, Traffic Engineering PW Memo File Traffic Engineering file - Benton/Holden, ward 7 ref. M E M O R A N D U M FEBRUARY 17, 1995 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~'///~ FROM: BILL DESCARY, TREASURER ~ SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL (DEMOND 01/11/95) The Business License Ordinance is codified in Municipal Code Chapter 5.02. Code Section 5.02.020 dearly indicates that business license tax is solely to raise revenue for municipal purposes and is not intended for regulation. Further, Section 5.02.070(A) supports the revenue aspect of the ordinance by indicating that payment of the tax shall not be construed as authorizing any business that is not in compliance With all city and county ordinances, and all state and federal laws. A conflict occurs in Section 5.02.070(B) which indicates that a business license will not be issued until the business has met the requirements of the zoning, building, fire, health and permit codes of the City. Section 5.02.070(C) indicates that failure to comply with these requirements constitutes grounds for denial, suspension or revocation of a business license. This contradiction within the ordinance is summarized in the attached memorandum from Assistant City Attorney Marino. A draft ordinance amendment is also attached. To specifically address Councilmember Demond's inquiry, any requirement for documentation of licensing/certification would be viewed as regulatory and further add to the inconsistency in the ordinance. Currently, business license revenue is $1.5 - 1.6 million annually and administrative costs are about $150,000. According to Marino's memorandum, continued regulation under the ordinance could jeopardize this revenue stream. Under a regulatory ordinance, only costs of regulation can be charged as a fee which means business license revenue would decrease about $1.35 million. The Marino draft amendment to the Business License Ordinance should be adopted to remove the regulatory provisions and, therefore, any doubt whether the ordinance is regulatory or revenue raising. It is anticipated that the amended Business License Ordinance will have first reading at the March 22, 1995 Council meeting. MBD.12 cc: Gregory J. Klimko, Finance Director Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Mike Kelly, Fire Chief Laura C. Marino, Assistant City Attorney Attachments MEMORANDUM October 13, 199¢ TO: WILLIAM C. DESCARY, Treasurer / FROM: LAURA C. MARIN0, Assistant City Attorney SUBJECT: REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF BUSINESS TAX CERTIFICATES AND PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDINO CHAPTER 5.02. It has become apparent that inconsistencies exist in Chapter 5.02 which require correction. As we discussed recently, Section 5.02.020 states that the business license tax "is enacted solely to raise revenue for municipal purposes, and is not intended for regulation." Yet other provisions in the chapter contradict this stated purpose by providing for revocation or suspension of the business license, and by requiring review of the business' compliance with federal, state and local law prior to issuance of the certificate.' Recently, suspension or revocation of a business .license was considered. It became apparent, however, that to take such action conflicted with the stated purpose of the tax. Moreover, it vastly expanded the role of the Treasurer to enforcing all federal, state and local laws, even those having nothing to do with the traditional purview of the Treasurer. Finally, case law provides that fees levied for the purpose of regulation under the police power must bear some reasonable relation to the expense of such regulation, while revenue raising taxes do not. (~uston v. Wilson (1938) 27 Cal.App.2d 124; City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Co. 152 Cal. 765). A business tax certificate issued for revenue-raising purposes only is merely a receipt. It should be issued immediately upon the payment of the appropriate tax. Any regulatory aspects of the tax, including review of the business for compliance with the law, should be eliminated. It would be appropriate, however, to refer the name and location of any new business to the Planning and Building departments for investigation into its compliance with the law. Based on the foregoing, I recommend that Chapter 5.02 be amended to eliminate all regulatory aspects of the tax. I have attached a draft ordinance for your review. Please send me your comments and any questions you may have. LCM/meg Attachment' Proposed Ordinance cc: Jack~ Hardisty C__~.~ U~TAX.MEM Greg Klimko THIS MEMORANDUM ~ EXEMPT FROM D~CLOSURE AND IS PROTECTI~'.~ BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIF~NT AND ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT PRIVILEGE October 13, 1994 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBSECTION B OF SECTION 5.02.060, SECTION 5.02.070, SUBSECTION A OF SECTION 5.02.200 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDINH SUBSECTION D TO SECTION 5.02.200 TO THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE BUSINESS LICENSE TAX. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. Subsection B of Section 5.02.060 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.02.060 Certificate required - Exemptions. B. Each business tax certificate issued pursuant to this chapter{ shall remain in effect only until June 30 following the date of Issuance. SECTION 2. Section 5.02.070 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.02.070 Unlawful business not authorized. No business tax certificate issued under the provisions of this chapter or the payment of any tax required under the provisions of this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the conduct or continuance of any illegal business or of any legal business in an illegal manner, or to conduct within the city the business for which a business tax certificate has been issued without complying with all the provisions of the ordinances of the city or county, and state and federal laws, including, but not limited to, those requiring a permit from any board, commission, department or office of the city. SECTION 3. Subsection A of Section 5.02.200 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.02.200 Appea~. A. Any applicant aggrieved by'the following decisions of the collector concerning his application or certificate, may appeal to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within fifteen days of the date of decision: 1. Denial of exemption from payment of business taxes; 2. Determination of the amount of business tax due and penalties thereon, if any; 3. Determination of the classification to which the applicant's particular business is assigned; 4. Determination of the amount of refund of business tax, if any. SECTION 4. Subsection E is hereby added to Section 5.02.200 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code to read as follows: 5.02.200 Appea~. E. until such time as the city council renders a decision on appeal, the decision of the collector shall stand. In order to conduct the business for which the application was made, the applicant must make the payments set by the collector, which payments may be paid "under protest" pending the appeal. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the date of its passage. 000- - 2 - I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED as to form: JUDY K. SKOUSEN CITY ATTORNEY By: LAURA C. MARINO Assistant City Attorney LC~JmcE Ord3%Bus-Tax. Ox'd - 3 - MEMORANDUM 'i February 17, 1995 ~5~ TO: Lieutenant Bill Horton FROM: Carl Hernandez III, Deputy City Attorney~ ~ SUBJECT: Casa Royale Card Casino I met with the operator of the Casa Royale Card Casino to discuss her operation of the casino within the City. Ms. Mailloux was particularly aggrieved that the City would not permit her an exception to operate her cardroom as she now presently operates under her county permit. Based on information which you provided.us, both the state and county permits to operate the cardroom expire in March of 1995. Ms. Mailloux agreed that both permits expire in March of 1995. I explained that the state would require the Casa Royale to abide by the requirements of City ordinances. Moreover, I explained that once a county permit obtained under a county ordinance expires, Ms. Mailloux would have no further right to operate under the county ordinance but would be required to operate under the City's ordinance. Ms. Mailloux requested that the City grant Casa Royale an exemption from the current ordinance based on the hardship which would be imposed upon her if required to abide by the City ordinance.' I explained that the City cannot grant exceptions to ordinances and that unfair application of City ordinances to businesses exposes the City to potential liability. I further explained that the City must require all cardroom operators to abide by City ordinances. Finally, I explained that the only recourse open to her was to ask that the City's ordinance be amended. I explained that that request must be made directly to the City Council. Ms. Mailloux then realized that it would be to her benefit to move her cardroom from the Casa Royale to a location within the county. I explained that since she had a working relationship with the county that would perhaps be her best option. She indicated that she will now discuss this option with the county. THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED BY THE ATTOKNE¥-CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK--PRODUCT PRIVILEOE Memorandum to Lieutenant Bill Horton Re: Casa Royale Card Casino February 17, 1995 Page 2 Hopefully this matter will now come to an end. Should you have any questions or need any further information on this matter, please feel free to contact me. cc: Judy Skousen, City Attorney Alan Tandy, City Manager CORRl/casa-217.mmo THIS MEMORANDUM IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE AND IS PROTECTED B~ THE ATTORNEY--CLIENT AND ATTORNEY WORK--PRODUCT PRIVILEGE BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM · ~February 15,1995. TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: CLAIMS ACTIVITY REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 1995 The claims activity during the month of January 1995 was a result of actions in the following City Departments/Divisions: NEW DEPARTMENT/DIVISION CLAIMS FILED FILES CLOSED COMPLAINTS FILED Police 9 2 0 Streets 2 2 1 Sanitation 2 1 0 Fire 1 0 0 Engineering I 0 0 Parks 0 1 0 General Services 0 I 0 15 7 1 The new claims filed during the month of January 1995 resulted in the following types of damages: CITY THIRD PARTY DAMAGES DEPARTMENT/DIVISION VEHICLE INVOLVED VEHICLE DAMAGE OTHER PROPERTY INJURIES Police 3 3 4 0 Streets 0 2 0 0 Sanitation 2 I I 0 Fire 1 1 0 1 Engineering 0 I 0 0 6 8 5 1 As a result of the claims activity in January, the year to date (fiscal) totals are as follows: Filed Filed Department/Division Filed in Filed in Year to Date Year to Date # Open # Open 1/95 1/94 1/31/95 1/31/94 @1/31/95. @1/31/94 Police 9 6 38 31 57 47 Streets 2 ' 2 24 17 33 21 Sanitation 2 I 8 13 12 9 Fire I 1 5 I 10 2 Engineering I 0 2 2 9 2 Parks 0 I 9 8 4 8 Recreation 0 0 1 2 3 2 General Services 0 0 0 I 2 2 Convention Center 0 0 0 2 2 4 Construction 0 0 0 0 2 1 Building 0 0 0 0 I 1 City Attorney 0 0 0 0 1 1 Water 0 0 I I I 1 Ed/Cd 0 0 0 0 I 0 Executive 0 0 2 2 0 2 15 11 90 80 138 103 NOTE: As a result of a recent meeting involving Risk Management and the City Attorney's Office, the resolution of minor claims should occur in a more timely manner. This should reduce the number of open claims significantly. Claims Activity Report - January 1995 Page 3 POLICE Donald, Alexis, Michael, and Natalie Valpredo, 1233 Tam O'Shanter Drive, DOL: 7/7/94; Claimants allege damages were caused by negligent actions of the Police Department. Michelle Irene Gaunt, 5401 Norris Road, #8, DOL: 8/5/94; Claimant alleges false arrest by Police Department officers in the 3300 block of Stockdale Highway. Coy and Jennifer Townson/Action Property Management, 6640 Wible Road/1400 Easton Drive, DOL: 10/26/94; Claimants allege Police Department officers caused damage by the use of a flash grenade at 6640 Wible Road. Mark Lynn Ponder, 720 Eye Street, DOL: 12/94; Claimant alleges Police Department officers damaged his fence during an arrest at 720 Eye Street. Lois White, 2216 San Emidio, DOL: 1/14/95; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Police Department vehicle struck claimant's vehicle on Chester Avenue. Carlos Medel Hernandez, 424 Poinsettia Street, DOL: 12/16/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Police Department vehicle failed to stop at a stop sign and broadsided claimant's vehicle on Alta Vista Drive. Jennifer Lynn Ransom, 4444 Columbus Street, DOL: 11/21/94; Claimant alleges a Police Department officer damaged claimant's door at 4444 Columbus Street. Robert B. Ward/Modern Lab Service, 4300 Stine Road, Suite 209, DOL: 12/27/94; Claimant alleges a Police Department vehicle collided with his vehicle on White Lane. Dorothy Lee Savoi, 401 11th Street, DOL: 1/25/95; Claimant alleges Police Department officers damaged her apartment door at 401 11th Street. STREETS Duma Freeborn, 4604 Woodmere Drive, DOL: 1/14/95; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle hit a pothole in a City street at the intersection of White Lane and Stine Road. Richard Long, Jr., 5101 Silversprings Lane, DOL: 12/29/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle hit a manhole cover at 17th and Eye Streets. Claims Activity Report - January 1995 Page 4 ENGINEERING Larry Ira Smith, 704 Quintana Drive, DOL: 11/17/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused by a faulty designed City street on Gosford Road. SANITATION Donald Green, P.O. Box 2309, Lake Isabella, DOL: 11/22/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Sanitation vehicle backed into claimant's vehicle in the 1400 block of F Street. Jack Warkentin, 2950 Beachcomber Drive, Morro Bay, DOL: 9/12/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Sanitation Division vehicle pulled down the claimant's telephone line on 21 st Street. FIRE Johnny Griffin, 1419 Texas Street, DOL: 11/23/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Fire Department vehicle bumped claimant's parked vehicle at 1501 Truxtun Avenue. CLAIMS CLOSED/SETTLED DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY POLICE Juan Macias, DOL: 1/23/94; Claimant alleges damages by the Police Department when he was arrested. Closed - no court filings. Carlos Lopez, DOL: 11/18/93; Claimant alleges damages were caused when the Police Department had the claimant's vehicle towed from a parking lot. Closed - no court filings. Claims Activity Report - January 1995 Page 5 SANITATION Girl Scouts-Joshua Tree Council, DOL: 7/8/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a Sanitation Division vehicle hit claimant's vehicle. City settled case for $1,356. PARKS Jose Guerrero, DOL: 4/7/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle was sideswiped by a Parks Division vehicle. City settled case for $965. STREETS Debbie Carter, DOL: 1/6/95; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when a sewer line backed up into claimant's residence. City partially settled case for $814. Sherry Tidwell, DOL: 5/22/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when the truck tires of a Streets Division vehicle caused stones to fly up and break claimant's windshield. Closed - no court filings. GENERAL SERVICES Laurie Davis, DOL: 6/6/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when claimant's vehicle struck a pipe in a City parking structure. Closed - no court filings. CLAIMS WITH RESULTING COMPLAINT AND/OR SUMMONS FILED DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY STREETS Alice Evans, DOL: 1/16/94; Claim is for damages allegedly caused when the claimant tripped over a California Water Service valve cover. Claims Activity Report- January 1995 Page 6 cc: City Council Judy Skousen, City Attorney City Clerk's Office - Natalie Welty Newsmedia File :EwS Dedicated to Excellence in ;merit February 1995 Governor Proposes q 995-96 State Budget The Governor released his proposed ment ofstate and county responsi- penalty revenue currently sero to the 1995-96 state budget on January 10. bilities for family and children's state. (See details in the ShopTalk This proposed budget, unlike those services and trial court funding, article). of the last several years, does not According to the governor, the The governor's proposed budget reflect a fiscal outlook more nega- restructuring proposal emphasizes is the starting point for discussion tive than the fiscal outlook at the increased local control, responsi- and debate on the 1995-96 state time the current year budget was bility, and appropriate fiscal budget. Changes in revenue and enacted. The govemor's budget incentives for program results, expenditure forecasts can drastically priorities include continued expan- These proposals include shifting a change the budget outlook. The sion of the state's economy, promo- portion of the existing state sales Legislature will also propose tion of self-sufficiency, and protec- tax to a realignment funding various alternatives to the govemox's tion from crime and violence. The account and transfemng total approach. The Legislature's ap- governor stressed the importance of responsibility for the non-federal preach to this budget is more improving California children's share of Children's Services costs uncertain than usual given the lack achievement of the goals set out in to counties. State support for Trial of a clear majority in the Assembly. his budget. Court Funding would be increased Cities should still consider them- There are no provisions in the by about $600 million from the selves very much "at risk" for budget reducing city sham of state General Fund and by an budget reductions in 1995-96. property tax, vehicle license fees, additional $300 million by allow- fines and penalties or the local sales ing counties to maintain fine and tax. The Govemor does propose requiring fifty percent of cities' fines and penalties currently going to the ~ state to be sent to the county instead. This proposal is pan of trial court What's Inside ... funding realignment and is dis- ~ Governor Proposes 1995-96 State Budget ........ 1 Be heard! cussed below. The budget also :~ President's Message ............................................ 2 proposes a shift of $100 million in Spotlight On the Assembly ................................. 3 transportation funds away from the ShopTalk .............................................................. 3 Mini-News is 1995 CSMFO Annual Seminar ........................... 5 alwaysseekJng State and Local Parmership Program iGR Committee Meets with input from all to other transportation programs. State Controller's Office .................................. 5 CSMFO (See details in the ShopTalk article). Moving On ......................................................... 6 members on .~ Upcoming Conferences ...................................... 6 tooics in any The two-year reductions to redevel- ~ Meelmg Notices .................................................. 6 ~',,~,,,,,~, opment agencies enacted in 1993-94 ~ Up the Ladder ...................................................... 6 section have ended and there are no new ~ Members' Semces Directory ......... : .................... 7 ' proposals impacting redevelopment ,~.~: Financial Info Systems Survey ................... .......... 8 , ...,~ ....... ~ . . It s your :,. Caprtd Action ................................................. Add - agencies. ~ newsletter! The local government proposals ~ ' in the budget include further realign- ~~~~*'~'~ I California Society of Municipal Finance Officers I