HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/98 BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
February 27, 1998
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDW, -CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Suite sales at the arena have been hot o we are at 19 of 24 leased out. Prospects
should get in before they are gone!
2. The County Supervisors made "pay as you throw" a "throw away" this week. We are
back to a land use fee. This positive is because the cities worked together.
The Kern County Association of Cities met on Thursday night in Delano and voted to
continue pursuing the implementation of mandatory collection in urban areas with the
Board of Supervisors. Even with the change in the County's position regarding the
implementation of gate fees, the cities still feel that illegal dumping is a significant
enough issue to request the Board continue with implementation of mandatory
collection. The public meetings the County has been conducting during the last
month throughout the County regarding mandatory collection have been attended by
very few people (the meeting for metro Bakersfield only had about 15 people in
attendance). The comments at these meetings have generally been in support of
mandatory collection as a means to eliminate illegal dumping. Those in attendance
at the Association of Cities meeting believe if all the cities work together on this issue
it could have an impact on the Board. The Mayor had indicated our city's support to
the other cities on this issue at a meeting last week in Tehachapi.
3. A fact sheet from the DTSC on the progress of the burn dump remediation project is
enclosed. Removal of the contaminated soil is expected to begin March 4th.
4. Step2, a manufacturer of plastic products for home and garden and children's play,
has announced their plans to locate a facility in Bakersfield. This expansion will add
140 new jobs in the area. Thanks go out to Mayor Price and Jake Wager and the
EDCD staff for their successful efforts. The press release is enclosed.
5. The activity report from Recreation and Parks for the past two months is enclosed.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
February 27, 1998
Page 2
6. With Council's recent decision to move forward with the new redevelopment project
areas, EDCD has structured a time frame for selecting a consultant. It is summarized
in the attached memo.
7. A tentative schedule for the Union Ave #10 Water System Improvement Project is
also enclosed from EDCD.
8. A status report on plans for the upcoming Home Expo '98 is enclosed. The City,
along with other agencies and private businesses, will co-sponsor the May 16th event.
9. The January activity report from the County for LEA regulated projects within the City
is also attached.
10. Enclosed for your information is a recent article from the Wall Street Journal showing
Bakersfield as having the lowest overall costs for business travelers.
11. I will be out of the office today and also on Monday and Tuesday, March 2nd and 3rd.
My office will be able to contact me. John Stinson will be in charge during my
absence.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
February 24, 1998
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: John W. Stinso~,~?sistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Board of Supervisors Action on Gate Fees
The Board of Supervisors accepted a report from County Counsel regarding solid waste charges
and Proposition 218 at their meeting today. County Counsel changed their position on the
legality of land use fees on the County tax roll and now believe they could defend them. They
gave the Board three options:
1) Continuation of the land use fee for single-family residential parcels;
2) Continuation of the land use fee for single-family residential parcels and placing
the multi-unit residential parcels back on the tax rolls;
3) Conversion to gate fees.
The Board unanimously selected option 2. Board members commented that they were glad these
alternatives had became available to them and thanked Kern Tax and Mary K. Shell for their
contributions to resolving the issue. Ken Peterson made the motion to approve and indicated his
concern about illegal dumping if gate fees had been implemented. There was no mention of
mandatory collection by the Supervisors.
It does not appear that they will proceed with an advisory election regarding gate fees at this
time, although that option is available based upon the information provided by County Counsel.
There was no discussion if this decision would affect the proposed change in the per ton fee from
$29 to $34 per ton.
This action demonstrates how effective the cities in Kern County can be if they work together to
address issues with the County. I have attached the report by County Counsel. If you need
additional information please let me know.
P:k.ATTASKS~Board Action on Gate Fees.wpd
OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL
COUNTY OF KERN
MEMORANDUM
B. C. Barmann, Sr. Stephen D. Schuett
County Counsel Assistant COunty Counsel
TO: Members, Board of Supervisors
FROM: B.C. Barmann, County Counsel ~S
By: Stephen D. Schuett, Assistant County Counsel
DATE: February 19, 1998
SUBJECT: Solid Waste Charges and. Proposition 218
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and File Report; Direct Staff to
implement one of three options: 1) continuation of the land use fee for single-family
residential parcels with the modifications proposed; 2) continuation of the single-
family residential parcels with the.modifications proposed and placing the multi-unit
residential parcels back on the tax roll, or 3) conversion to gate fees.
On January 27, 1998, your Board referred to this Office and the County Administrative
Office a letter from Mary K. Shell raising the issue of retaining the current system of
collecting on the tax bill a land use fee on residential Property for operation of the County's
landfill system. This letter requested the opportunity for the citizens of the County to vote
on retaining the land use fee or switching to gate fees as proposed under the "Pay As You
Throw" system.
In responding to Mrs. Shell's letter we believe it approPriate to briefly recount the status
of the land use fee, the basic provisions of Proposition 218, and the range of options
available to the Board.
I. Background
In 1988, the Board of Supervisors first adopted the land use fee for funding the operations
of the County's solid waste system. At that time, the cost of operating the landfill system
· was approximately $3 million, funded by the County's .General Fund. The impetus for
finding an alternative source of funding was the rising cost of compliance with state and
federal mandates related to landfill operations. In fact, from 1986 to 1990 the cost of
Members, Board of Supervisors
February 19, 1998
Page 2
operating the County landfills rose from $2.98 million to $17.6 million, primarily due to the
plethora of neW regulations from state and federal agencies. ,~.
In 1991, the County waS sued by the Kern Coun[y Farm Bureau and the Kern County
Taxpayers Association? The plaintiffs contended that the land use fee was a special tax
imposed in violation of Proposition 13. 'Plaintiffs claimed that the charge imposed on the
property owner was unconstitutional because, among other things, there was no
reasonable relationship between the charge and the property owner's actual use of the
landfills. The appellate court, in Kern County Farm Bureau v. Kern County (1993) 19
CaI.App.4th 1416, finally determined the County's fee was not a special tax and was
appropriately levied on all property owners whether they actually used the landfill or.not.
Although the County prevailed in that lawsuit, the County decided to shift from an exclusive
land use fee system to a split system, i.e., where the residential property would continue
to pay for landfill services through the land use fee collected on the property tax bill, and
the commercial, industrial and agricultural properties would pay for disposal at the gate.
As part of this system, commercial haulers and cities that provided collection services
collected a bin disposal fee on their commercial accounts. This bin disposal fee was
Calculated based on the average volume of garbage disposed by commercial accounts
and was, in turn, paid to the County as the equivalent of the current gate fee of $29 per ton
for those commercial accounts. This split system was instituted July. 1, 1993 and has
continued to the present. Of the nearly $22 million collected annually from users of the
County's landfill system, approximately $11.3 is derived from the land use fee and
approximately $9.4 million is collected from gate fees.
In 1997, in an effort to comply with Proposition 218, the Board eliminated approximately
12,000 multi-unit residential properties from the land use fee system. As an
accommodation to the cities, multi-unit residential properties in incorporated areas have
been billed directly by the Waste Management Department for disposal service. The
Department is currently having difficulty in collecting the fees from many property owners
and is showing a delinquency rate of 44% and a potential loss of revenue of nearly $2
million.
II. Proposition 218
On November 5, 1996, the voter~ of California enacted Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote
on Taxes Act," adding articles XlIIC and XlIID to the California Constitution. The
1One of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs was Jonathan Coupal, one of the
authors of Proposition 218.
Members, Board of Supervisors
February 19, 1998
Page 3
enactment of Proposition 218 has raised concerns statewide about the continued validity
of the land use fee system.
Proposition 218 creates a special subset of feeS and charges that are "imposed on a
parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownership.., for a property-related
-service" and prescribes certain rules, both procedural and substantive, related to imposing
these fees. Art. XlIID, section 6. Collection of the land use fee on the tax roll makes that
fee a "property related fee" for purposes of Proposition 218. The substantive and
procedural requirements of Proposition 218 must be observed as state constitutional
mandates.
A. Substantive requirements.
Property related fees and charges must meet meet five subStantive requirements set out
in article XlIID, section 6(b):
1. Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required
to provide the property related service.
2. Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose
other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
3. The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an
incident of property Ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the
service attributable to the parcel.
4. No fee or charge maybe imposed for a service unless that service is actually
used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question.
Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not
permitted.
5. No fee or charge may be impoSed for general governmental services,
including but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services where
the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same
manner as it is to property owners.
It is these five requirements, especially the third, fourth and fifth, that have caused
attorneys around the state to scratch their heads, adopt a cautious interpretation, seek
'legislative clarification, and await guidance from the courts. Our advice on Proposition
218 to date has been driven not only by the uncertainty surrounding the substantive
requirements of Proposition 218 outlined above but also by (1) the amount of money raised
by the residential land use fee each year ($1'1 million), (2) the burden of proof being
placed on the public entity'to prove compliance with Proposition 218, and (3) the
Members, Board of Supervisors
February 19, 1998 ·
Page 4
expressed interest of H°ward Jarvis Taxpayers Association in the County's system (See,
Mr; Coupal's letter of July 10, 1997, attached).
Nevertheless, if your Board wishes to continue the residential land use fee system another
year, we believe that with some modifications of the Current system we can successfully
defend any challenge brought under Proposition 218. We have also .received, through
KemTax, two letters from Mr. Coupal addressing some of the concerns previously raised
about the validity of certain aspects of the current land use fee. Copies of these letters are
attached for the Board's convenience. A brief review of some of the issues and their
possible resolution follow.
The requirement that the service being funded by the fee is available to or actually used
by the property owner requires that we eliminate the use of revenues derived from the land
use fee for the environmental remediation of old dump sites, including the burn-dump
remedial program. Mr. Coupal argues for this as well in his letter of January 29,.1998.
An additional concern has been the requirement that the fee not exceed the proportional
cost of the service attributable to the parcel. We have already excluded agricultural and
commercial properties from the land use fee where the greatest disparities among parcels
within a particular land use classification were found. If we have continue the same fee
of $57.00 for all single family residential parcels and the former per unit fee for multi-family
residential parcels, we have a strong argument that this requirement is met. It is our
opinion that, despite the "proportional cost.to the parcel" language of Proposition 218, the
courts will allow for flat-fee charges for similar properties that generate varying amounts
of garbage.
Multi-unit residential parcels were eliminated in an attempt to comply with the limitation in
Proposition 218 that no fee or charge be imposed for general governmental services where
the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to
property owners. However, we believe that with the appeal process included in the land
use fee ordinance providing for the availability of "opting out" under specified conditions
as well as the implementation of procedural steps at the landfill, such as random checking
of. driverS licenses, can assure compliance, with this provision.
Although the continuation of the land use fee poses some risk of challenge under
Proposition 218, we believe there are many good arguments that can be made that the
residential land use fee does meet the substantive requirements of Proposition 218. We
note that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has supported some aspects of the
current fee which have been opposed by KemTax (See, Mr. Coupal's letter of January 29
1998, re employees in the Waste Management Department.) Therefore, with the
modifications proposed above, we believe the land use fee may legally be continued for
another year.
Members, Board of Supervisors
February 19, 1998
Page 5
B: Procedural Requirements.
In addition to substantive requirements, Proposition 218 set down certain procedural
requirements for property-related fees:
1. If the fee or charge is existing as of November 6, 1996 and no increase is
proposed, no further action required under Proposition 218. Such would be
the case with our land use fee for single-family residential parcels.
2. If the fee qr charge is new or is increased, each property owner must receive
a mailed notice and the agency must conduct a public hearing not less than
45 days after mailing the notice. At the hearing, if a majority of property
owners file protests, the agency may not.impose the fee. This provision
would goVern the re-imposition of the land use fee for rental properties as a
."new" fee because we discontinued it last year.
3. An.electiOn is required for'new or increased fees unless exempt as a sewer,
water, or refuse collection fee. A majority vote of property owners suffices
or, at the public agency's option, a two-thirds vote of the general electorate.
See letter from Mr. Coupal of January 29, 1998, opining that landfill
operations would, in most situations, be considered part of "refuse collection
services." Though the proposed legislation to clear up this issue failed in the
Legislature, we have good arguments to support the conclusion guardedly
conceded by Mr. Coupal in his recent letter.
III. Availability of an Election
As discussed above, voter approval of fees and charges is required by Proposition 218
only under certain circumstances. These include imposition of a new fee or an increase
in an existing fee, except for fees for sewer, water, and refuse.collection services. In the
case of those enumerated fees, onlY a protest hearing is required to impose a new fee or
increase an existing fee. If the land use fee is continued and the level of the fee is
maintained at its current rate, no further action under Proposition 218 is required.
An advisory measure may be placed on the ballot by your Board regarding continuation
of the land use fee or gate fees. Though such a measure may be unnecessary if the status
quo is maintained with the land use fee on the tax roll for residential properties. Pursuant
to Elections Code section 9603, your Board may request an advisory measure be placed
on the ballot "for the purpose of allowing voters within the jurisdiction, or a portion thereof,
to voice their opinions on substantive issues, or to indicate to the local legislative body
approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal." Consequently, a measure requesting voter
Members, Board of Supervisors
February 19., 1998
Page 6
input on the preferred funding mechanism for the landfill system may be placed on the .,
June 1998 ballot. The exact language must be adopted bY the Board and sent to the
elections clerk by March 6, 1998. ~'
IV. Options
The options currently available to your Board include continuation of the land use fee with
the modifications proposed, continuation of the modified land use fee for single family
residential property with the multi-unit residential property placed back on the tax rolls, or
conversion to gate fees.
For continuation of land use fees, the Waste Management Department must sUbmit a
report containing all the parcels to be charged along with the proposed charges, and your
Board must hold a notice public hearing after giving 14 days notice. These hearings have
typically been held ea,rly to mid-June. In addition, if the rental properties are be brought
back on the tax roll, a protest hearing must be held as required for a "new" fee under
Proposition 218 with a 45-day notice. If your Board desires to continue land use fees and
include multi-unit residential properties, it.is our recommendation that your Board schedule
the public hearing for May 5, 1998 to consider both the current residential land use fee and
to hold the'protest hearing required .by Proposition 218 for the multi-unit residential
properties.
In order for gate fees to be effective by July 1, your Board must hold a noticed public
hearing and approVe the gate fees by no later than May 19, 1998. Your Board has
currently Scheduled a hearing on gate fees for March ~24, 1998. If gate fees are going to
be the subject of an advisory election, your Board will need to have enacted the I
implementing ordinance prior to the June 2 election, a fact which makes an advisory
election on gate fees for 1998-99 a major problem.
An additional factor is the cities' request for as much advance notice as possible in the
event gate fees are adopted. Under Proposition 218, if the cities are going to collect 'fees
from residential parcels in the incorporated areas through a charge on the tax roll, they
must give at least 45 days mailed notice to property owners and hold a protest hearing.
if the cities wish to use the exemption for garbage collection services to avoid an election,
there are no other procedural prerequisites.
SDS;gm
#19715
98.8999
July 10, 1997
Lero¥.C. Weygand, President
Kern County Taxpayers Association
1415 18th Street, Suite 407
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Roy:
I apologize for the delay in getting back to you on your letter of June 6, 1997. As
you are well aware, we' are inundated with requests regarding the interpretation,
implementation and enforcement of Proposition 218. I concur that the county's "fix"
of its land-based refuse charges to comply with Proposition 218 falls short of the
mark. Although ! have not thoroughly reviewed .the ordinance, it strikes me that any
parcel based charge for refuse collection would violate Proposition 218 insofar as the
charge could be imposed irrespective of the usage of the refuse collection services.
You also questioned the funding of the solid waste department exclusively through
the land fill fees. I presume these fees are paid both by the industrial and residential
rate-payers, whether they be imposed as gate fees or land-based fees. The question
would be whether there are any other solid waste department activi[ies other than
those related to refuse collection and disposal. If so, the rate payers may have a
legitimate complaint that they are being overcharged to pay for activities unrelated
to their own waste generation. This is clear pursuant to the cost-of-service
requirements under new Article XII[D, section 6(b).
I hope the above is of some assistance. Again, we have a special interest'in ~ern
County given its notorious history.
Sincerely,_~
Jo ~t~han M, Coupal
Director of Legal Affairs
via fax wnd U.g. mall Ianuary 29, 1998
Roy Weygand "~
Kern County Taxpayer~/Lvgaciathm '
1415 18th Street, Suite 407
Bak~ifie~, CA 93301
Dear Roy:
]Ftc~ore u~e write a l~iece ou ~e landfill is~e~ in Kern Co0nty, I wanted t~ get beck to you
quickly as poy.~ble on 0~e three cluestlon~ you ~bml.tted to me.: Your ~rgt q_ue.~ion wn.~ whether
t,r nc~t ~,, ,,~,~y o~_~d l:n~t Lh~ i~_sue of t_h_.e.m..~n..&a, lory enll..,~.tion on the ballot for ~ advL_qory
rotc. ~_ecti~m Code 9C--~3 ~-'xprc~y r~x'~ each d~, ~ ,untT ~d sch_r~_l dis~ct !h~. _powex to ho!d_
or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ialafi~ ~y appt'0v~ ol ~pfov~ of ~e b~ot plo~.'
Your ~d ~ no~ ~at P~ti~ ZIg .~air~ ~at ~ f~ be u~ o~y for ~d~
o~._~.fi Y~ i~i~ that them a~ ~e em~oy~s of the ~!id ~M. d~n~t_
~ng ~ ~~ ~1~% ~d 0Lh~, ~%~ ~ n~ di~t!y in.~!x~ in. the
'~ of ~' of ~xifion 218. I ~ we woMd ~ of Oe ~on illa ~
r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. H ~ ~ n~ ~ ~, it ~d ~ ~ffi~t
~iac wM~ ~ ~ ~ld ~ inclen, ~d who w~ld not. F~ ~ple,
~ ~cl~ M ~e ~It of ~7 ~e ~iw~ is ~bab!y ~.
~ ~ ~ ~ f~ ~ ~. $L~ ~t~ ~uld have ~o ~me from elth~ a genii
13) 384-9879
via fax and U.S. mail January 29, 199//
Roy Weygand
Kern County Taxpayetl As:~'iation
1415 lgth street, Suite 407
Bakerafieid, CA 93301
S~y, a
OFIrlCl~ Of LEGAL AFFAII~ 921 11 th Su'cot, Ouim 1~331, .%una*,tntc, CA 9~114 - (916) 44~ .0qy~), F,~x= (9 t6) .144~23
Hroa-D~ARTE~ 6:21 ~,~uth V~s~-,r~amt A~-v'~c, ~u/~ 2112, Lc~ .aax~.le~, C.A 9000~-,%971 - ~1~ 384-9r~6. F-~c (2!~J) 04~4-9cO0
FE]~--2~--98 08 :3? AM SANITATION ~22750~
~--" -- F~. 02
PANORAMA BUtlN DLrM
REMOVAI. ACTION SET TO .BEGIN
In~oduc~on
Ci~ ~c~flc~ Bum D~ ~ descries ~ ~mv~d ~ ~ pr~y oc~ m
of~c 3}~ ~ 3900 bloc~ of P~or~a Ofiw. M~n~ ~,~ (appm~y 60 cubic
~ 3 ~& Io~) ~m ~e ~n~ ~ of 363~
Remedial Ac~on Plan Summn~ r~:~ D~ve ~ b~ ~d l~s ~
~ ~o~ ~on is be~ ~a~d ~der ~he qu~ ~e ~ ~ong Pano~, Ddve ~
~,rs~t vf~ DTSC. land~l g~ ~d ~ to ~e
'1'~ 9IgC approved ~, ~ on Febm~ 5. ~D~ON~ ~OR~ON.,.
1998. ~al a~ion~ ~i~I~r~lac~ ~ ~ ~d ~er p~ojecx d~mn~t.~
of fl,e fi~t ~r~1% ~]ac~B ~ ~a cl~ soft ~d no~.e~ ~ 0f ~ g~ C~
r~o~8 ~c ~s~p~, D~ ~ r~v~ Lib~ 1~ at 37~ Col~bu~ Av~, ~d
~ ~ e~ol~ures~ be us~ m ~ a~ ~ ~1 Lib~ ~t~ ~ 701 T~
~~o~ave~lea~Sltc. '~.~ A~, Y~ may dso ctmi~t pmj~t
,ho~ below:
Remedtal AcEon ~c~edule
~e ~ ~fion ~ s~ul~ ~ bo~ ~ A~ P~r. Proj~t M~g~r
DTSC
~oh 4. 199S. Berg Feb~ 11 ~ 10151 Cmy~Way, S~ 3
24, ~s ro~s ~ ~~ ~at ~ be
us~ ~ue t~~ r~ so~ ~om ~e S~ ~~ C~o~a 95827-2106
to ~ Ci~ of~eis~ ganii~y ~811: (9t6}
~ui~ ~ ~ giro, ~ on M~h 4, soft CiwofB~im~ldPuh~ Work~
4101 Tm~ Avenue
~v~ ~11 be~. Work x~ be eond~
wc~da~ b~ g A.M. ~d ~ P.M. ~e B~e~lO~ C~omla
~mc~ ~on fi~ ~rk iS ~ti~a~d m (805) 321-3114
~ for appr~ly 3 to S
~,~ld~r~ ~c.
~e~ld, Ca~a 93313
(i05) 8~ 1-215~
02/24/98 TUE 18:15 FAX 805 328 1548 BFLD ECON & COMM DEV ~ CITY MGRS OFFICE ~001
From the
February 24, 1998 ·
For immediate release
For more information:
Jake Wager, City of Bakersfield
Economic Development Director ' '
(805) 326-3765
Cvreg Whitney, President
Kern Economic Development Corporation
(805) 862-5150
THE Step2 COMPANY'ANNOUNCES
NEW MANUFACTURING FACILITY
IN BAKERSFIELD
Company to bring over 140 jobs to the City
Bakersfield, CA - The Step2 Company, a popular Ohio-based maker of quality plastic products for
Home and Play, announced today that it will begin manufacturing by mid-year 1998 in Bakersfield,
CA. This expansion will add 140 new jobs and enable steP2 to better serve its growing domestic
business in the western United States as well as in the Pacific Rim and Mexico.
Thomas G. Murdough, Jr., Founder and president of the company, praised local efforts to recruit the
company. "I have already told the story of Bakersfield, California to many of our customers and
suppliers all over the nation. It is a tribute to everyone that was involved," said Murdough.
"In my 25 plus years in this business, I have been involved with plant openings in 12 communities
mound the world, and I have never been so impressed by the knowledge and uniform commitment
of the community economic development team." The team was led by the City of Bakersfield and
Kern Economic Development Corporation.
(more)
02/24/98 TUE 18:16 FAX 805 328 1548 BFLD ECON & COM~ DEV -~4--> CITY MGRS OFFICE ~002
Company to bring over 140 jobs to the City
Page 2
"Step2 is the kind of successful business that I am proud to Welcome to Bakersfield," said Mayor
Bob Price. "I was pleased to have personally met with Mr. Murdough and share his excitement in
locating a company dedicated to making the highest quality products for' homes and children."
Step2's new facility at 7021 Schirra Court will have 109,250 sq. ft. of manufacttLring capacity to help
meet increasing demand for the company's products, boosting their nationwide manufacturing space
to over 960,000 square feet. Located in the Stockdale Industrial Park, the facility is owned by Castle
& Cooke California, Inc. and the transaction was brokered by CD Commercial. ·
Step2 is a high-growth market leader supplying home and garden as well as children's play products
and fumiture to major retailers worldwide. Products are manufactured using rotational molding, a
process that Mr. Mm'dough pioneered for use in the consumer products market.
"Our process is very dependent upon the people that make it go, and for that reason, we are very
selective in where we locate a plant," said Murdough. "In Bakersfield, we found the caliber of the
labor force and an extremely positive and supportive response from the Economic Development
Team. It is one thing to have a good location, but quite another to have the location and the people
to make it successful." Other key factors cited by Murdough include centralized geographic location
and availability of a well-constructed rail served facility.
The Kern Economic Development Corporation was first contacted by Step2 in December 1997 as
the result of company representatives reading the Discover Kern County market overview in the LA
Business Journal. The KEDC worked with the City of Bakersfield to host several tours and
community related meetings. Bakersfield was in competition' with Fresno, Madera and Porterville.
"The Step2 decision shows the direct results of marketing Kern County to new business," said
Harold Hanson, KEDC Board Chair. "It also proves that once we get them here, the community can
deliver."
Since the company began operations in 1991, it has consistently realized highly respected annual
sales increases. In just its sixth year of operation, Step2 recorded sales of $100 million in 1997 with
another significant increase planned for 1998. Step2 products currently enjoy distribution
throughout the United States, Canada, and over 70 foreign countries: Step2 will add the 140 new
jobs to the current 1,040 employees in three northeast Ohio sites and new 1997 facility in Coleraine,
Northern Ireland. Customers include Sears, Kmart, Walmart, Toys R US and Target stores.
"Step2 chose California for its first expansion outside the state of Ohio, a tree testament to our
competitiveness and long-range economic vitality," said State Trade and Commerce Agency
Secretary, Lee Grissom.
The Plastics industry employs roughly 66,000 people in California, a 12 percent increase from five
years ago. Sales of plastics related products in California during 1997 were $10.5 billion, and the
industry accounts for an annual payroll of more than $2 billion. Plastics is also California's 11 t~
largest export at $1.5 billion.
~ ~ ~ S:L~LAN~Stcp 2 press release.wpd
CiTY IViANAGER'S OFFIC:Z '
DIVISIONS OF RECREATION AND PARKS
DATE: February 20, 1998
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Stan Ford, Director ~
SUBJECT: Monthly Report for December 1997 and January 1998
Attached is a summary of the activity for each division in December and January.
Detailed information is available. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please let me know.
STAFF ACTIVITIES
Training: Several members of the staff were able to attended training on grant
proposal writing and two workshops related to customer service in the public sector.
RECREATION
Lowell Neighborhood Center: Total attendance in December was over 1,000 and
989 for January. New programs are international ballroom dance, computer classes,
and a youth excursion program.
MLK Center: Attendance in December was 1,865 and 2,105 for January. In
addition to the programs at the center, the center is coordinating a program for
seniors that is held at Plaza Towers. A special event was held in honor of the Dr.
Martin Luther King holiday which attracted approximately 450 participants.
Playground Program: Attendance in this program was as follows:
Casa Loma 27
Franklin 23
Franklin West 42
McKinley 45
Stella Hills 85
William Penn 52
Silver Creek: The pool was closed for most of January due to an equipment
problem. Repairs have been made and we have resumed normal operations. The
center also experienced mechanical problems with the heater and the roofing. The
facility was rented for five events with 420 people attending these events. Program
participation was as follows:
# Registered Total Participation (month)
Jazzercise 36 324
Tiny Tot Dance 40 160
Dance & Gymnastics 16 64
Ice Skating 10 40
Adult Golf 8 32
Group Golf 8 32
Racquetball 4 16
Karate 12 48
Calligraphy 6 6
140 722
Teen Center: Attached is a proposal from the recreation staffto change the summer
playground program from six sites to two park sites and two teen centers. Please let
me know if you have any comments or concerns about the proposal.
PARKS
Silver Creek Tennis Courts: Tennis court lighting was modified to ensure a safer
playing environment.
North Laurelglen: The repair of the damage caused by the trees has been completed.
This restoration included repairing the damaged sidewalk, replacing the bricks on the
perimeter of the tree wells, and planting new trees.
Siemon Park: The irrigation system was converted from a hydraulic system to an
electric system. This conversion included new values, wires, and controllers.
Tevis Park: The west side of the park was regraded to remove a berm that was not
removed prior to the city's acceptance of the park.
Police Pistol Range: Staff modified the irrigation system to accommodate the new
configuration of the shooting bays.
Chester Street Landscaping: Staff continues to monitor the project and prepare to
assume the responsibility for the on-going maintenance.
Windsor Park: Plans have been signed and grading has begun.
Stonecreek Park: We are 120 days into the 180-day maintenance period.
FEBRUARY PREVIEW
Black History Month: We will be hosting activities in recognition of Black History
Month on February 26 at MLK Center.
Bakersfield Beautiful Award: We have been notified that we were nominated for
a Bakersfield Beautiful Award. Additional information was previously forwarded.
Storm Clean Up: We should have a final report this week on the clean up of the
storm that occurred the fn'st week of the month. Staff responded to 215 calls from
citizens as of February 12. A total of 1,165.5 hours were used in responding to these
calls. Our clean up of the parks will be set back several weeks due to our support of
requests from Public Works for staff.
c: Citizens Community Services Advisory Committee
John Stinson, Assistant City Manager
Dolores Teubner, Assistant City Manager
Department Staff
PROPOSED NEW PROGRAM
Summer Playground Teen Center
RECOMMENDATION
We propose to change our summer playground program from (6) six park sites to, two park sites
and two teen centers. The change will enable us to reach more youth and young adults with a
more structured program.
OVER-VIEW OF EXISTING PROGRAM
Our existing program has been in existence since the early 70's and is used more for child care in
the parks, the currant program operates for (9) weeks from 9 am to 4 pm we offer arts & crafts
and sports, the average age is 6 to 9 years of age. Attendance has decreased each year for the last
three years. Total cost of the program is $52,713.00
TEEN CENTER
This new program will enable us to offer structured programs in arts & crafts, sports and a variety
of activities. With the help of qualified staff we can provide programs such as drama
performances, dance, clubs (teen scene), etc. All participants will be encouraged to join specific
clubs and becoming members of each site. Most important is that we will give our young adults a
positive place to just hang out.
Possible sites will be East High School and West High School. Total cost will be $77,510.00
A breakdown is listed below.
Staff $34,510.00
Supplies $ 7,000.00
Rental $36,000.00 (The increase is due to rent at the two high schools)
$77,510.00
Teen center will be a exciting change for youths and young adults in our community.
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
February 20, 1998
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager t~~
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direct
SUBJECT: Update on Adoption of New Redevelopment Project Areas
With the decision by the City Council at their February 11th meeting to move forward with the
redevelopment project areas, staffis preparing to select a consultant to assist us in the process. The
following is a list of milestones for the near future and estimated dates when we expect them to be
accomplished:
Task Milestone Date
RFP sent to Qualified Consultants February 27
RFP's Received from Respondents March 23
Staff Evaluates RFP's/Conduct Interviews April 1
Staff Identifies Project Funding Sources April 1
Staff Recommends Consultant at Special CDDA Meeting April 6
City Council Approves Consultant and Appropriates Funds April 8
Staff Develops Consultant Agreement May 1
City Council Approves Consultant Agreement May 20
Although we do have some funds dedicated to paying for a redevelopment consultant, additional
funds will need to be identified prior to initiating the projects. Therefore, during the RFP process
we will be working with the Finance Director to resolve any financing issues and finalize a budget.
Please call me if you have any questions.
cc Alan Christensen, Business Manager
Donna Barnes, Development Associate
:' FEB 2 ~ 1998
B A K E R S F I E L D[~
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
February 20, 1998
TO: Jake Wager
Economic Development Director
FROM: Vince Zaragoza g'~
Principal Planner
SUBJECT: Time Line for Union Ave. #10 Water System Improvement Project
As requested, below is a tentative schedule for the referenced project as developed by Public
Works.
Date Item
2/26/98 Bid Advertising
3/10/98 Pre Bid Conference
3/19/98 Open Construction Bids
4/8/98 Award Construction Bid
4/17/98 Pre Construction Conference
4/20/98 Notice to Proceed
4/27/98 Start Construction
6/30/98 Complete Project
Please let me know if you have any questions regarding the time line.
file:Unionl0.wpd
B A K E R 5; F I E L D
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
February 23, 1998
TO: JAKE WAGER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
FROM: BRET J HELGREN, FAIR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCI
SUBJECT: HOME BUYERS EXPO '98
The second meeting of the community planning committee for the Home Buyers Expo
was held on Wednesday, February 18, 1997, at the Bakersfield Convention Center.
Approximately twenty five members of the local real estate industry as well as other community
residents were in attendance. A good deal of work was accomplished when the group broke into
subcommittees for marketing, sponsorship, vendor recruitment, entertainment, and logistics.
Local industry represented at the meeting included the Bakersfield Association of Relators, Kern
County B.I.A., and various other organizations who are playing a key role in coordinating and
sponsoring the event.
On another related matter, I received a phone call from HUD on Friday, February 20,
1998, confirming their contribution to the Expo to conduct a $10,000 print advertising campaign.
The print advertising campaign will include custom ads featuring the upcoming Expo in local
papers in Kings, Tulare and Kern counties. In addition to the City and the Housing Authority of
Kern County, approximately a half dozen real estate lenders and brokers have expressed serious
interest in sponsoring the event at $1,000 to $2,500 per sponsor. We have anticipated a $41,000
budget for the event. All revenue to the budget, except the City sponsorship, will be contributed
by other governmental agencies and private businesses.
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~
DATE: February 24, 1998
RE: Activity Status Matrix - Kern County tlealth Services
Enclosed is the January Activity Stares Matrix for your information.
G:\GROUPDATLMem o\ 19 9 8~K. CHD-Act ivity.wpd
PROGRESS OF PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
Activity For The Month Of January 1998 ,~'
Bakersfield Sanitary Immediate Goal: Remediation of Remediation of the burn dump is Continue remediation of the burn
Landfill/Burn Dump burn material to reduce/eliminateunder the oversight of the ash under the ERAP.
Closure· the health risks associated with Department of Toxics, ERAP.
burn ash. The City will modify the original
SWlS #: 15-AA-0044 Closure of the landfill will notDraft Closure Plan to integrate the
· -' th~
R~ductlon ,.,, ,-., ,,=,,,,,,,,0,,,:,,,0 proceed until the burn dump burn dump closure with the landfill
LEA WO #: 102 and 319 gas at th~ '--:':"',,=,.,,,,~, ,.,~,,.,,'- .... ,~,,=,,-'--'~, '-,,., issues have been resolved, closure.
I~:~,OLI ICll I ~ /(~~/II.I I~;;
..... :-'- The Local Enforcement Agency The LEA will amend its comments
Sections 10, 11 14, and '- ' ';--='" '-' '
, ~-^~l~o,v~ ~..~.,L ~L---I.
15, T29S, R28E Completed 8/29/97 provided written comments to the regarding the Remediation of
4200 Panorama Drive Department of Toxics regarding Panorama Drive according to
Long Term Goal: the most recent Health Risk information supplied by Kleinfelder
Property Owner: Closure of the sanitary landfill Assessment. and Associates.
City of Bakersfield and and burn dump in compliance
other private individuals with Title 27, CCR. No Changes No Changes
China Grade Burn trnmediat~ Goal: Remedistion-of A small amount of acid sludge The California Integrated Waste
Dump/Landfill Closure ,.,,.,"' ........ , , ,,,.-,,o, ,,=,,:- ,-,,,, ,,, , ,.., ,,.,,,,, has begun seeping from the Management Board is responsible
bou,~ari~s, to r~ducs/eliminste south face of the burn dump for clean up of the acid sludge and
SWIS #: 15-AA-0048 the,"--"'-,,=,=,,,,, ,-=-'--,o,,o ooo~,,.,otod with area. The burn dump is reviewing options for abatement.
bur,~sh. Completed June 4, 1997. remediation was conducted by
LEA WO #: 108 the California Integrated Waste LEA staff are proceeding with the
Long Term Goal: Management Board· Notice and Order for closure of the
Location: Closure of the sanitary landfill landfill portion of the facility·
Sections 1 & 12, T29S, 'and burn dump in compliance
R29E with Title 27, CCR.
Landfill Road
Properly Owner: No Changes No Changes
Kern County
February 17, 1998
* SWI$ = Solid Waste Information System number issued by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (ClWMB).
** LEA WO# = Local Enforcement Agency Work Order number used by EHSD.
FORNIA, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1995
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL/CALIFORNIA
zed' about $5.2 million in venture
signed up 2,200 dealers and
ed more than one million purchase
3 from customers, about 25% of California on the Company Tab
~ave ended in a sale. He says that
b had net losses last year totaling For those of you who are concerned of $177.70, well below the average for the
,n $3 million on sales of nearly $4 about how much dough you charge on U.S. overall.
your company credit card, California Of 10 cities surveyed in California, the
ng the past few months, as the two promises to furrow your brow. average cost of meals is $44.50 a day,
Jes have become more aggressive Expenses including meals, lodging, and compared with the U.S. mean of $38.55.
marketing efforts, they have also car rental all exceed the national mean San Francisco is the costliest, at $56.65,
eking more distinct approaches to here--and by a lot, in some cities. The and the Riverside-San Bernardino area is
ness. cost per day for business travel in the cheapest, at $37.60.
.ially, the differentiation was California is $236.75--$37.20 more than San Francisco also has the most
tent among the prominent new car
the U.S. mean of $199.55. expensive lodging in the state, at $205 per
~ays Scott Wu, a principal at Na-
nc Montgomery Securities Inc., the That's according to a study, of busi- night on average. Fresno has the cheapest
zderwriter in Auto-By-Tel's pro- ness-travel costs in 100 cities nationwide hotel rates, at $91.50. The state mean:
'O. "Now, it's a question of who has by Runzheimer International, a manage- $136.70.
dealers," not how many dealers, ment-consulting firm based in Rochester, Car rentals are costliest in Oakland, at
Ellis says Auto-By-Tel gets the best Wis. The study was performed for compa- $65.50, and cheapest in Bakersfield, at
by promising them an exclusive hies to estimate their employees' travel $42.50. Overall, the cost of renting a car in
y. The company signs agreements costs. California is $55.55, just o. ver the national
dealers, barring them from signing "Business travel is expanding across mean of $53.
,.er services, the country thanks to the new Iow-cost Even though it doesn't have the priciest
;ntrast, Mr. Zamani contends corn-airlines like Southwest," explains Rolphe totals in all three categories, San Francisco I'J 1~ [, 1~I m; r-,'ran-l- s
results in better dealers. He says Shellenberger, senior consultant at is still California's most expensive city in
b signs up several top dealers in an Runzheimer. "California, more than any- total cost per day: $322.65. But take heart:
sed on sales volume and customer-where else in the country, is feeling the That's still quite a bit less than Manhattan, "-' ~''~ ''"' NO-l- ~ua,1;-~
boom." the most expensive city in the country for
In each city, the study averaged prices business costs, at $412.50 a day. Manhat- By JULIO L~J](
of four rental car companies at airports; tan has the most expensive averages for Staff Reporter of THE WALL S
four tO 10 major hotels (usually chains), all three categories. There, food will cost It wasn't earthquakes, n'
and meals at business-class (not luxury) you $78 a day, on average; hotel, $264; fires and violent rome, but .'
restaurants both in hotels and outside and car rental, $70.50--though most vlsi- ics that drove 1.5 million pe
fornia during the first half
hotels, tors opt for taxis, according to a new study.
The good news: Most of California's What cities are cheap enough to stave Using U.S. Internal R~
bloated average is accounted for by the off frowns from your boss? Macon, Ga., data, researchers at the
largest cities in the state. Four of the citieshas the country's cheapest meals at Southern California have d,
surveyed squeeze under the $200 mark; $29.40, and Davenport, Iowa, has the employment opportunities
ratings. It then allows customers to Bakersfield is the cheapest city of those cheapest lodging, at $63. Honolulu has the everything to do with long-d
~,vhere they want their orders sent surveyed in the state, with a per diem total cheapest car rental, at $39. state moves from 1990-1996.
ist of participating dealers. "Differential labor-mar
ncourage more dealers to sign up, ~'¥~:':~**' ~:~ :~'~ '~ ~:~ ~ ~ ~"~'~'~ ties are very important" re:
.~ last month rolled out a new pric- . pie left the state, says Stun
~tctUresales fOrreferraldealerS,ratherChargingthan thethemfiat ~i~i iiiii~ii~i ~~ ii~ ~ ii :'! ¢ i!i ! iiiiiii!ii¢ ii i!iili i ii ii!i nance°f the study'Sat USC'saUth°rsMarshallanda,'
~ fee that other services charge. It's Cas 101At C0Sl ness. Translation: There we
,g-y that Mr. Zamani believes will ~EAlS 1.00~Im~ RfmAt Pin OAr i! other statesthaninrecessio
mrate more dealer sign-ups, partic- :: ~i~:~ ~ii~:: ?~ ~i ?~ ?~;:: ?;:.; ;;?~ i:~ ~/;?:', i!~:':?~:~;~::i~:i~:?~ !~ ~;il ~ iii ~,~!~::;!i ifornia.
~ parts of the state where sales vol , :. ................ ::~ , . The study shows that
y be low. That, in turn, should give San Jose 45.70 193.00 59.00 297.70 crease in the number of peel
~rs in those areas a more conve- ~i:~,~:.:~ ~:?~:~,;: ~:: i;~ ~,i~;::i?~?~i~? i{~, ~?;!ii~]i~::~ifornia for other states in,
coincided with rosier labor
aler to pick from. :::':' :': :::': ........... :: ~,,:::::: .................. ?:~:::::::::: :"::'::::::::: :::::' :
,t of dealers were on the fence about Los Angeles 51.10 138.00 62.50 251.60 tions in those other states.
up" with an on-line car-buying set- ':; :: ': '~i'?~?~:~?:?~ unemployment rate betw{
:. Zamani explains, "because they ,: ~.~ .................. :::~:~,,::::: ........ ,~,:,,~,~,~,,:::: :~:: :.,::. ........ ~.:~,:,:.:: ::: :;,: ,~:~:, ::., :,, and the rest of the country
a system where they pay per cus- Anaheim 42.45 134.00 63.50 239.95 percentage points in 1993 a~
:!~:~i:i:: }: ~:: }~}}}i i}i! :~¢::i:04i~:::: :~ i}¢} ]9§::.~51.i dropping to 1.5 percentage I:
when it comes to advertising, each . ........ ,..:: . "The state was filled w
Riverside/San Sernardino. 37.60 106.00 43.50 187.10 about the decline in quality
y asserts it has the recipe for get- the California dream had tu
rigger market share. Auto-By-Tel kindof nightmare," saysMr
)out $20 million last year in salver- Bakersfield 37.70 97.50 42.50 177.70 sons cited for people leavin;
~trgeting mainstream audiences. It fic congestion, air qualiI
ed commercial air time during the ~50 :: i !!i~§~70: ::i?.i :~? :~:~; ~!~ ~ :?: ?~/:i??.i :::$2~:~:~ii crime.
~ Super Bowls. Autoweb, on the U.8. mean $38.55 $108.00 $53.00 $199.55 But "these weren't the r
md, spent about $3.5 million last i!::i: he says. "It was the econom
,,ertising on various Web sites and .: :Uig~! ~ ~gi40:.;i :~i:i~ i~iil i:~i~i~ ;:~?~ :~:ii ii!i~i~Ci~: i? ii:~? i'~ ?~;::i In the Los Angeles ar,
~tter-relatedpublications. U.S. maximum 78.00 264.00 70.50 pie, the number of peopl
~rly, they have different models," now lnr',qloq (nit nf qtntO