HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/97 BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
January 24, 1997
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. A report required by the State on the City's recycling rate was prepared by the Solid Waste
Department and enclosed for your information. As indicated, Bakersfield met the 25% mandate
in 1995. However, as noted in the report, the County does not require mandatory collection,
and significant amounts of solid waste are deposited into City containers from County areas
that are adjacent to our boundaries. This artificially drives our disposal tonnage up and our
reportable recycling rate down. We requested information from the County in order to
estimate the amount of County-generated waste placed in containers throughout the City, but
they were not able to locate that data.
2. The tentative time line for consideration of establishment of new redevelopment project areas
is enclosed.
3. Development Services Activity Report from January 16th is enclosed.
4. The West Coast Hockey League next year will add teams in Boise, Idaho; Tacoma,
Washington; and Tucson, Arizona. Bakersfield will get some name recognition in three new
states!
5. The CDDA approved their part of the Chamber agreement. It looks like all is on line for the
Plaza.
6. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District is requesting a sphere of influence change
to add some areas west of their current district boundaries. They have no plans for annexation
at this time but want to plan for future development.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 24, 1997
Page 2
7. A response to a Council referral is enclosed, as follows:
· Staff contact constituent regarding pick up of illegally dumped material behind her house.
8. Public Works will now be able to offer a more convenient application process for senior refuse
refunds, as they have developed a database that has information from applications previously
submitted. A memo is enclosed with the details.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
01/22/97 WED 16:26 FAX 805 328 1548 BFLD ECON & COM~ DEV ~ CITY MGRS OFFICE ~001
TENTATIVE TIMELINE FOR CONSIDERATION
OF ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS
Step 1 - Council approval of CDBO Amendment for $100,000 including $10,000 to conduct a
trend analysis of assessed valuation for the Proposed redevelopment project area(s).
Action - City Council Meeting January 22, 1997
Step 2 - Initiate a request for proposal for consulting services for a trend analysis of assessed
valuations. The analysis will review assessed valuations for past ten years and based on the
existing trend forecast possibility of tax increment generation.
Action - Select consultant by February 21, 1997
Step 3 - Conduct trend analysis.
Action - Complete by March 21, 1997
Step 4 - Return to City Council for review of trend analysis findings. If positive trend is
reflected request City Council authorization to proceed with project area(s) establishment.
Action - City Council meeting March 26, 1997
Step 5 - Initiate RFP for consulting services for the establishment of redevelopment project
area(s).
Action - Select consultant by April 30, 1997 (subject to Council approval on May 16, 1997)
Step 6 - Initiate redevelopment project area(s) formation by designating a survey area the
balance of the process is illustrated with thc following list of milestones:
Preparation of Preliminary Plans
County Fiscal Officer's Report
Project Area Committee Formation
Preparation of the Preliminary Repoxt
Redevelopment Plan Preparation
Environmental Impact Report
Report to the Legislative Body
Notifications after Plan Adoption
This process takes from 6 to 9 months project area formation process would therefore be
completed between November 1997 and February 1998.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Direetor/~t~&.__
DATE: January 16, 1997
SUBJECT: FIRST ANNUAL REPORT ON AB939 RECYCLING RATE
We have completed this state-required report and are happy to announce that Bakersfield
met the 25% recycling mandate in 1995. We show a 25.1% recycling rate according to the
State's baseline data. However, the report also includes alternate calculations using
localized data, which yields a better rate of 33.34 %. This difference is due mainly to an
adjustment the State and County agreed to make in pre-mandate landfill tonnage estimates.
It is likely that the State will allow our alternate figures.
There is another potential improvement to be gained by estimating the amount of County-
generated waste placed in containers throughout the City. However, to estimate this we
need to use data the County "has not been able to find in their files". Lacking the data, we
have qualitatively shown in our report how the County's lack of mandatory collection
artificially drives City disposal tonnage up, and hence the reportable recycling rate down.
The explanation is supported by the fact that the County reported a 51% recycling rate
compared to the City at 25 % or 33 % using generally the same programs.
KB:smp
Enclosure
RECE!VED
J/ N 2 11997
CITY i~/i/:,NAGER'S~.:" '-
S:\WPDATA\R_AB939. MEM ~
MODEL ANNUAL REPORT
SECTION (A): MEASUREMENT OF DISPOSAL REDUCTION
Check each item as completed, providing attachments as applicable. Refer to the User's Guide
for detailed instructions and examples.
[ x] A-1. Complete the disposal reduction calculations using the Board-approved base-year
generation amount (refer to list provided by Board staff in Data Tables) and using the
reporting-year disposal amount as reported from the disposal reporting system (the
sum of the amounts provided from your county and from any other counties). A
blank "CIWMB Disposal Reduction Calculations Form" is provided. Computerized
versions of this form are available upon request (refer to User's Guide Attachment
VI). Attach the completed form or print-out and label as Appendix A-1.
[ x] A-2. a) Does the Board-approved base-year generation amount need to be corrected due
to inaccuracies or other reasons?
Ix ] Yes. Attach a discussion and label as Appendix A-2a. Go on to b.
[ ] No. Go on to A-3.
b) If a more accurate base-year generation amount can be quantified, a second set of
calculations may be attached for staff to consider during the Board's evaluation.
Include a discussion on how this amount was derived. Label attachment as
Appendix A-2b.
Revised Base-Year Generation = __352,291_ tons
[x ] A-3. a) Does the disposal amount, as reported from the disposal reporting system,
accurately represent your jurisdiction's reporting-year disposal amount?
[ ] Yes. Go on to A4.
[x ] No. Attach a discussion and label as Appendix A-3a. Go on to b.
b) If a more accurate reporting-year disposal amount can be quantified, a second set
of calculations may be attached, for staff to consider during the Board's
evaluation. Include a discussion on how this amount was derived. Label
attachment as Appendix A-3b.
Revised Reporting-Year Disposal = * tons
· Not quantifiable due to lack of information from the County.
(?IWlv[R bTle' .VIC.(?TI£)MA DOff Paoe A-1 V~r.~ion' l~ehrnftrv 2t~ lOO~
MODEL ANNUAL REPORT
OPTIONAL INFORMATION:
[ ] A-4. Attach any additional, OPTIONAL information regarding the compliance calculations for
staff to consider during the Board's evaluation (refer to User's Guide for examples). Label
attachment as Appendix A-4.
'~ ~ MODEL ANNUAL REPORT
SECTION (B): SRRE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ASSESSMENT
Check each item as completed, providing attachments as applicable. Refer to the User's Guide
for detailed instructions and examples.
[ x] B-1. Summarize the progress made in implementing planned programs for this reporting
period (reporting-year or period since last reported). A blank "SRRE Program Form"
is provided. Computerized versions are available upon request (Refer to User's Guide
Attachment VI). Attach completed form or print-out and label as Appendix B-1.
[x ] B-2. Provide the reporting-year recycling/composting tonnages for programs funded or
operated by your jurisdiction. A blank "Table 1" is provided. Computerized versions
are available upon request (refer to User's Guide Attachment VI). Attach completed
form or print-out and label as Appendix B-2.
[x ] B-3. a) Were there any programs planned to be implemented this reporting period
(reporting-year or period since last reported) in your Board-approved final SRRE,
which have not been implemented?
[x ] Yes. Attach a list and label as Appendix B-3a. Go on to b.
[]No. Go toB-4.
b) Check the applicable reasons that program(s) were not implemented. Discuss
each item noted, explaining the circumstances related to each program and how
they impact the implementation schedule for each program. Label attachment as
Appendix B-3b.
[ ] Delays in bringing diversion facilities on-line [ ] Insufficient funding
[ ] Unavoidable regulatory delays [ ] Insufficient staffing
[ ] Existing contractual or legal problems [ ] Lack of cooperation
[x ]Other (describe): from other entities
The success of the greenwaste/inert recycling facility, curbside greenwaste
collection and dropoff programs avoided the need to implement additional
programs.
[ ] B-4. a) ttave any implemented programs been unsuccessful?
[ ] Yes. Attach a list and label as Appendix B-4a. Go on to b.
[x ]No. Go to B-5~
CIWMB File : SECTIONB. DOC Page B-1 Version: February 26,
iOO~
MODEL ANNUAL REPORT
b) Check the applicable items that contributed to the lack of success of programs.
Discuss each item noted, explaining the circumstances related to each program
and how they impact the implementation schedule for each program. Label
attachment as Appendix B-4b.
[ ] Administration changes [ ] Funding issues
[ ] Low participation rates [ ] Insufficient staffing levels
[ ] Problems w/markets for recyclable materials
[ ] Targeted materials were not available in the projected quantities
[ ] Increased waste due to natural disaster(s)
[ ] Other (describe):
[x ] B-5. If applicable, discuss contingency programs or other measures that will be
implemented to increase efforts or effectiveness to achieve the disposal reduction
goals. Label attachment as Appendix 13-5.
The City of Bakersfield has met its mandated disposal reduction goal for 1995.
[x ] B-6. Do you anticipate any other revisions to the programs, implementation schedules or
funding sources of the Board-approved, final SRRE? Include any other new
program(s) not yet discussed.
[ ] Yes. Attach a discussion and revised schedules, if applicable. Label attachment
as Appendix B-6.
[x ] No.
[x ] B-7. Have there been any changes in waste types or amounts generated, or your overall
waste management system that may affect achievement of the goals for disposal
reduction?
[ ] Yes. Attach a discussion as Appendix B-7.
[x ] No.
[x ] B-8. Check all potential barriers that may realistically prevent achievement of the disposal
reduction goal and attach a discussion as Appendix B-8.
[ ] Administration changes [ ] Funding issues
[ ] Low participation rates [ ] Insufficient staffing levels
[ ] Problems w/markets for recyclable materials
[ ] Targeted materials were not available in the projected quantities
CIW1VIB File: SECTIONB. DOC Page B-2 Version: February 26,
lOO~i
MODEL ANNUAL REPORT
[ ] Delays in implementing program(s)
[ ] Other (describe):
[x ] B-9. Examine the adequacy of the Solid Waste Generation Study (SWGS). Does the
SWGS need to be revised?
[ ] Yes. The SWGS is not adequate and may need revision. Attach a discussion
(refer to User's Guide) and label as Appendix B-9.
[x ] No.
[x ] B-10. Examine the adequacy of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) for all
sections other than the SWGS. Does the SRRE need to be revised?
[ ] Yes. The SRRE is not adequate and may need revision. Attach a discussion and
label as Appendix B-10.
[x ] No.
[x ] B-11. Have there been any changes in non-disposal facilities from what was planned for in
the Non-Disposal Facility Element (NDFE) to implement the SRRE?
[x ] Yes. Attach a discussion and label as Appendix B-11.
[] ~o.
The City of Bakersfield did not construct the material recovery and waste transfer facility;
though the wood/greenwaste recycling facility was permitted and continues to be operational. A
material recovery and waste transfer facility may be needed at a future time to comply with year
2000 goal of diverting 50% of the waste stream.
[x ] B-12. Has your jurisdiction received a Board-approved reduction in the diversion goal?
[ ] Yes. Explain why the reduced goal is or is not still applicable. Label attachment
as Appendix B- 12.
Ix ] No.
[x ] B-13. Is a regional medical waste treatment facility or a regional diversion facility located
within your jurisdiction for which you have made a correction to the reporting-year
disposal amount in Section A?
[ ] Yes. Discuss the waste types in the residual solid waste that cannot feasibly be
diverted and any additional efforts undertaken to divert the waste produced at
each facility. Explain why the adjustment should or should not still apply. Label
attachment as Appendix B-13.
[x I No.
CIWMB File: SECTIONB. DOC Page B-3 Version: February 26,
MODEL ANNUAL REPORT
OPTIONAL INFORMATION:
[ ] B-14. If applicable, attach a discussion on diversion programs for solid waste generated by
a local, state or federally declared disaster. Provide information on the types of
diversion programs implemented; the types of problems encountered; the generated,
disposed and diverted amounts; and your willingness to participate in further studies
regarding disaster wastes. Label attachment as Appendix B-14
[ ] B-15. If your jurisdiction has implemented program(s) that were unique or have been
exceptionally successful, attach a discussion. Provide information on how the
program is unique or exceptional; the participation and diversion rates; the costs
involved; the type of criteria other jurisdictions could use to determine whether this
program would be successful in their jurisdiction; and your willingness to have other
jurisdictions contact you for further information. Label attachment as Appendix B-
15.
[ ] B-16. Attach a discussion on any additional technical assistance Board staff could provide
to assist local jurisdictions in implementing diversion programs and achieving the
disposal reduction goals. Label attachment as Appendix B-16.
CIWMB File: SECTIONB. DOC [~g.~q~:~. Version: February 26,
FINAL DRAFT MODEL ANNUAL REPORT FORMAT (9/6/95)
APPENDIX A-_ 1_ (A-l, A-2b or A-3b )
ClWMB DISPOSAL REDUCTION CALCULATIONS
Instructions: Only enter data in the highlighted, outlined boxed areas in items I through 6. Print file.
1) Input Name/Location: Counl
CITYOF BAKERSFIELD' ~!,' '.::'; :!; :: .:.: :'? i.:'!':' ': :..! :: i::!::: :
2) Input Base-Year, Board-A =proved Base-Year Generation Tonnac e and Residential Percenta¢ e:
Base-year Waste Sector Tonnages Percentages
1990 .. :.:: ::.::~:i Residential 105,034 33:50%
Non-Residential 208,499 66.50%
Total .: 313 533 ::~::i; : 100.00%
3) Input Reportin~l-Year and Reportin~l-Year Disposal Tonnage (from Disposal Reporting System):
I Re ortin -Year Total Disposed Tonnage I 18813(d)]
P ~ [ - - z [14 CCR
1995: :i:ii: :1!::, .:: ::i;242;817 .:.. ;:~:.i: I
4) Input Board-Approved Diversion Goal Percentages [14 CCR 18775]:
As of 1/1/95 use default of 25% or input Board=approved reduced diversion goal;
As of 1/1/2000 use default of 50% or input Board-approved reduced diversion goal:
I Diversion Goal % = I ' ' 25:00%. ::i:i::;:: ::.: ::::: I
5) ONLY IF APPLICABLE, Input Reporting~Year Disposal Correction Amounts:
Note: No Transformation/Biomass Diversion Credit Allowed Until Rer3rtin~-Year 2000.
Board-Approved Reductions (e.g., Disaster, Medical & Regional Facility Waste) i Tonnage Amount**
..T.,o...t..a..LD..!..s...a...s..,t..e...r.. Waste Dis.p..osal Reduction Amount (attach list** by d Baster) .:::.: : ~.
~...T.~.~..!~.a..LR....e..~..!~.~....n...a..LD...!..v...e.~.r..s..!..~....n.....F....a...c..!!~!.t.~ .R....e.,sidual !ii ........... :'
......
Total Other Disposal Reductio~"~i~'~i"i~iii;~'~i:i"i'i~i;~"6~;';~;)'/;~i)i~;~i'i¥i'~i' ................................... l,!iiiii!!ii!i:iiii!!!tii??!T"~': ......... :'"". ......
Total Reporting-Year Correction Amount i 0
'*Provide attachment that lists amounts by each disasterlfacilitylitemlevent. Fully explain each item and how each amount was derived.
Input Adjustment Method Factors: (Refer to Attachment IV for state default data, or may use other data)
[PRC 41780.1(c)]
............................. .F...a..c.,t...o.,r...s. ........................... Base-Year I Reportin~l-Year I Source of Data*
,..P..,°..P..,.u.!a..t.!0...n....(~..P..e..r.s...o.n...s.) .............. ;:?:'. ::' '".' :. '.i:::. ::;;i:ii~r172!~0j ;::~;:;21 :;::~ :.:ii::~ ~ ::::i: ~::::::i:~;2121634:j:.i '.:: .. · .
not us ~g state default data, provide a hard copy of each source document cited.
CIWMB File: CALCS.XLS Run Date: 12/19/96
FINAL DRAFT MODEL ANNUAL REPORT FORMAT (9,/6/95)
7) Calculated Adjustment to Correct Base-Year Generation for Changes in Population & Economics
7-a I Inflation Multiplier (tM) = I
I
[ IM = Base-Year Consumer Price Index / Reporting-Year Consumer Price Index 11 0.8790
7-b I Corrected Reporting-Year Taxable Sales (CTR) = J
I
[ CTR = IM x Reporting-Year Taxable Sales ]1 $2,091,834
7-cI Employment Multiplier (EM) =I
[ EM = Reporting-Year Employment / Base-Year Employment ]1 1.0235
7-d
I
Taxable Sales Multiplier (TM) = I
I [TM= CTR/Base-Year Taxable Sales Il 0.9643
7-el N°n-Residential Adjustment Fact°r (NRAF) = I
[ NRAF = (EM + TM) / 2 ]] 0.9939
7-fi Population Multiplier (pM) =I
[ PM = Reporting-Year Population / Base-Year population ]] 1.2331
7-g i Residential Adjustment Factor (RAF) = I
[ (PM + NRAF)/2 ]1 1.1135
7-h
I
Estimated Reporting-Year Generation Tonnage (ERYG) = I
I [(Base-Year Residential Gen. x RAF)+ (Base-Year Non-Residential Gen. x NRAF)]1 324,180
8) Computed Maximum Allowable Disposal Tonnage
8-a I Reporting-Year Maximum Allowable Disposal Percentage (MAX%) = I
[ MAX% = 100% - Diversion Goal% ]1 75.00%
8-bi Rep°rting-Year Maximum AIl°wable Disp°sal T°nnage (MAXTONS): Ii MAXTONS = ERYG x MAX% j] 243, i35
9) Determination of Goal Achievement
9-al C°rrected Rep°rting-Year Disp°sal T°nnage (CRYTONS) = I
[ CRYTONS = Reporting-Year Disposal Amount - Total Reporting-Year Correction Amount Il 242,817
9-b Tonnage Over or Under Goal (TOUG) = I
[ TOUG = MAXTONS - CRYTONS ]1 318
Note: Goal is met if positive or zero. I Goal is met
10) Calculated Diversion Rate
lO-a I . Reporting-Year Disposal Rate (DISP%) = I
I
[ DISP% = CRY'DONS / ERYG ]1 74.90%
lO-b Reporting-Year Diversion Rate (DIV%) = I
[ DIV% = 100%- DISP% ]1 25.10%
Note: Not meeting the goal does not automatically indicate non-compliance. The Board will ~ O. 10%
also examine program implementation when making the determination of compliance. I Above Goal
CIWMB File; CALCS.XLS Run Date: 12./19/96
APPENDIX 2-a
Base-year Disposal
An audit conducted by the Franchise Tax Board determined that conversion
factors being used by Kern County to convert vehicle tons of waste disposed
were inaccurate. Just prior to the audit, the County Waste Management
Department had conducted a statistically representative study to evaluate the
acczJracy of the conversion factors being used to determine waste disposal
amounts. Results indicated that certain vehicle conversion factors has changed
since the study.
As a result, the County and the Franchise Tax Board agree to use the most
recent conversion factors and apply those factors to waste disposed between
July 1, 1990 and June 3, 1993. The unincorporated County's base-year disposal
amount increased from 470,252 tons to 511,766 tons. Kern County therefore
made an additional payment to the State of California of $299,349.37 for the
waste disposed during that period. The portion of this difference attributable to
the City of Bakersfield is significant.
The City of Bakersfield therefore requests an increase of 38,758 tons to the base-
year generation amounts.
FINAL DRAFT MODEL ANNUAL REPORT FORMAT (9,/6/95)
APPENDIX A-_2b_ (A-l, A-2b or A-3b )
ClWMB DISPOSAL REDUCTION CALCULATIONS
Instructions: Only enter data in the highlighted, outlined boxed areas in items 1 through 6. Print file.
1) Input Name/Location:
2) Input Base-Year, Board.AF,Proved Base-Year Generation Tonn~-~e and Residential rt~, ~-~,,[~!~;
Base-Year Waste Sector Tonnages Percenta~ies
1990 .' i.:i: Residential 118,017 : ~:i~::; ~ ;; i~33~50%
Non-Residential 234,274 66.50%
Total i:i:; 352:~29 100.00%
3) Input Report!n~l-Year and Reporting-Year Dispo~_a! Tonnage (from Disposal Reporting System):
IReportin~i-Year ! Total Disposed Tonna~le I [14 CCR 18813(d)]
4) Input Board-Approved Diversion Goal Percentages [14 CCR 18775]:
As of 1/1/95 use default of 25% or input Board;approved reduced diversion goal;
As of 1/1/2000 use default of 50% or input Board-approved reduced diversion goal:
I Diversion Goal % = I :::
5) ONLY IF APPLICABLE, Input Reporting-Year Disposal Correction Amounts:
Note: No Transformation/Biomass Diversion Credit Allowed Until Re~, ...... v-Year 2000.
Board-Approved Reductions (e.g., Disaster, Medical & Regional Facility Waste) i Tonna~le Amount**
....T...o..!..a..I....D....s...a....s..t...e...r...W.....a...s...t...e...D...!s.p..osal Reduction Amount lattach I st** by d saster) ..:: ::.
~..~...~..!~.a..~..M.~e....d..Lc...a..~..W.....a..~s.~!~.e..~..D..!~.s..E.~."s.".a.~ Reduction Amount lattach list** ~'~;"~'~'~i'ii~i .........................
Total Out-of-State E..x..p..orts subs;~;~;;i~i~i5i~;~ri.;;~i~i~i~i~;i;;~ii~.~ii~i
'%'f;;i"'6iiqE'5i'~;i~;~;;;'i' i~'~i'fi'~i'ii~'~i"~'~i~i"(~ii~i'~;F'fi~P;"G'~'~ii)~i'iYf~i' ...................................
Total Reportin~l-Year Correction Amount 0
attachment that lists amounts by each disaster/facility/item/event. Fully explain each item and how each amount was derived.
6)
Input Adjustment Method Factors: {Refer to Attachment IV for etate default data, or may use other data)
PRC 41780.1
Factors Base-Year I Repo. w-Year I Source of Data
'F;'"'~'i;iii';;~""~""';7~;;~'3'~; .............. :: :: .... :~17 ~::' .'
':""'P'": ................. .{.......P. ................... ). .............. ; ........... ,.L: 2;:440i:': :: :~'.:.::~.;.::.~?::' '~:212,6341 .:;:' '
~-mp~oyment (ti jobs) i i?~ ::;:::: ::::. i; il i i ':il;i;;i~iiii;i;i:i i~; i
Taxable Sales ($) {!~ii~i!i
*If nnt ~mlq ~fnf= H~fc~, ,if ,-~.M. ..... 1...1~ . I ,
g , r' a hard copy of each source document c~ted.
CIWMB File: CALCS.XLS Run Date: 12/1g/g6
FINAL DRAFT MODEL ANNUAL REPORT FORMAT (9/6/95)
7) Calculated Adjustment to Correct Base-Year Generation for Changes in Population & Economics
7-al Inflati°n Multiplier (IM) = I
[IM = Base-Year Consumer Price Index / RePorting-Year Consumer Price Index 11 0.8790
7-b I Corrected Reporting-Year Taxable Sales (CTR) =
I
[ CTR = IM x Reporting-Year Taxable Sales
7-c
Employment Multiplier (EM) =
[ EM = Reporting-Year Employment / Base-Year Employment ]1 1.0235
7-d
Taxable Sales Multiplier (TM) =
I [TM= CTR / Base-Year Taxable Sales
7-eJ Non-Residential Adjustment Factor (NRAF)
[ NRAF = (EM + TM) / 2 ]1 0.9939
7-fI Population Multiplier (pM) =
[ PM = Reporting-Year Population / Base=Year Population 1~ 1.2331
7-g I Residential Adjustment Factor (RAF) =
[(PM + NRAF)/2 ]
7-h
Estimated Reporting-Year Generation Tonnage (ERYG) =
[ (Base-Year Residential Gen. x RAF) +, (Base-Year Non-Residential Gen. x NRAF
8) Computed Maximum Allowable Disposal Tonnage
8-a I Reporting-Year Maximum Allowable Disposal Percentage (MAX%) =
[ MAX% = 100% - Diversion Goal%
8-b I Reporting-Year Maximum Allowable Disposal Tonnage (MAXTONS) =
I
[ MAXTONS = ERYG x MAX%
9) Determination of Goal Achievement
Corrected Reporting-Year Disposal Tonnage (CRYTONS) =
9-a [ [ CRYTONS = Rep°rting-Year Disp°sal Am°unt - T°tal Reporting-Year Correction Amount ]1 242,817
9-b
Tonnage Over or Under Goal (TOUG) =
[ TOUG = MAXTONS - CRYTONS ]1 30,374
Note: Goal is met if positive or zero. ~ Goal is met
10) Calculated Diversion Rate
lO-a I Reporting-Year Disposal Rate (DISP%) =
I
[ DISP% = CRYTONS / ERYG
lO-b Reporting-Year Diversion Rate (DIV%) =
[ DIV% = 100% - DISP% ] 33.34%
Note: Not meeting the goal does not automatically indicate non-compliance. The Board will 8.34%
a/so examine program implementation when making the determination of compliance. Above Goal
CIWMB File: CALCS.XLS Run Date: 12/19/96
APPENDIX A-3a and A-3b
The disposal amount, as reported from the disposal .reporting system, does not
accurately represent the City of Bakersfield's reporting year disposal amount.
Significant quantities of county-generated solid waste are deposited in refuse
containers located within the city. This occurs because the County lacks
mandatory collection at homes and businesses in areas adjacent to City
boundaries. In fact, homes and businesses are located in unincorporated islands
within City limits and completely surround City boundaries. Inhabitants in the
metro area describe themselves as "Bakersfield" residents but 40% of the
population actually live in the county.
The institution of landfill gate fees in 1993, plus the replacement of a nearby
landfill with a more distant one, has created an economic incentive for County
residents and businesses without collection service to deposit refuse in City
containers. The combined waste is weighed at the County landfill and artificially
inflates the tonnage attributed to the City, and is difficult to quantify.
MODEL AN.¥U.4L REPORT
APPENDIX B-l: SI{RE PROGRAM FORM
JURISDIC TION/REGIONAL AGENCy NAME: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
REPORTING PERIOD BEGINNING DATE: 01 / 01 / 95 REPORTING PERIOD ENDING DATE: _12__/_30__/_95__
Check (x) all applicable boxes in columns A - G (note: B - G arc optional); provide status c, cxt~s in columns H, J, L, N; and provide dates in columns I, K, M, O. Insert program/policy types in blank
*Program slams codes: (I) Implemented; (E) Expaadod; (R) Reduced; 0VI) Modifi~ (attach explmation); (D) Droppext; (C) Contingency
, A B C D E F O H I $ ~ ~, ~ ~
X
C1WMB File: DIVIqgRM..YLS 10~ 4 Version: 'February 6. 1996
MODEL ANNO:4L REPORT
CiFtMB File: DIIq;'Ot?M.XI.B 2 of 4 ~'er~ion: February 6, I996
C]It/MB File: O]I/'FO~d. AT.~ 3 o( 4 I'erston: b~ebruary 6, ] 996
MODEL A,¥NU.4L REPORT
C1WMB Fb'e: DIIq~ORM.),'LS 4 c~ 4 Fersmn: 'Feb~aary 6, 1996
APPENDIX B-2
RECYCLING/COMPOSTING QUANTITIES (TONS) FOR SRRE PROGRAMS
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
DIVERTED MATERIAL (TONS) BY WASTE TYPE
TOTAL
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION INPUT WASTE CATEGORY, TYPE OR SUBSTITUTE TONS
News- Mixed Composite Aluminum White Ot~er Yard/ Mixed
, p.aper, Pap? Glass Cans Goods Metal Plastic Lan.dscape Tires Inerts Waste
D.'ropo~fs 2292 327 1' 76 288 5 39 3,'127
Greenwast~ Fa,~ility, .. 271314 " 27,314_
fire Facilit:Y '~5 ' 75
White'Goods ' ' ' 50 50
Other Metal Re~yclir~g~" ' ~7 ' .. 37
T.'elep,~one. Books 96 90
Christmas Tree lRec~cling '240 '240
Demolition/Inerts 2.'4,00.0 24,000.
' 0
G.RAND,'TO~AL~, 22D2 ,41~ ;176 28'8 55 37 39' 271554 '~5 ~.4,00.b 0 541933~
MODEL ANNUAL REPORT
Appendix B-3a
SRRE Programs Not Implemented
Variable Can Rates
The City has begun automating refuse collection, using 101-gallon refuse carts and 64-gallon greenwaste carts. Customers are able to
receive additional greenwaste carts free of charge but must pay $3.95 per month for extra trash carts. This system will be evaluated as
to its effectiveness in encouraging residents to reduce their waste generation.
Business Seminars
Due to the effectiveness of current programs, the emphasis changed.
Xeriscape Ordinance
The wood/greenwaste facility and curbside greenwaste programs are enjoying a high degree of support from the media, general
public, City Council and County Board of Supervisors. Given the success of these programs and the public's affinity for "lush"
landscaping, a xeriscape ordinance may be counterproductive, if implemented at this time.
Mechanized Materials Recovery Facility
Plans to construct a MRF have been dropped due to the success of the wood/greenwaste facility in attracting diversion required to
meet the 1995 goal. If the 50% goal cannot be attained through refinement and expansion of current programs, the MRF concept may
be re-visited.
CIWMB File: SECTIONB. DOC Version: February 6, 1996
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NOTES
JANUARY 16, 1997
1. The Casa Royale has new owners who tell us they are going to rehabilitate it to a
congregate care facility. They have agreed to pay back the $8,000 we have spent on
securing the premises.
2. There is a group of apartment complexes along Columbus Avenue between Christmas
Tree Lane and University Avenue that have been having problems of vandalism and poor
maintenance. We are working with the owners to secure and rehab the units.
BUILDING PROJECTS:
a. South Kern Machinery has submitted building plans for its move to 520 So. Mt.
Vernon.
b. Remodel of the old telephone building at 2120 "L" Street for KGET is underway.
c. Albertsons at Panama Lane and Wible Road is under construction and permits for
the tenant shops are ready to issue.
d. A Bank of America has been permitted for the shopping center at Coffee Road
and Hageman Road. That center is about 60 - 70% filled.
e. Barnes and Nobel has received its grading permit to start construction on
California Avenue. They demolished the buildings and hauled them and the
parking lot off last week.
f. Burger King has a permit to build on the old Chevron site at 5101 Stockdale
Avenue.
g. Another mini-storage is under construction at 3601 Auburn Street. The project
was first proposed east of the Columbus Gardens (JLJ) apartments but because of
the history of neighborhood opposition, this less desirable site was chosen a
couple of blocks to the east. Now to the owner's chagrin Darrel's Mini-Storage
has applied for approval next to Columbus Gardens.
h. Plans are in for construction of a new church at the southwest comer of District
Blvd. and Gosford Road.
4. A modified work schedule for Code Enforcement has been submitted for your approval.
It will provide evenings and every other Saturday for them to meet with the public during
off-work hours and respond to the complaints about illegal garage sales, signs,
construction and businesses in neighborhoods.
Development Services Notes
January 16, 1997
Page 2
5. The Sphere of Influence Amendment application is being assembled. Information for it
has been requested from other departments. Stanley is up to his eyeballs in EIRs and
plans adopted by the county which are relevant.
Bill Turpin and Ted James have expressed an interest in our amendment of the Sphere of
Influence. It will be interesting to follow their comments comparing our application to
Shafter's. Bill conducted a recent workshop on what a sphere of influence is which staff
attended so we would be tuned into his opinions.
6. Last Thursday we barely got the County's original signed agreement on the tax split for
Greenlawn Cemetery by his deadline. Martin Ortiz did a great job of birddogging the
paperwork at the county.
7. Mesa Marin needs to build an office for NASCAR officials by their first race on March
30, 1997. They also took noise measurements that indicate they still have some problems
to solve. So, there is only one meeting, February 19, when they can get the office
approved by the City Council in time to construct it and explain to the Council as a part
of their annual review what they plan on doing about the noise. I have requested a
hearing for that date and the City Clerk has penciled it in.
8. The Planning Commission committee has completed its review of what to do about lack
of open space and the poor appearance of four-plexes. The committee is proposing
variable setbacks and architecture. Shielding of utility meters and air conditioning units
are also proposed. The BIA does not endorse this.
9. North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District park land acquisition fees will be back to
the City Council for hearing on January 22, 1997. This ordinance would make the
dedication and fee requirement uniform throughout the city. The County adopted an
ordinance with a different method of determining fair market value of land which is more
like ours and certainly a lot better than their old way. The ordinance does not include a
park development fee since NBR&P agreed to seek other funding for development.
10. The Habitat Conservation Plan fee will also be heard by the City Council on January 22,
1997. No change is recommended.
11. John Sarad's proposal to amend the general plan from LR to HMR and finally LMR and
zoning from R-1 to R-2 on the southwest comer of Stockdale Highway and Renfro Road
failed to obtain Planning Commission approval by a 3 to 4 vote following another two
hour hearing Thursday evening. His and the other general plan amendments including
the Bakersfield Inn for a grocery store should be heard by the City Council in March.
Development Services Notes
January 16, 1997
Page 3
12. General Plan Amendments going to the Planning Commission in March are:
a. A LMR to LR at the southwest comer of White Lane and Saddleback Street by
Stan Antongiovanni for a large-lot subdivision. The last proposal to develop this
property was by Bright Development for apartments. It was beaten to a pulp. I
expect this to go much better.
b. South of Brimhall between Calloway and Allen Roads, a 759-acre replanning of
the area had a relatively easy EIR hearing last Thursday.
c. South side of Columbus Street at Wenatche Avenue from HMR to GC for
Darrel's Mini-Storage. A similar proposal has already been heard and rejected by
the neighborhood and City Council. A new twist to the case is that out of
deference to the neighborhood, someone who would have built a mini-storage at
this location has just started construction a couple of blocks to the east.
d. Some noise standards are being proposed for the general plan to facilitate
evaluation of cumulative impacts in EIR's.
13. Other development projects of interest include:
a. Application by Lee Jameson to develop the Rosedale Promenade at Coffee Road
and Rosedale Highway should be heard by the Planning Commission in February
if he agrees to the mitigation. Otherwise, an EIR will need to be prepared and
hearings conducted after its completion.
b. NO application by Giumarra for the Grand Canal Outlet Center between South
"H" Street and Highway 99 has been submitted. However, I hear the DBA is
concemed.
c. A Notice of Preparation for an EIR on the proposed Cardiac Hospital along Select
Avenue is about to be issued. The hearings will probably begin in June.
d. A Notice of Preparation for an EIR concerning Castle & Cooke's general plan
proposal for development west of Buena Vista Road is also ready to issue.
Hearings are likely to begin in September. Castle & Cooke has just made an
initial proposal for a development agreement. Stanley will continue to work with
them in an effort to define what public benefit would be derived from such an
agreement and to better balance their requests.
14. Castle & Cooke is also proposing a change in their park development agreement for the
northern park in Seven Oaks. They would like to delay construction of the park to a time
when there would be more homes around it. We agree but not to as late as they proposed.
Development Services Notes
January 16, 1997
Page 4
15. Consultant selection for the South Beltway EIR should be done this Wednesday by a
committee from Kern COG, Kern County and our Public Works, Planning and City
Attorney. The EIR should be done and hearings started in December.
16. Downtown Projects:
a. Convention Center expansion CUP and Negative Declaration (370 pages) are up
for hearing on January 22, 1996. No significant issues have been raised which
weren't addressed in the proposal.
b. There was a request by the Property Manager to find sale of the parking lot at 19th
and "K" Streets consistent with the general plan. Th Planning Commission didn't
understand how this would support our efforts to have an adequate supply of
parking for future development so they continued the matter and invited Don
Anderson to the next meeting for a discussion.
c. Cathy Butler will be coming in this week to discuss what we might do about all
the litter which is left behind by street vendors.
d. DBA has indirectly sent Planning a draft sign ordinance which they may propose
· the city adopt. Staff is discussing it with the author to better define the concerns
for us to address.
17. Discussion of a Hillside Ordinance required by the general plan is making progress in
Planning Commission committee. Looks like it is heading towards contour grading,
erosion control and minimizing significant cuts and fills.
18. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Major Transportation Investment Strategy (MTIS) has
pretty much wrapped up its technical studies. Thus far it has been guided by the
Interagency Management Committee OMC) composed of staff members and the Public
Advisory Committee (PAC) composed of elected and appointed officials. Public
discourse should be increased over the next several months on the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA). A draft schedule and strategy for adoption is attached.
JH:pjt
p:dsnl-16
Sequence of Steps for Draft LPA Development. The/ntcragency Management Committee (IMC) under the
direction of the MTIS Policy Committee has identified a 3 month process for developing the Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Major Transportation Investment Strategy, (MTIS). The
process is intended to involve the broadest possible specmam of the community in the formulation of the LPA
and its priority lists of roadway and transit projects.
Possible Dote
a. Complete Task 8 technical evaluation on 1-21-97
MTIS alternatives and elements.
b. Hold IMC Workshop(s) to rank 1-21-97
alternatives and defm~ the preliminary
draf~ LPA.
c. Present rankings and preliminary draft of 1-27-97
LPA to MTIS policy committee for
comment.
d. Hold one-on-one sessions with key elected 2-3 through 2-28
officials/dccisionmakcrs.
e. Presentations to key community 2-3 through 3-14
organizations.
£. Hold Workshops with City and County February/March
Depa~U~tent Heads
g. Hold workshops with key subcommittees March
(e.g. Bakersfield City Council's Urban
Development Subcommittee and Kern
CO(} Transportation Technical Advisory
Committee).
h. Presentatious/workshops with City Late March
Council, (}oveming Boards, and Planning
Commission.
i. Send Out LPA Late March/April
newsletter/presentations/Press Conference
j. (3et comments on LPA from public open April 9 ,
house/presentations/newsletter.
k. Finalize LPA Documentation and Project Late April
Lists
I. Prepare Final MTIS Report and Summary May
Report and forward to state and federal
agencies.
STRATEGIES FOR THE MTIS LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE {LPA)
AND ITS ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Several follow-on activities and courses of action are possible at the conclusion of the MTIS early in 1997 ~vhen
the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and its full program of projects are being developed. All of the
participating agencies and jurisdictions will be involved in the following five areas:
1. Sequence of Steps for Draft LPA Development. he ~teragency Management Committee (IMC) under
thc direction of thc MTIS Policy Committee has identified a 3 month process for developing the Locally
Preferred, Alternative (LPA) for the Metropohtan Bakersfield Major Transportation Investment Strategy
(MTIS). The process is intended to involve the broadest possible spectrum of the community in the
formulation of the LPA and its priority lists of roadway and transit projects.
2. Endorsements, Approvals, and Sign-Offs
a. Once thc LPA is selected and presented to the public, endorsement of the LPA by the Interagency
Management Committee and Approval by the Policy Advisory Committee.
b. Endorsement or Adoption by the Bakersfield City Council, Kern County Board of Supervisors, and the
Golden Empire Transit District Board of Directors of all or part of the LPA (transit element or highway
element or both) ..
c. Adoption of thc LPA by the Governing body of thc Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for thc
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area. (Kern COG Board of Directors).
cl.FOrmal Sign-off.on the MTIS process by the participating federal agencies. The Federal Highway and
Transit Administration (FHWA and FTA).
3. Early Action (Deployment) Items and Project Implementation Process
a. Thc LPA will include key transit and roadway projects that have funding earmarked and can move
quickly into early deployment and implementation.
b. Initiate Route Adoption Studies, PSR's and other Implementation Steps for Roadwa~ys:
· SR 58 Route AdoptionfPSR (already underway);
· SR 178 Crosstown Freeway (Southern Alignment) Route Adoption Study;
· South Bcltway EIR; and "
· Other City and County roadway projects that have advanced toward implementation.
c. Establish a comprehensive Roadway Maintenance Program for the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area to
address projected short falls in funding, involving the City and Kern County Roads Department. It is
inevitable that a Metropolitan Roadway Maintenance Program would need to be balanced with a
countywide Roadway Maintenance Program.
d. Establish Transit Programs and Implement Early Transit Elements:
· GET Route System Redesign/Service Phasing;
· Implement Programs for Transit Centers, Stops and Shelters, etc.;
· Fleet procurement and build up; and
· Possible Federal Demonstration Program for Innovative Transit Service such as "Point
Deviation", Community Circulators or high speed cross-town flyer routes.
e. Develop Livable Communities Component in the Land Use Element of the General Plan to encourage
"h-Fill" Development.
f. Demonstration Projects (roadway, transit, and neighborhood dcvclopmcnO.
- 4. Transportation Plan Updates and Definition of Programs
a. Thc MTIS recommended list of projects will fie into the transportation planning and programming of
each of the sponsoring agencies.
b. The 5 year incremental list of LPA projects will feed into the City's and County's updated Circulation
Element of the General Plan Updates for 1997.
c. The LPA will be incorporated into the 1997 update of the Kern County Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) prepared by the Kern Council of Governments (Kern COG).
d. Development of a Long Range Master Plan of GET Facihties and Services with Phased Implementation
Programs.
5. MTIS Financial Strategies and Plan
If current funding trends continue, the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area should receive between $700 and $800
million in capital funds between 1997 and year 2015 fi.om all sources. This assumes the implementation of the
developer fee program If'an MTIS "Build Option" is recommended (e.g., Build Concept 4) costing $1.2 Billion,
the Metmpolitm Area will have a projected shortfall at least $400 million in capital dollars as well as a shortfall
in operating and maintenance funds. If the LPA is a "Build Option", financial strategy needs to be developed
to address these shortfalls,
a. Based on revised project capital, maintenance and operating cost estimates for roadways and transit,
revise the list of fundable Programs fi.om existing sources for all agencies;
b. Revise priority of projects lists (Kern COG) (in 5 or 10 year increments);
c. For Unfimded projects that are determined to be essential by year 2015 but have only partial or no funds
by year 2015, establish possible strategies for generating funds;
d. Describe approach to developing new local funding mechanisms such as a sales tax or other non-ballot
optioas (e.g., higher developer fee program). For any countywide initiative, roadway and transit projects
for the Metropolitan area must be balanced (reconciled) with transportation priorities for the remainder
of Kern County, and
e. Establish levels of revenues that each funding mechanism conld generate over specified horizon periods.
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
January 21, 1997
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: John W. Stinso~,~sistant City Manager
SUBJECT: North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District - Sphere of Influence
Change
I spoke to Colin Bywater of the district and he indicated they are requesting the sphere
of influence change to be able to add areas west of the current district boundaries
through annexation as they develop. This is in response to parts of the western
Rosedale area wanting to be included in the district. Colin said they originally only
wanted to include the portion of the Rio Bravo Greely School District that was within the
2010 General Plan, but LAFCO told them they had to include the entire district. He said
they don't have any current plans for annexation, but they wanted to be able to if the
need arises. I asked if they had a tax split agreement with the County. He said they
would work out tax splits for each annexation. I asked him if LAFCO had required any
environmental documents. He said no, LAFCO just reviewed their master plan, and
that the district would consider the impacts when development occurred or when an
area is considered for annexation. I have attached a map of the Rio Bravo Greely
School District for your information. Let me know if you need any thing else.
BEFORE THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION
COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the matter of: : -
:
Sphere of Influence Amendment : NOTICE OF HEARING
For North Bakersfield :
Recreation and Park District :
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:
1. The Executive Officer of the Local Agency Formation
Commission, County of Kern, has set the date, time and
place for a public hearing upon the proposal her~e.inabove
entitled. '~' ·
2. Said hearing will be held in the first floor conference
room of the Public Services Building, 2700 "M" Street,
Bakersfield, California, on Tuesday, the 28T" day ~of
January, 1997, commencing at the hour of 7:00 P.m'.. of
said day or as soon thereafter as the matter may~
conveniently be heard. '. if. ~ ~'.~i,:~ · l:/.'~.~'~?~i~:~ .,. ·
3. It has been determined that this proposal is exempt' from
environmental review '~' '~?
4. The hearing will include consideration of the ame'ndment
of the sphere of influence of North Bakersfield
Recreation and Park District. '
5. For particulars concerning said Proposal, reference is
hereby made to the application, legal description, map
and environmental documents on file in the office of the
above-entitled commission at 2700 "M" Street, Suite 290,
Bakersfield, California.
6. The general description of the'territory concerned in the
proposal as set forth in the application is as follows:
Those portions of the Rio Bravo Greeley School District
which are not presently served by a Recreation District.
Note: If you are an applicant for, or a participant in (aCtively
supporting or opposing) any proceeding on the agenda and have
made a campaign contribution'of $250 or more to or for any of the
Commission members, state law provides for disqualification of
Commissioner voting, or even prohibition of such gifts. These
restrictions also apply to agents of applicants or participants.
Please consult with Commission staff as to the requirement~
the Political Reform Act (Government Code Section 84308)
FCKC RECEIVED
I - JAN
JAN I3 1997
:1TY MANAGER'S
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR,~'~-/'~.fl
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1997
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL#WF0012643/001
COUNCIL MEMBER SALVAGGIO
On January 6, 1997, Ms. Veatch was referred by her contract refuse hauler to the City
Solid Waste Division to pick up illegally dumped material, i.e., a mattress, behind her
house. The Kern Refuse contractor (Southside) explained to Ms. Veatch that only the City
could address this problem.
Council Member Salvaggio referred the complaint to staff on January 8th and the mattress
was picked up the next morning, on January 9th.
Staff also met with Kern Refuse representatives on January 10, 1997. It was agreed that
contract refuse haulers will refer their customers directly to the City regarding illegal
dumps, without discussion of timelines.
Ms. Veatch confirmed the cleanup of illegally-dumped material by phone on January 16,
1997.
~,~ c: Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Superintendent
HM:hm
C:\CR_ILLEG,MEM
-~ .... ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0012643 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 1/23/97
REQUEST DATE: 1/08/97
SCHEDULE DATES
CREW: START: 1/08/97
LOCATION: COMPLETION: 1/13/97
FACILITY NODES
GEN. LOC: WARD7 FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR: COUNCIL
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - SALVAGGIO WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: 3204 LEONARD STREET
CONTACT
MRS. VEACH Phone 1 805 - 8369722 I
3204 LEONARD ST. Phone 2 -
Bakersfield, CA 93301
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS - SOLID WASTE***
SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF CONTACT MRS. VEACH
IMMEDIATELY REGARDING THE CITY PICKING UP A
MATTRESS THAT WAS DUMPED BEHIND HER HOUSE AT 3204
LEONARD STREET.
JOB ORDER DESCRIPTION: 3204 LEONARD STREET Category: PUBLIC WORKS
TASK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
ASSIGNED DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE /__/__
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ///
/~ .
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works [rector ~// .'
DATE: January 21, 1997 /
SUBJECT: SENIOR REFUSE REFUNDS
Residents who received senior refunds for refuse during 1996 will
find this year's apPlication process more convenient. Using the
new Paradox software, the Solid Waste Division has been able to
maintain data from applications previously submitted. All
pertinent information from this database is now provided on a pre-
printed application. The applicant simply verifies the
information, signs, and returns the form.
mjh
~c: Kevin Barnes
S:\WPDATA\R SRAP.MEM
RECEIVED,
~;:':'Y MANAGER'S OFIF~C2';