Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/98 BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 6, 1998 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUANC~ FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Ogden continues to do well with arena bookings. They have added two (one televised) World Wrestling Federation events and "Golden Books", an interactive childrens' show to the list previously distributed. The upper seating bowl is being erected, as we speak. 2. We received official notification from the Kern County Waste Management Department that landfill land use fees would continue for single family parcels, and they were terminating the implementation of "Pay as You Throw." They plan to conduct a ballot for multi-unit landfill fees to determine if they will also go back to being on the tax bill (they collected the fees directly from property owners during 1997-98). It appears that if the multi-family owners do not want to pay the landfill fee on their tax bills, the County will expect the cities or private haulers to pay them and do the collection for multi-family landfill fees for them. This is the same thing they tried a year ago, which cities protested, and the County ended up doing the collection. They lost significant funds due to their poor collections process, and would like to shift the problem to someone else. We should continue to oppose this shift in responsibility. The County is also indicating there will be no fee increase for 1998-99 to support Waste Management activities. 3. The position of alternate planning commissioner was created so that there would be a voting quorum if a planning commissioner couldn't participate in the review of a project due to a conflict or absence. By ordinance, the term for the alternate is the same as that for the regular commissioners. However, because this was new, the Council voted to appoint the first alternate for one year. As a result, staff brought the alternate back for reappointment each year. This was not the intent but has become the practice. This has created a conflict with the adopted ordinance. It is recommended that the Council give staff direction regarding this inconsistency. Honorable Mayor and City Council March 6, 1998 Page 2 Would you prefer to continue reappointing the alternate after one year or have them serve the 4 year term in the ordinance? If you would like the alternate to serve one year, you would need to direct staff to amend the ordinance to change the term to one year. If you would like the alternate to serve the full term in the adopted ordinance, then direct staff to adhere to the adopted term for all future appointments for the alternate. 4. A memo is enclosed from the Planning Department regarding an upcoming City/County address correction project along East Brundage Lane. The major problem is offset addressing ranges on the north and south sides of East Brundage, which can cause delays in emergency response times. The end result of this action will enable a faster response time from emergency service personnel. 5. The February Activity Report from Recreation and Parks is enclosed. It includes several photos showing the effects from the storms last month. 6. A response to a Council request regarding repair of a sidewalk at 1323 L Street is enclosed. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst KERH COUHTY 14gTE HAHA6EHEHT D[PARTHEHT Daphne ti. I alhin on, Oire or 2_700 "M" Street, Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA 9330 I (805) 862-8900 (800) 552-KERN (option 6) March 2, 1998 Fax: (805) 862-8901 Mr. Alan Tandy ~. o~[~ ...... City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Tandy: The County's direction to eliminate land use fees in order to comply with Proposition 218 has been controversial. Switching to a 100% gate fee system was never our desire, as the land use fee system has worked well. Our goal was to find a way to raise revenues that would comply with Proposition 218 while preserving the financial viability of the County's waste management system. Given the uncertainty of the court's interpretation of Proposition 218 and the attendant risk of jeopardizing the approximately $11 million raised by land use fees in the event of a lawsuit, our Board had previously taken the position that a conversion to gate fees was appropriate. However, we have recognized the concerns expressed by many wishing to retain the existing land use fee system and have continued to review all possible options to resolve this matter. Land Use Fees to Continue on Single Family Parcels On Tuesday, February 24, County Counsel reported on several matters pertaining to Proposition 218, land use fees and gate fees. A copy of that report is attached. After considering the report, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to retain land use fees on single family residential parcels with some modifications of the programs funded by the land use fee. This decision effectively terminated the implementation of the Pay as You Throw 100% gate fee program scheduled for July 1, 1998. At this point, the County does not plan to impose a gate fee on waste generated on single family residential parcels. Although there is a continued heating scheduled for March 24, 1998 on the establishment of gate fees for 1998-99, in light of the Board's action on February 24, the Department will be withdrawing its request. Property Owners to Vote on Multi-unit Land Use Fees The Board of Supervisors also directed County staff to conduct a Proposition 218 ballot procedure to give owners of multi-unit parcels an opportunity to vote to re-instate the land use fee for multi- unit parcels. If the property owners approve the land use fee for multi-unit parcels then, effective July 1, 1998 the land use fee will once again be on the tax bill for those parcels and gate fees and bin disposal fees for waste generated on multi-unit parcels will no longer be needed. If the property owners do not approve land use fees for multi-unit parcels, then waste from those parcels will continue to be subject to the gate fee and it will be necessary to continue charging bin disposal fees. Billing Bin Fees to Multi Unit Parcels in Cities In April of 1997, the County agreed to bill the bin disposal fees for multi-unit parcels for one year. Letter to City Managers -2- March 2, 1998 That action was taken to allow cities time to adjust to the new system. If the property owners do not approve the land use fees for multi-unit parcels, the County does not plan to continue billing the bin disposal fees for the cities beyond July 1, 1998. It will then be necessary for each city, or its contract hauler, to assume the billing responsibility as previously planned. We will know the voters decision on 5/5/98, the date of the public hearing. You are being notified now of this possibility to allow adequate time to prepare for the billing if the vote fails. No Fee Increase for 1998/99 Continuing with land use fees on single family parcels and assuming the multi-mt land use fee is approved by the property owners, we project that no fee increase will be needed to support the critical functions of the County's waste management system through fiscal year 1998/99. The Department will continue to recommend and implement cost cutting measures to minimize the need for future rate increases. Fortunately, a way has been found to meet the intent of Proposition 218, respond to the public's concerns and provide a stable funding mechanism. If you have any questions, please feel fi:ce to call me at 862-8933. Sincerely, Daphne H. Washington Director DHW:RBB:abr I:~LETTERSXL2573-RBB.abrI:XLETTERSXL2573-RBB.abr Attachment: February 24, 1998 County Counsel's Report to Board of Supervisor cc: Each Member of the Board of Supervisors Scott Jones, CAO Steve Schuett, County Counsel · 02/19~/96 THU 16:¢9 £.~]~ 805 861 2896 CLEi~ OF THE BO.~.D I~ooz OFFICE OF COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY, O~ KERN .. MEMORANDUM B. C. jhr'msnn, Sr. Sbpbeu D. Se. hu~ Count3' Coumd Assbtmnt C~ C~ TO: Members, Boa~ of Supe~iso~ FR~: B.C. Ba~ann. C~n~ Counsel ~ By: Ste~en D. S~ue~ ~si~ont Coun~ Counsel DATE: Feb~a~ 19. 1998 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Charges and PmPosRion 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 cbrrent system of collecting on the tax bill a land use fee on residential ~)roperty for operation of the County's landfill system. This letter requested the opportunity for the citizens of the County to vote on retaining ~.e 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 provi.sions o.f Proposition 218, and the range of options available to the Board. I. Background !n 1988, the Board of Supe~sors 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 ~v'as 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 °perations. In fadt, from 1986 to 1990 the cost of Membem. Board of Supewi~om P.bru~y 19. 199~ P~g~2 operating tho 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 county Farm Bureau and the Kern County Taxpeyem ~ation,~ The plaintiffs contended that the land use fee was a special tax imposed In violation of Proposition 13. Plaintiffs claimed that tho charge imlxmed on the property owner was unconstitutional because, among Other things, them was no reesonablo relationship botween the charge and the property owner,s actual'use of the landfills. The appellate court, in ~:ern Coun_~ Farm Bureau v. Kern Courtly (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1416, flnal!y 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 la~d 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 andwas, in turn, paid to the County as the equivalent of the current gate fee of $29 per ton for those commercial'accounts. This split s. ystem 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 uso 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 XlilD to the California Constitution. The ~One of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs was Jonathan Coupal, one of the authors of Proposition 218. Membem, Board of Supervb~m Febmlry 19, 1 gg8 Ptg~ 3 enactment of Propos'~ion 218 has raised concems statewide about the continued validity of the land use fee system. Proposition 218 creates a special subset of feet and charges that are "imposed on a parcel or upon a person as an incident of property ownei'ship.., for a property-related service" and prescribes certain rules, both procedural and substantive, related to Imposing these fees. Art. XIIID, section 5. Collection of the land use fee on the tax roll-makes that' fee a 'property re!ated fee" for purposes of Proposition 218~ The substantive and procedural requirements of Proposition 218 must be observed as state constitutional mandates. A. Substantive reauirements. 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 parc, el. 4. No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used Fees by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in .question. 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' afforneys 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 Memborl, Board of SupervJsort .. February 10. 1998 Page 4 expressed interest of Howard 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 uso foe system another. year, we believe that wilh some modifications of tho current system we can successfully daf&nd any challenge brought under Proposition 218. We have also .roceived, through KernTax, two letters from Mr. Coupal addressing some of tho concerns previously raised about the validity of certain aspects of the'current land use fee. Copies of those 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 sen;ice 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 bum-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 mot. It is our opinion that, despite the 'proportional cosL..to the parcel- language of Proposition 218, the courts will allow for fiat-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 sen, ices 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 tho 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 lett&r 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. B. Procedural Reauirements. 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 fu~er action required under Proposition 218. Such would be the case with our land use fee for sing!e-family residential pa,~els. 2. If the fee or charge is new or is increased, each property owner must receive a rnalled notice and the agency must conduct a public hearing not less.than 45 days after mailing the notice. At the headng, if a majority of property OWners file protests, the agency may not.impose the fee. This provision would gogem 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 majodty 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 impos~ a newfee 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 unne~ssary.if the status quo is maintained with the land use fee on the tax mil 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' inpUt on the preferred funding mechanism for the landfill system may be placed on the June 1998 balloL The eXact language must be adopted ,by the Board and sent to the elections clark by March 6, 1998. N. Options · The o~ons o.~rently 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 es,fly 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 ~ '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 not[ced public · hearing and appro.ve 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 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. ffthe cities wish to use the exemption for garbage collection services to avoid an election, there are no other procedural prerequisites. ., SDS:am //19715 98.8999 July 10, lgg7 Lemy.C. W~gand, President Kern CounW Tex~er~ ~soclat~n Bakers~ld, CA 93301 Dear Roy: I apologize for the delay in getting back to you onyour leper of Jun~ 6, 1997. As you are well aware, we'are inundated with requests regarding the interpretation, im~le~ntation ~nd enfomement of Proposition 21 ~. I concur that the county's 'fix" of its land-ba~ed refu~e charges to comply with Proposition 218 falls sho~ of the ~rk. Although ! h~ve not thoroughly reviewed .the ordlnance, Jt strikes me ~et any p~mel based charge for re,se collect[on ~uld violate Proposltlon 218 in,far ~ the charge could be imposed irres~ectlve of the usage of the refuse collection ~e~l~. . You also questioned the funding of the ~olld w~ste depaAment exclusively through the ~nd 6il fees. I presume these fees ~re pald both by ~e indust~al ~nd rate.payers, whether ~ey be im~s~ as gate fees or land-based ~. The que~on would be whether ~ere are any other solid waste department activities other than those related to m~se collection and disposal. If so, the rate legitimate complaint that they bra being overcharged topay for ~ctivi~es unmated to their o~ wa~e generation. ThJ~ is clear pumuant to the co~f~ice requirement~ under new A~cle XIIID, secOon 6(bi. ' I hope the above is of some assis~nce. Again, we have a spe~t in~re~ ~ Kern CounW g~en I~ notorious hista~. ' -. 81noerely, Director of ~gal Affairs TAXPAYERS via t'mt smd ~.L mull Ytmmry 29. 1998. 141S 1Bdt Stru~ SuilB dO'/ P..fom ue write a Fiem tau the landfill isles in Kf~ Omnty, I wanmd iD Rd hick to yms as et not ~ cnmt~ eo~ld Imf ~hn t.ss~e et' ~e m'6n~tor7 crdb~.Gmt c~ ~ ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ m b~ u ~ ~la~ ~y ~ppzovd or ~v~ ~ ~ b~t pt~ * ~~ w~ ~ ~ ~M ~ tn~, ~ who ~td ~ F~ ~~, ~ 02/19~95 ?T'dU ]-6:53 FAT. 60b 66]. 2696 CLLKI~ UI- l'~ ~u~ ~uLu I' HOWA~ JAR~ MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ~ STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION RECRUITMENT Recruitment will soon begin to fill three positions on the Planning Commission due to expiration of terms of which one is vacant. One of the terms up for review is that of the alternate. The alternate position was created by ordinance in 1990. The term of the alternate as stated in the ordinance is four years. However, the first appointee was appointed by the Council to serve one year subject to renewal. Since then, although not formally required, alternates have been reappointed after serving one year. This has created a defacto policy that isn't consistent with the adopted ordinance. Since we are about to fill expiring terms, it seems that this would be a good time to correct this occurrence by changing the ordinance to fit the policy or the policy to fit the ordinance. The Council probably isn't aware of this situation and may not have strong feelings regarding either option. I would like to bring this matter to the Council's attention with a recommendation to appoint the alternate under the terms of the adopted ordinance. I would inform them of this situation by memorandum and suggest that they give staff direction as part of their action when they appoint commissioners to fill the terms of the two incumbents and the one vacancy. Please let me know how you would like to proceed. SG:pjt cc: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Pamela A. McCarthy, City Clerk m\mat2-26 MEMORANDUM February 17, 1998 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: ~ STANLEY GRADY, PLANNING DIRECTOR SUBJECT: EAST BRUNDAGE LANE ADDRESS CORRECTION PROGRAM On February 11, 1998, my staff conducted a meeting with city and county fire department representatives, police and sheriff department representatives and county planning representatives to discuss address problems along East Brundage Lane and impacts on 911 emergency response systems. (Ward 1) Historic address problems along East Brundage Lane, east of Lakeview are causing increasing problems under the high tech 911 response system. Comments from city and county emergency service representatives indicate the problem is in need of immediate attention. The major problem is offset addressing ranges on the north and south sides of East Brundage, which cause delays in response times. Some of the areas in need of attention are in the city, some are in the county. We are interested in only doing this once and doing it correctly. The program will be a joint city/county effort. The scope of work will include inventory of all addresses, mapping, notice to property owners, tenants and businesses of the need to correct the problem and final change of address notice. City and county staff will work closely to assemble the information. Prior to initiating any action, we would advise the Council person of the scope of work so that they would be fully aware of the project and prepared for any calls that they might receive. The end result will be increased human safety through faster emergency response. I expect the program to take two months to notification of address change. Those affected will have three months or more to actually change their addresses so they can use up checks and stationary. There are other areas of the city which have similar problems and we are looking to learn from this process and apply what is learned to other areas. Those areas are shown on the attached maps with wards identified. JM:pjt Attachment cc: Dolores Teubner, Assistant City Manager Jack Hardisty, Development Services Director Mike Kelly, Fire Chief Steve Brummer, Police Chief m\mat2-13 , ~ M~,~ Zl 1998 ADDRESS PROBLEM AREAS ~,,~ AVENUE Z WARD: ~ AREA HIGHWAY 58 L OMA EA ST BRUNDA GE ;CAS^ ,OMA DR,V~ LANE I ~ REOSA.K ROAD ADDRESSING m m mm PROBLEM WARD x AREAS MULLER ROAD 0 n,- × .~E IN MILES HERMOSA ROAD DIVISIONS OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: March 6, 1998 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Stan Ford, Director ~ SUBJECT: Monthly Report for February Described below is summary information of the divisions activities in February. If you require detailed information, it is available. If you have any questions or need other information, please let me know. STAFF ACTIVITIES Gregorio Herrera, Linda McVicker, and Mike Doyle, received awards from the California Park and Recreation Society District XV on February 28. Gregorio was selected as the outstanding part-time employee of the year, Linda was honored as the outstanding professional in the district, and Mike received the Facility Award for the Kern River Parkway. Also recognized during the awards banquet, Etta Lewis received the Volunteer Award for her work in promoting tennis in Bakersfield. Attached are copies of photos from the ceremony. RECREATION Silver Creek: The heater at pool has been repaired and is operational. E1 Nino was kind enough to point out that the roof was in need of repair. Staff is currently obtaining estimates for the repairs. Participation in leisure classes was as follows: Activity Registered Participants Total Particpation Jazzercise 50 260 Tiny Tot Dance 30 120 Dance & Gymnastics 26 104 Ice Skating 13 52 Group Golf Lessons 15 60 Karate 8 32 Clogging 15 40 157 668 Lowell Community Center: Fencing was installed for the purpose of creating a safer environment for the center's guests. Total participation for the month was 1,266. A new tabletop soccer game ("fooseball") was added to the centers equipment and has proved to be very popular. 26 youth visited the Los Angeles Science Center as part of our excursion program. MLK Center: Total participation in recreation programs was 2,010. The after school tutoring program is assisting approximately 8-10 students daily. The youth advisory committee hosted the first annual Community Awards banquet. The first recipients were: Irma Carson, Lynn Edwards, Geri Spencer, Etta Lewis, Vincent Ladd, and Curtis Floyd. There was also a special tribute to Walter Dillard. The youth basketball program continues to be very popular. Participation by site Was: Casa Loma 30 Franklin 28 Franklin West 45 McKinley 45 Stella Hills 90 William Penn 60 PARKS Windsor Park is due to be completed in approximately one month. Stonecreek Park's 180-day maintenance period ends next month. Approximately 14,300 ft2 of streetscape was added to the division's inventory this month. Staff is currently investigating possible park sites for additional soccer lighting. Storm Cleanup: The cleanup from the first storm of the month continued. After staff finished assisting Public Works, they were able to concentrate on the parks. A combination of the debris from the storms and the continuing rain, prevented the typical mowing schedule. We have completed the park cleanup and have resumed mowing. The weather also affected weed eradication. The attached pictures show some of the damaged trees from the first storm. c: Citizens Community Services Advisory Committee John Stinson, Assistant City Manager Dolores Teubner, Assistant City Manager Division Staff Mike Doyle with the Facility Award (Kern River Parkway) Gregorio Herrera Outstanding Part-time Employee Linda McVicker winner of the Professional Award I Etta Lewis' niece accepts the Volunteer Award for Ms. Lewis BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM' RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR .~ DATE: MARCH 5, 1998 SUBJECT: SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF 1323 "L" STREET On March 4, 1998, our Street Superintendent contacted Mr. Stewart concerning his letter requesting sidewalk repair in front of his residence. Mr. Peralez explained to Mr. Stewart that weather conditions in February were not favorable to perform concrete repairs. Weather permitting next week City crews will commence with the sidewalk repair on "L". Street. Meanwhile, barricades have been placed in the sidewalk area. At the request of Councilmember Patricia DeMond, staff informed her of the action taken. G:\GROUPDA~Memo\ 1998\STWARD 1323 L.wpd Bakersfield City Council 1~01 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 March 3, 1998 RE: HAZARDOUS SIDEWALK Gentlemen: The city sidewalk fronting my residence at 1323 L Street is a stumbling hazard. I sent a letter to the Bakersfield Public Works Department November 27, 199~ (copy on file). The Public Works Department did not respond. i-r-egistered my concern in person at the Bakersfield Public .... Works Department June 26, 1997 at 9:00 am. My personal appearance and concern was ignored. I sent a letter to the Bakersfield City Council; City Attor- ney; City Manager; City Public Works; and Michael P. Dolan, Attorney at Law, December 29, 1997 (copy on file). Luis Perales, Bakersfield Street Superintendent, contacted me via telephone January 7, ]998 at 9:20 am. He said, "The sidewalk will be repaired sometime in February." He also said he will "Send someone to check it out for (temporary) repairs in the meantime." ?eb~uary has come and gone. Nothing has been done. I con- tinuously witness people stumble on the sidewalk. One can rest assured the sidewalk is "an accident waiting to happen." The likelihood of an eventual injury resulting in legal action cannot be ignored. With utmost sincerity, Walter E. Stewart Telephone (80~) 323-1721 1323 L Street Bakersfield, California 93~01-~908 ~ECEEVE~ cc: City Attorney 5' 1998 City Manager City Public Works PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Michael P. Dolan, Attorney at Law Enclosure: seven photographs ........ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC SIDEWALK 1323 L Street, Bakersfield, California 93301 March 1998 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC SIDEWALK 1323 L Street, Bakersfield, California 93.301 March 1998 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC SIDEWALK 1323 L Street, Bakersfield, California 93301 March 1998 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC SIDEWALK 1323 L Street, Bakersfield, C~lifornia 93301 March 1998