HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/03/97 BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
October 3, 1997
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY CO/~CI~
FROM: ALANTANDY, CITYMANAGER ~ /
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION )/ /
1. I am pleased to advise you that Darnell Haynes will be moving over from Public
Works to fill the position, formerly held by Dolores Teubner, as Assistant to the City
Manager.
2. We had two meetings with County officials on the location for a new Health
Department building. They seem to have some positive interest in exploring some
alternative sites. We will continue to work with them.
3. Hearing #2 on the arena lawsuit went well. It will probably be three weeks before a
decision comes out.
4. We are looking at doing a large pre-zoning of much of the urbanized area around the
City. Currently, the small pre-zonings we do add several months to each small
annexation area's processing time. By doing a large one, we streamline the process
for when the residents are ready to annex.
5. A memo from Public Works is enclosed in response to correspondence from the
D.B.A. regarding their concerns about the size and location of the Amtrak station
project. According to his local office, Senator Costa has indicated a willingness to
meet with the D.B.A. to discuss the issues.
6. Earlier this week, staff from the Kern County Department of Human Services provided
us with information on the CalWorks welfare reform program, which is attached for
your information. The County will be holding community meetings to explain the
program, which is to be implemented on January 1, 1998.
7. EDCD has sent out over 180 notices to announce the application process for use of
available HUD funds for FY 1998-99. They will hold a funding workshop to discuss
the application process on October 7th at the Convention Center.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
October 3, 1997
Page 2
8. Responses to Council referrals are enclosed, as follows: · Resurfacing Hughes Lane between Ming Avenue and Wilson Road;
· Repair curb and gutter damage at Bridgeport Lane and Angels Camp St.;
· Install brighter street lighting at Houchin/Hendricks and Houchin/Oscar.
9. Some of the "loyal opposition" said we couldn't do it. We have, however, booked a
three day monster truck show for the new arena - January of 99!
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1997 /f~.
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
/
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS CTOR
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DBA COMMENTS ON AMTRAK STATION PROJECT
We have reviewed the memorandum from the DBA regarding the proposed Amtrak Station
project. The memo indicates, among other things, that the proposed station location and size is
inadequate and will not even meet the current passenger needs let alone any future ridership
increases. It further states that the site location should be changed for the various reasons
outlined in the memo.
We have taken an in-depth look into their concerns. Although it appears that they have good
intentions, their facts are quite flawed. We therefore offer the following rebuttal:
SIZE
The Project Study Report identifies a station size requirement of 8,000 s.f. The building is
budgeted such that a 12,000 s.f. of building area could be constructed (8,000 s.f. in first floor with
4,000 s.f. in future second floor). The current station size is 2,500 s.f. which makes the proposed
station over three (3) times larger. In addition, the proposed platform is attached to the station
and is entirely covered with several inclosed areas for passenger comfort.
In addition, the number of parking spaces provided is in question. Currently, the Amtrak station
has 60 parking spaces and no dedicated spaces for bus transfers. The proposed site has over 260
parking spaces, 23 bus parking spaces (12 of which are directly adjacent to the platform) and
properly separates bus traffic from vehidular drop-off traffic and long-term parking traffic.
LOCATION
The DBA contends that the site is inappropriate since bus traffic must utilize Truxtun Avenue. It
almost appears that bus traffic is looked down upon by the DBA since it identifies bus traffic as
"...not the kind of traffic we find attractive...". The facts bear forth that additional traffic
generated by the new station will be adequately handled by the existing roadway network.
the proposed site is superior in that in results in less impact to the exiting system~.J~/~,_~______
sites contemplated.
' OCT -
. ",I ",--~-~,e O,:FiCE!
Amtrak Station
Page 2
OTHER ISSUES
Other issues brought up by the DBA include a proposed move of the station at the S Street site to
the south side of the tracks, integration of the station with the proposed future cross-town
freeway and the stations ability to serve the future high speed rail line.
Although these other issues make for interesting reading, they provide no substance to alter the
proposed site. The station, as proposed, is more than adequate in size, will provide exceptional
access from all necessary major roads, have the ability to be expanded and provides exceptional
access to the downtown.
I have attached a comment sheet from the consultant that addresses the DBA concerns.
Senator Costa, through his local representative, has indicated a face to face meeting with the
DBA may be in order to dispel the misinformation that is being given. He will make himself
available for such a meeting.
cc: Jack LaRochelle
Ted Wright
09:31 BARTON-ASGHMAN SO TEL:408 280 7533 P, O01
To: Jack La_Rochelle ¥
From: Bob Sca]es
Date: September 30, 1997
Subject: Review of DA Proposal
Based on Herman Ruddell's memo to Alan Tandy dated September 17, 1997 and his earlier
memo to Kern COG dated July 30, 1997, it appears that the true intent of the comments and
suggestions of Herin et al is to remove the Aml~ak Station from the fabric of the downtown. Over
my 25 years of experience with l~ansportation facilities in downtown areas, downtown business
communities have consistently attempted to move, push, or hide facilities intended to serve mass
transportation systems of all types. The latest comments from the DA are consistent w/th that
effort to push transit, in this case passenger rail transit, away from the downtown core. The Eye
Street site is on the south side of the BNSF tracks, which as we all know is a significant dividing
line for the downtown. Failing that, the next proposal, mentioned in the 7/30/97 memo was the
Rosedale Wye. The latest proposals again move the station and its passengers and connecting
bus services to the south side of the l~acks or out to the East Bakersfield former rail station at
Baker Street. While" get the station out of town" is not directly mentioned as a motivation, every
proposal offered by Herin seems to do just that. Of course this is all speculation on my pan and I
could be totally off base.
Regarding the points that you highlighted for my reaction, I will address them in the order
mentioned in the DA memo.
1. The paragraph on page I beginning with" Addressing size and scope concerns...": 1985 has
no relevancy to this investigation. In undertaking the PSR., we were not instructed to follow the
earlier work in any way, its findings, its program requirements, nothing. You will note that the
major features of the earlier work, a large joint use office building, a large parking structure, a
multiple use Amtrak, GET, Greyhound bus station--- none of these are included in the PSR
project definition. It is not that they could not be included. The land footprint for the proposed
office building remains, untouched by the current proposal, but at the ready. The footprint of the
parking structure remains, at the ready for a smacture while it is used for surface parking.
Obviously, the Amtrak Station building could be bigger. You will recall however that comments
received from both Amtrak and Caltrans indicate that a bigger station building would be
unacceptable. Also, a much larger multi use project would be much more expensive and
therefore unfeasible from a funding perspective. Perhaps that is the DA's objective.
2. The paragraph on page 2 beginning with" Both the S St and Eye St locations...". This
argument states that an off site turnaround compromises the efficiency of any of the downtown
sites, therefore the station should be moved out of downtown. I do not recalI Amtrak or BNSF
stating that an on site turn around was a requirement for the new station. Regarding the Kern
junction, this site would not work from a UP perspective as the Amtrak trains would need to be
scheduled into their yard operations, conflicting with their train scheduling. Perhaps more to the
point however is the fact that the out of town turnaround does not add any cost to Amtrak's
operation other than a few gallons of diesel fuel. The running time between Oakland and
Bakersfield is five and one-half hours. The train crews are paid for eight hours. The extra two
SE~,'50'~ITUEI Oq:31 BARTON-^SGHM^N S~ TEL:408 280 7533 P. O02
and one-half hours is sufficient for report time, turnaround, and turn in of paperwork. No extra
pay time is involved with the turnaround hence the cost is minimal.
3. The high speed rail paragraph beginning on the bottom of page 2 and continuing onto page 3.
It appears that the DA does not want the ~ to stop in the downtown. Trains running at I25
mph need to slow down in order to stop. The 70 naph referenced by Ron Brummett represents the
slowing down and speeding up segments which occur in urban areas where there are stations to
stop at. The previous HSR studies all took into account the SR99 and O~k Street overpasses
over the BNSF tracks. The Crosstown Freeway overcrossing and any pedestrian overerossings
would also provide 26 feet of clearance over the railroad tracks. I would figure that the HSR
would remain at the same elevation past downtown, taking into consideration SR99 and Oak
S~eet, even if the Crosstown did not exist at the time the HSR was constructed.
I hope these comments assist with your response to the DA. I remain concerned over what the ,'.
true objective is of the various arguments and proposals presented by Herm Ruddell.
To: ~Alan Tandy, .B~akersfield City Manager
cc: ~*~a~k4,~-~ ~Jake Wager, Kelly Blanton, Roy Weygand, Herman Ruddell
From DBA Board of Directors
Date: 09/17/97
Subject: Amtrak Station Location
Thank you for taking the irfitiative to meet with representatives from the DBA to
discus the city's planned Amtrak Station location. We were sorry that you were unable to
attend personally, but understanding of your absence, and we agree that the timeliness of
the subject matter was such that the meeting needed to proceed.
Herman Ruddell, Kelly Blanton and Roy Weygand, from the DBA board met with
Jake Wager and Jack La Rochelle. Mr. Hardisty was unable to attend.
The DBA presented its concerns, and its proposed improvements, for the S St.
Amtrak Station location. A copy of the DBA material submitted in advance to Jake
Wager for distribution to you and your staff, is attached.
DBA's concerns originate within the site size, scope and location.
/~ Addressing size and scope concerns, the proposed site scope and layout were
programmed prior to 1985, when Amtrak was operating two trains and serving 280,000
passengers. Station capacity programmed into the 1985 design was essentially exceeded
several years ago. Amtrak today operates four trains, has plans for up to ten daily, and
serves in excess of 650,600 'passengers, and is growing The attached material offers
tional supporting detail. We are very concerned that the propose, d development is
Unde. rsized, has no way to incorporate continuing growth, and we don t want to see yet
another facility squeezed into an inadequate location.
Addressing location issues, the DBA focuses on the ability of the proposed station
development to provide impetus for further surrounding downtown development. It's
location on prestigious Truxtun Ave.,/a collector, street,: (in terms that it does not lead to a
Freeway or Expressway) would generate in excess of 80 daily bus trips, :.most certainly not
5he kind. of traffiC we find' attractive for' SUch a Street or address,/We believe that the
Truxtun avenue address has a much higher and better use in commercial development.
While the platform and tracks must remain on the North side of the main line, a
BNSF requirement, we find the supporting station facilities can be located on the south
side, and will function much better in that location. Circulation, Pa/king, taxi, drop offi
(mss-fide) Am. ~/~al~i bus ~ice-~ and mher bus services _such- as Airp°.rt Bus, (a Scheduled'
stop), COunty regional transit and even GreyhOund all function better when relieved of the_)
constraints found'in the north side site,'7 The station building would be ~,e-0rmected via ~
pedestrian subway) which provides a measure of control, access and security to the
platform. Mr. La Rochelle noted that pedestrian access on the north side of the new Q St.
under crossing, between the platform and the Holiday Inn Select, is desirable, and we have
n~o_ problem with such a connection. MO~ing parking, station;-and-bus-amenities to the?
sb~-th--s~de~i~the m~i~n.l~ine: Creat-es.a ~o~t reduction since the Plhnned' vehicle~over cr~)ssing?
~t--QSt-.-Wbi~Id:iSfil_~.-n~ed5fb'be-a ped~st_'fi~:0yer crossing? This cost s~vitagS sh-0_u!d-m6r~
th~n5 offset the pedestrian-subway-which-Would be-constructed-in' coordination
ih60fly .track real~gnm_ _e.n.t. ~
Vehicle / Bus service to station would be via California Ave., at S St., a downtown
arterial street, in terms that it leads directly to Freeway 99, or to Freeway 58 via Union
Ave, also an arterial, both of which would route bus traffic away from the core downtown
and arena areas. This arrangement would also provide a catalyst that would spark further
downtown commercial (re)development in the area east of Q St. and S St., an area in
substandard condition for a number of years. GET service would come on site from rome
five on California Ave. Route five offers more frequent service than route nine that is
impacted and would have to had served the Truxtun station location off site from Q St.
The south side facilities are fully compatible with the proposed southern alignment
of Freeway 178, which is shown in the attached drawing. Visibility of the new station
'Gateway from the southern alignment of Freeway 178 is significantly increased in this
location as well.
The DBA demonstrated that a similar station / platform arrangement is also
feasible at the proposed Eye St. location. This is important, as the Eye St. site offers
significant cost advantages in that a costly spur extension and bridge widening of Chester
Ave., and H St., to reach S St. would be unnecessary. The Eye St. arrangement is also
compatible with the proposed southern alignment of Freeway 178. Street service would
be from Chester Ave,; H S~., and California Ave.,i~al~l .of whiC~-iaie arterial~ in that they lead
directly to Freeway connections.
Both the S St. and Eye St. locations continue the need for off site turn around of
train consists, a function Amtrak sees as problematic. Amtrak stated that on site turn
around is highly desirable in the new station location. While we agree that it was
necessary to focus primarily on the two sites given serious consideration in the Barton
Aschman study, the DBA did point out that other sites are feasible that include on site
train turn around (Baker street using the historic 100 year old Southern Pacific Station is
one, and directly north of Central Park is another). It is also feasible facilitate train turn
around by connecting the Rosedale Wye to eastbound Union Pacific, east of Airport drive,
and connecting east bound Union Pacific to westbound BNSF just east of Beale Ave.
These two short connectors would allow approach from either direction and would
automatically reverse train direction.
DBA concerns remain about the S St. site's ability to serve as a future high speed
rail station: concerns focused on the restrictive vertical and horizontal curve limitations,
conflicting with increasing congestion occurring in this corridor. Already there are four
sub standard horizontal curves (curves that require speed limitations well below desired
125 mph urban speed). And the proposed southern alignment of Freeway 178 over
crossing of the BNSF, together with planned pedestrian over crossings to serve
convention center parking, all will limit vertical alignment such that high speed trains will
have to be elevated above 40-45 feet of tunneled under Union Ave., Q St.., Chester Ave.,
and H Sat., under crossings. We have attached a fact sheet of high speed rail operational
characteristics. The High Speed Rail Commission has stated repeatedly that success of the
system is predicated on travel times under three hours between LA and San Francisco.
That operational goal can not be achieved if express speeds drop below 125 mph in urban
areas. If we want high speed rail to directly serve Bakersfield's downtown, which the
DBA firmly does, we must provide a travel corridor that provides 100' ROW (two tracks)
will permit 125 mph urban speeds, and that requires horizontal curve radius at 6,200 ft. or
greater, vertical curves ranging from 34,000 ft. to 52,000 ft. or more, and grades below
one per cent. Kern COG executive Mr. Ron Brummett's two recent quotes in the
Californian about 70 mph urban speeds are not supported by published high speed rail
authority data, and when asked in the Kern Transportation Foundation meeting about his
source, he said he overheard engineers using that figure. We continue to explore other
alignments.
Our Association appreciated the receptivity that was given our concepts regarding
the Amtrak station, and thank your staff for taking our comments under consideration
during this evaluating process. Representatives of the DBA will be in touch with staff in
the next two weeks to see if we can [provide any additional data or information.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE "S" ST. SITE7
llhe "S" St. was planned in ~!_9~i when Amtrak was operating two trains and carrying.
8)0~79-~Ssk~g_e_-r~s,. The"S'" St. today would need to serve four trains and passenger
oads have more than doubled to 652,544, as growth continues. The site as planned was
arely adequate (.65 block short of programming) for cUrrent passenger volumes, is
constrained at one point by less than critical width, but made up this space deficit as it had
no on site requirement for storage track. It relied instead on the train remaining on the
mainline while loading and unloading. In actuality however, on site platform with sidings,
and train storage are required. These were added while the site that was further reduced
by an additional .5 acres, making the site overly constrained and essentially unworkable.
The site access is limited to Truxtun Ave,/,a-_cpll~ct-or ~sCee~t. There is no room to
accommodate continuing growth or joint uses by Greyhound, Airport Bus County Transit
and so forth.
The Amtrak station facilities are intended to serve future HSGT needs. The "S" St. site is
marginal due to curve limitations on the BNSF alignment, and HSGT alignment
requirements are in conflict with the proposed Fwy 178 alignment.
The DBA revisions move station, parking and bus services to the south side of the BNSF
mainline, with the platform and sidings on the north side. This allows full project planning
size, with room for continued growth and joint use by Greyhound, Airport Bus, County
transit and others, sufficient width and length yielding excellent circulation, and access
from California Ave, a through arterial connecting directly with Fwy. 99, and Fwy 58 via
Union Ave or Chester Ave., both arterials as well.
Changes in the Fwy 178 alignment will be needed to remove conflicts with proposed
HSGT alignments. Ron Bmmmett of Kern cog has been quoted saying HSGT speeds
will be 70 mph in the city, however, the High Speed Rail Commission clearly places the
urban speed limit at 125 'mph.
AMTRAK STATION LOCATION
PLANNING PROGRAMMING
Bus loading and unloading area
800 x 50 = 40,000 sq. ft. say 1.00 ac.
Station Building
18,000 sq. ft. say 0.50 ac
Parking for 300 cars ~ 100 cars / acre 3.00 ac.
Train track and platform, w/three storage tracks
1100 x 130 = 132,000 sq. ft say 3.25 ac.
Circulation, access drive, walks and amenities
say 80 x 1100 = 88,000 sq. ff say 2.00 ac.
Gross desirable location area 9.75 ac.
@ 43,560 sq. ft. per acre 468,000 sq. ft.
Critical dimensions,
length: 1,100 ft. (platform length)
width 250 (platform width plus bus ramp width plus circulation width)
City block width is 264
1/2 Street width is 40
one square block 344 x 344 = 92,416 = 2.1 ac.
Site requirements as programmed 4.65 square blocks
Approximate size of the 'S' St. site as planned 4.00 square blocks
Approximate size of the 'S' St.'site as developed 3.50 square blocks
Approximate size of the 'S' St. site as revised by DBA 4.50 square blocks
Approximate size of the 'Eye' St. site as planned 4.50 square blocks
Approximate size of the 'Eye' St. site as developed 4.25 square blocks
Approximate size of the 'Eye' St. site as revised by DBA 4.25 square blocks
To: Kern Council of Governments
Amtrak Station Location Tech~cal Advisory Committee
From: Downtown Business Association, Board of Directors
Herman Ruddell, Chairman, Vision Downtown
Date: 07/30/97
Subject: Amtrak Station Location - Project Study Report
RE: DBA observations, conclusion and recommendation.
WHAT THE CONSULTANT PROPOSED
The envisioned or proposed "S" St. site was rated as superior by the consultant. Superior points
yielding a high rating include the following:
, Excellent joint use potential
· Easily accessible from both regional (SR 178) and arterial ("Q" St.) roadways
· Excellent opportunity for Intermodal connectivity through access of inter- and
intra-city facilities
· Serves to reinforce the existing activity centers, and increases opportunity to use
public transit.
The envisioned or proposed station is intended to serve as an Intermodal facility to accommodate
both Amtrak and regional bus service such as Greyhound, (Airport Bus, and County Regional
Transit). The site provides twenty-two bus bays, 110 parking spaces, and room for 85,000 sq. it
of supporting commercial development with its own 450 ~pace parking structure.
WHAT THE SITE. WIT,I, SLIPPOR. T
Final station configuration is significantly diminished:
· Gone is the joint use by Greyhound and (Airport Bus, and County Regional Transit).
· Non-existent is the SR 178 regional access (for Amtrak Thruway Bus) as there is no
interconnection with Freeway 99.
· Non-existent is the Intermodal connectivity so strongly touted in the selection study.
· Gone is the space to accommodate GET on site. (GET route 9 is impacted. It has no
slack time necessary to extend the route on site. It can't service the facility on site).
· Gone are the 22 bus spaces, 8-10 are proposed, less than Amtrak's existing
requirements. (Amtrak routinely uses up to 14 busses presently).
· Gone is the 85,000 sq. ft. supporting commercial development and its 450 parking
spaces. The potential for supporting commercial/retail development so important to
Downtown Bakersfield business is severely constrained as adjoining property is either
barrier separated, developed, or is in public ownership and not available for private
development.
, Gone is the spacious 18,000 sq. ft. terminal, replaced by an elongated one of
8,000+ sq. ft. or less
, Gone is the landscaped park like plaza and water element, and open canal.
* Added is a thru the site is a truck route needed to access the convention center.
· Added are 115 needed parking spaces, however these are clearly intended to be shared
with "neighboring land uses", despite Amtrak's insistence that station parking be
dedicated to Amtrak use.
· Remaining are high costs and significantly increased competing rail freight traffic
generated since the enlarging of Tehapachi route tunnels allowing the passage of
double stack container freight.
IN CoNcLusION, THE DBA FINDS THAT:
The proposed "S" St. Amtrak Station location is significantly reduced from its potential originally
envisioned, and no longer can meet the transportation needs of this community.
Consultant envisioned plusses actually are conflicts, and envisioned access via the proposed cross
town freeway (southern alignment) won't interconnect with Freeway 99, making the route useless
by the 70-80 or more daily Amtrak Bus trips. Necessary over-crossings of the freeway southern
alignment, and planned pedestrian over-crossings to sery..e the Convention Center complex will
conflict with future HSGT required gradients, and speed restricted curves alont the BNSF route
all but make it impossible to accommodate future HSGT facilities in this corridor.
Bakersfield is a major terminal serving in excess of 650,000 total passengers annually, with
significant planned and expansion growth potential with added trains. Growth in passenger
volumt was 23% in the last year alone. Bakersfield is the fifth busiest heaw rail station in
California, and the eleventh busiest in the nation. Only San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and
Emeryville (Oakland) are busier. The proposal to develop the "S" St. site as a transportation
facility that has evolved is totally inadequate. Bakersfield and the thousands of Amtrak passengers
who travel to and through our city deserves much better.
THE DBA's RECOMMENDATION,
Because of the severely diminished potential of the "S" St. site and remaining high cost of track
bridge and signal work, and assuming the Eye St. site curve restrictions are unacceptable to
Amtrak, a new site must be quickly identified and evaluated, or an interim location must be
considered, One potential interim site is the area north of the Rosedale Wye and south of
Rosedale Highway.
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
September 30, 1997
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: John W. Stinso~,~A?sistant City Manager
SUBJECT: CalWorks
Jake Wager and I met today with Don Dudley and John Nilon from the Kern County Department
of Human Services. They provided us with materials outlining the County's implementation of
the CalWorks welfare reform legislation. The attached information may be of interest to the City
Council as the County will be conducting community meetings regarding this subject. Jake also
suggested that they participate in the MLK Good Neighbor festival as a good opportunity to
communicate to the community.
P:XATTASK S~Kernworks.wpd
CalWorks
Implementation Discussion
Kern County
Department of Human Services
CalWorks Overview:
· CalWorks is Welfare Reform:
- CalWorks implements Federal Welfare Reform in California. The program begins
January 1, 1998 and counties have one year to enroll all recipients into the program.
· CalWorks is Significant:
- The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Greater Avenues for
Independence (GAIN) programs have been completely replaced by CalWorks.
· CalWorks has Time Limits:
- Adult recipients have a 60 month lifetime limit on receiving aid.
CalWorks has Work Requirements:
- The adult in a single parent family will need to participate in work related activities
for a minimum of 20 hours per week.
- Adult recipients in a two parent family will need to participate in work related
activities a combined minimum of 35 hours per week.
- Adult recipients who fail to obtain employment after 18-24 months can be required
to work in community service jobs or risk being disqualified from receiving aid.
~ · CalWorks Recognizes Special Circumstances:
- Counties can exempt up to 20% of their cases from the time limit and work
iiiiii requirements. Examples include families where the parent is permanently disabled,
cases where a caretaker cares for the child and only the child receives aid, and
temporary exemptions such as the 12 weeks after the birth of a child.
· CalWorks Protects Children:
- In cases where parents are disqualified, the children could still receive benefits,
most likely in the form of vendor and voucher payments.
- CalWorks requires that children attend school and are immunized.
· CalWorks Requires Recipients to Qualify for Assistance:
- Previous AFDC eligibility criteria will remain in place.
- Additional criteria for paternity, immunizations, and truancy are added.
- Additional negative consequences for Welfare Fraud and for drug related felons.
· CalWorks Provides Local Flexibility:
- Counties have discretion in the design of their local Welfare to Work plans.
- Counties will have additional funding for addressing key issues like Child Care.
- Counties can seek pilot projects and rule waivers as locally needed.
:;,:;:9 · CalWorks Provides Incentives to Counties:
- Counties keep the savings achieved through the program.
- Federal penalties for non-performance are shared with the state.
Guiding Principles for Implementation
SERVICES WILL:
o Vigorously assist clients in minimizing their episode of
dependency;
Expeditiously transition clients to self-sufficiency through
employment;
Provide holistic family specific, integrated services;
Be jointly responsible with the client for the prudent
management of client time limited eligibility;
Establish a "business friendly" employment service delivery
model;
o Fully collaborate with relevant service providers;
o Efficiently establish client eligibility;
o Promote community awareness and partnerships in the
successful design and implementation of CalWorks.
Employment Barriers:
· Is there a sufficient number of jobs available at the necessary pay and
skill levels?
· Can we effectively address other traditional barriers (child care,
transportation, skills, etc.)?
Adequate Community Support:
· Can we overcome the stigma of being a Welfare Recipient?
· Are there Unrealistic Expectations?
- Immediate Massive Increases in Employment
- Less Staff needed / Immediate savings
Historical Barriers to Effective Collaboration:
· Can expand our collaborative efforts to include all possible
stakeholders?
· Can we coordinate and leverage the Welfare to Work funds made
available to various agencies in Kern County?
Eligibility Responsibilities:
· Existing AFDC eligibility rules remain fundamentally intact.
· Complexity is increased with tracking responsibilities for:
- Time Limits - Inter and Intra County Tracking
- Immunizations, Truancy, and Felon status
Infrastructure Limitations:
· Staffing:
- Does the Department have the right number and classification of staffing?
- Can staff be trained in a timely fashion?
· Can the data systems be upgraded to absorb the increased eligibility
complexities and the outcome tracking requirements.
· Are the existing facilities appropriate?
· Are there appropriate private and nonprofit sector organizations to
meet some of new opportunities through contracting?
Vision Limitations:
· Can we individually and collectively think "outside" of the box?
Human Services is Positioned for CalWorks
o Established Kern Works:
· Changed the Mission of the Department to one that focuses upon
employment.
· Developed internal Total Quality Teams to meet the mission.
· Change Department Culture from a place to get a check to a place to
get a job.
· Involved the General Public.
Developed Innovate Employment creative Services Activities:
· Created Jobs First, a approach to stressing employment
the first activity an applicant completes.
as
· Participated in the Development of the One Stop Shop, a
Coordinated Employment Services Conduit linking business with
clients.
o Improved Program Integrity:
· Implemented Vendor and Voucher payments for GA, ensuring that
the aid is used for its intended purpose.
· Instituted the Home Call project to verify conditions of eligibility
and to inform clients about employment services.
o Established Public and Private Partnerships:
· Business Advisory Team.
· Collaboratives for Welfare to Work activities such as with ETR,
Mental Health, Health, Community Connection for Child Care,
Community College Districts, KCEOC, Network for Children, etc.
· Input Teams. Developed opportunities for input from key elements
in the community, such the Faith Community, recipients, and
community based organizations.
Non-CalWorks CalWorks
Programs Referral [Denials
] Exempt [ I ENxe°~n;t I [Diversi°nl
Ongoing ~
Caseload
] TimeLimit ] Non-Aided
Expired Employment
Retention Services I
Critical Interface Discussion
o Resource Review and Referral:
· Outcomes:
- Quickly assess major family barriers, intervention opportunities, and
make appropriate resource referrals.
- Establish system for direct, timely access to service.
· Service Provision: Who should provide the service?
· Community Interfaces: What agencies should be involved?
· Resources: How will this be funded?
· Measures and Tracking of Success: How are outcomes measured?
Appraisal and Contract for Success:
· Outcomes:
- Effectively capture key family service information to create a
comprehensive plan to expeditiously transition each client to non-aided
employment.
· Service Provision: Who should provide the service?
· Community Interfaces: What agencies should be involved?
· Resources: How will this be funded?
· Measures and Tracking of Success: How are outcomes measured?
Work Related Activities and Case Management:
· Outcome:
- Track and manage the successful execution of the service plan.
· Service Provision: Who should provide the service?
· Community Interfaces: What agencies should be involved?
· Resources: How will this be funded?
· Measures and Tracking of Success: How are outcomes measured?
Community Partnership Opportunities:
Alliance Against Family Domestic Abuse Support
Violence
Community Connection for Child Care Services
Child Care
Community Development Economic Development
(Cities and County)
Community Service Based Services to Support Families in Need
Organizations
Department of Rehabilitation Employment Training and Placement
District Attorney Paternity Establishment and Child
Support Collection
Economic Development Economic Development
Corporations
ETR Training
Faith Community Services to Support Families in Need
Health Department Immunizations
Housing Authority Case Management, Youthbuild, and
Economic Development
Job Corp Placement for Out of School Teen Parents
KCEOC Head Start Client Training and Child
Care Expansion
Kern Cog / Transit DistrictsTransportation
KC Network for Children Children's Outcome Measures
Mental Health Mental Health and Substance Abuse
One Stop Shop Collaborative Placement Services -throughout County
School Districts Adult Education and School to Career
i Programs
Stakeholder Input Process
Department of Human Services:
°2° Internal Focus Groups: o:o Client Entry and Introduction
%% Application/Initial Assessment
o:o Referral Flow and Coordination
o:o Intake Eligibility Determination
· :o Appraisal and Employability Plan
o:o Ongoing Case Management
o:o Retention Services
o:o Community Focus Groups: o:o Child Care
o.% Education and Training
4° Faith Community
· :. Non-profits
· :o Recipients
%% Treatment Services
· :o Transpo~ation
· ~. Network for Children
Business AdvisorY Team: .~. Child Care
· ~. Co--unity Awareness
· ~. Jobs and Training
· I. Privatization
· ~. Regulatory Relief
Miscellaneous: .~. Econo~c Development Strategic
Planning Co~ttee
· ~. One Stop Shop Steering Co~ttee
· ~. General Public Forums
· ~. Internet and "800" Input Number
· ~. Presentations'to cities, co--unities,
and service organizations.
· ~. State and other County Welfare
Depanments
Draft Timeframe for Kern's Welfare to Work Proposal
August 11, 1997 CalWorks Signed by Governor
August 11 - September 5 Internal Analysis
September 8-19 Presentations to Board of Supervisors,
CAO, and other key players
September 22 - November 14 Presentations and Input:
o**o September 23 o.*o Kern Works Quality Teams
°7° September 25 °7° Business Advisory Team
°7° September 29+ °7° Specific Groups and General Public
°7° October 10 °7° Economic Development Summit
°.'o October 3 Create Appropriate Advisory Bodies:
o.*o Establish Local Child Care and
Development Planning Council
o.*o Establish Job Creation Planning
group and apply for funds.
o**° Establish a League of Welfare to
Work Providers.
°.'o November 3 - 14 Establish Welfare to Work Draft and
Present for Review:
o.*o Board of Supervisors
°.*° Business Advisory Team
o.*o Collaborative Groups
o**o December 9 Board of Supervisors Plan Approvals:
°.*o Approve Kern County Welfare To
Work Plan
°.*° Approve formal grievance procedure
°:° Approve demonstration/pilot projects
E R S F I E L D k~(-'~~~~~'
B A K ~ L~
Economic and Community Development Department \~ ~1 -~-]l/~_
MEMORANDUM
September 25, 1997
TO: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director
FROM: George Gonzales,~~unity Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Consolidated Plad~000 Action Plan for FY 1998-99
The attached letter was sent to over 180 non-profit agencies, housing developers, lenders, other
entities, and individuals who may have an interest in applying for next year's Department HUD
funds. If you would like this information mailed to someone who may not have received the
notice, please call me at 326-3765. A similar notice is being forwarded to City departments who
may have projects that might be eligible for funding. Additionally, a community workshop is
scheduled (yellow flyer) to provide information to residents.
enclosures
xc: Alan Tandy
S :\BUDGET~98_99CC.MEM/jf
BAKERSFIELD
FUNDING WORKSHOP NOTICE
"' '"~'"' ' ~'-'"- "" .......... '~" ~'~~'~'-' "-'~-;~'~:~" ~2~;~ :'-'~ ~'~ ~' ~.;.~¥ ~;t>~:.~ :::::'-~: ~:~ ~:.'.:;::;::::~-~:~ ~'''':~'~'2¥;~:~'~'''~';:~
I.~ .;~&.~.~;~ ~:~.;..;~;~;$~;~;:;~:~.q$~;~;;;~;~;~::~q~`~;~C~:~;. ; .~,~:~:~:!:~!~.~&:;;;¥.;~.;;;;.~;;~..;:...¢:~.~.-~...~....;~..~..~ .... ~ ~.~.~.~:. ";" '!~". ';~' i'
September 24, 1997
Dear Valued Member of the Community:
The City of Bakersfield cordially invites you to a very important workshop when we will
launch our 4th planning year for Consolidated Plan 2000. The purpose of the workshop will
be to discuss the application process for use of available funds for the Fiscal Year 1998-99
(July 1, 1998 through June 30, 1999).
We will be discussing the application process for three major sources of grant monies:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership (HOME) and
Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). If you represent an agency or organization interested in
applying for any FY 1998-99 funds we encourage you to attend the workshop to learn more
about making your proposal competitive. The deadline for application submittal is November
26, 1997.
Tuesday, October 7~ 1997
2:30 P.M.
Breckenridge Room
Bakersfield Convention Center
1001 Truxtun Avenue
Please RSVP by October 6, by calling the Department's 324-RSVP hotline
(324-7787) as space is limited.
At the conclusion of the meeting, Community Development staff will be demonstrating new
mapping software. This software is being made available to non-profits at retail costs from
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. We encourage you to stay and learn
how this program may assist your agency.
An evening meeting at the same location is scheduled for 5:30 P.M. to provide general
program and application information to the public. Please distribute and/or post the enclosed
flyer announcing the meeting. I look forward to your' attendance at the 2:30 workshop.
Very Truly Yours,
Community Development Coordinator P:\97-98BUD\10_7MTG.LTR/jf
City of Bakersfield · Economic and Community DeveloPment Department
515 Iruxtun Avenue · Bakersfield · California 93301
(805) 326-3765 · Fax (805) 328-1 548 · IDD (805) 324-3631
B A K E R S F I E L D
YOU'RE INVITED TO A PUBLIC MEETING
The City of Bakersfield will launch its fourth planning year for the Consolidated Plan 2000 with a
community meeting on October 7, 1997. The community is invited to meet with City representatives to
discuss the needs in the cormnunity and potential funds to deal with those needs. The meeting will give
those attending information and the chance to comment on:
The City's approved Consolidated Plan 2000
Prior Program Performance
Eligible activities
Available funds for Fiscal Year 1998-99
How organizations and individuals can apply for assistance
Application and implementation process
We will be discussing three major sources of grant money for Fiscal Year 1998-99 which will help fund
City programs (over $4 million was budgeted for FY 1997-98):
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME)
Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)
The results of this meeting will be the basis for developing an Action Plan for FY 1998-99 to try and
address these problems in our community:
Housing, homeless, economic development (,job opportunities), public facilities,
(community/neighborhood centers, day care centers), public services (graffiti removal, Fair
Housing), and infrastructure (drainage systems, curbs and gutters, street lighting, etc.).
Join your neighbors and City officials
5:30 P.M., Tuesday, October 7, 1997
Breckenridge Room, Convention Center
1001 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield
For more information please call or stop by the Department's office. The meeting room is accessible to
the disabled. For special arrangements, please contact this department 4 days prior to the meeting.
~City of Bakersfield Economic & Community Development Department
515 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Phone - (805)326-3765 FAX - (805)328-1548 Hearing Impaired - TDD (805)324-3631
P:\97-98BUD\NEWSAD.997/jf
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, City Manager
FROM: RAUL ROJAS, Public Works Director /~~
DATE: September 30, 1997
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL, SA. L VAGGIO
RESURFACING HUGHES LANE BETWEEN MING A VENUE AND WILSON ROAD
At a recent City Council meeting, Councilmember Salvaggio requested staff review what could be done
to improve the roadway surface of Hughes Lane between Ming Avenue and Wilson Road. This roadway
segment is in this year's Capital Improvement Project for Street Resurfacing (TSK072). Resurfacing of
this street should take place in late spring or early summer of 1998.
,: OCT - 2 1997
",CITY N'iANAGER'$ Os
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, City Manager
FROM: RAUL ROJAS, Public Works Director ~
DATE: October 1, 1997
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0016897/001, ROWLES
STREET REPAIRS - BRIDGEPORT
In August, Streets Division Staff reviewed the damage that had occurred to the curb and gutter located at
the intersection of Bridgeport Lane and Angels Camp Street. At that time, the loose pieces of concrete
were removed. Due to the work schedule of concrete crews, the final repair to this curb and gutter could
not be immediately performed and a temporary asphalt patch was applied. The final repair work to this
curb and gutter should be completed by mid-November.
0CT - 2 1997
iCITY MANAGER'S
City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0016897 / 001 PROJECT: DATEREQUEST PRINTED: DATE: 8/20/97 9/30/97
SCHEDULE DATES
CREW: START: ~/20/97
LOCATION: COMPLETION: 9/02/97
FACILITY NODES
GEN. LOC: WARD5 FROM:
TO:
FACILITY ID: REF NBR: COUNCIL
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - ROWLES WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: STREET RESURFACING/BRIDGEPORT
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
ROWLES REQUESTED STAFF LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF
REPAIRING THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE CURBING, WHILE
RESURFACING THE STREET, AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
BRIDGEPORT AND ANGELS CAMP.
Job Order Description: STREET RESURFACING/BRIDGEPORT Catggory: PUBLIC WORKS
TasK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER September 26, 1997
FROM: PAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~L.--t,~//~/
RE: City Council Referral WF0017628/001, Street Lights
COUNCIL REQUEST/REFERRAL
Councilmember Salvaggio requested staff check into the street lighting at the intersections
of Houchin and Hendricks, and Houchin and Oscar to see if brighter lighting could be
installed.
RESPONSE
General Services Staff has reviewed these locations and found that the current street light
fixtures are 70 watt. The current fixtures will be replaced with 100 watt fixtures next
week. This will increase the lighting at each location by approximately 60%.
cc: Joe Lozano, Operations Manager
Brad Underwood, General Services Superintendent
Ed Kuehn, Assistant General Services Superintendent
4. City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
~ WORK REQUEST PAGE
REQ/JOB: WF0017628 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 10/01/97
REQUEST DATE: 9/24/97
SCHEDULE DATES
CREW: START: 9/24/97
LOCATION: COMPLETION: 10/06/97
GEN. LOC: WARD7 FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR: COUNCIL ~'£~'r~
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - SALVAGGIO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: STREET LIGHT ON HOUCHIN ROAD
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
SALVAGGIO REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO MR. BROWN'S
CONCERNS THAT ILLUMINATION OF THE STREET LIGHTS
AT HOUCHIN ROAD & HENDRICK LANE AND HOUCHIN ROAD &
OSCAR IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH. CORRECT THE PROBLEM
AND REPORT BACK TO SALVAGGIO THE CORRECTIONS MADE.
Job Order Description: STREET LIGHT ON HOUCHIN ROAD
at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS
asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE