Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/26/99 BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM March 26, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR And CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. The American Public Works Association has named the Centennial Garden as Public Works Project of the Year. DeWayne Starnes of our Public Works Department submitted the nomination papers. It will be officially presented to the City in Denver in September. The selection was based on creative construction techniques, design/build, time frames, etc. Special thanks are due to DeWayne for his initiative in submitting our project. 2. Bakersfield was mentioned twice this week in the Los Angeles Times; once for our creative web page with Spanish translation and once in a "Things not in Context" tongue-in-cheek reference to the "Grand Canal" being in Bakersfield. 3. Paperwork is not yet finished, but it looks like we are down to five houses on Panorama. If you know interested parties, they should "get them while they last"! 4. The Condor games have been carried live on the Internet. Management Information Services advised me that up to 100 users have browsed, with 20 to 40 viewing the full game. It will be interesting to do other things, such as the Council meetings, to see how interest compares. 5. For the last few years, we were required to do two public hearings on our street landscape and park maintenance districts. A change in the law has reduced that back to one for this year. 6. During our informational effort to encourage citizens to annex, the City promised to provide sewer access to the 25 homeowners on Dennon Street. The sewer line is nearly constructed, and the residents have inquired about the exact cost and the process of connecting to the City sewer system. A status report, with historical information, is attached. Honorable Mayor and City Council March 26, 1999 Page 2 7. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: · Status report on the possibility of opening the west end of Shellabarger Road; · Response regarding citizen request for stoplight at Truxtun Avenue and Truxtun Avenue West. 8. Sonoma County has decided that enough is enough when it comes to the State of California shifting property tax dollars away from counties to fund schools. They have filed a lawsuit, which is expected to include 47 other counties, claiming that the annual tax shift has cost counties and cities $1 billion annually. At the same time, new services were shifted to local governments, which the suit claims is an unfunded mandate and must be fully reimbursed by the state. The news article is attached. 9. A request was forwarded to Councilmembers Salvaggio and Carson by a community collaborative, which included Clinica Sierra Vista and the Greenfield Union School District, asking that CDBG assistance and "seed" money be provided for a community center. Attached is a memo from EDCD listing the conversations that have taken place at staff level up to now. 10. A special meeting of the Old Town Kern PAC was held on March 23rd. A memo is enclosed from EDCD, with a more complete summary to follow. AT: rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM March 25, 1999 TO: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager FROM: Darnell Haynes, Assistant to the City Manage~~~ SUBJECT: Panama #12 Annexation - Sewers (Dennen Area) This memorandum is to provide a current status report on the Dennen area sewer project and the plan to assist homeowners to connect to the sewer system. During the course of the City's informational effort to encourage citizens to annex, the City promised to make sewer service available to 25 parcels on Dennen street at a cost of approximately $2,000 to $3,000. Now that the sewer is nearly constructed, the residents want to know the exact cost and begin the process of connecting to the City sewer system. For those residents that want to connect to the sewer system, I would recommend they pay the $1,750 connection fee and the cost of abandon their existing septic tanks. This proposal would mean the total cost to each homeowner would be no more than $2,750. This proposal would be consistent with the cost estimate the City included in the Borderline Newsletter distributed to the residents. The City could finance the sewer connection fee portion of the cost over a three year period with 2% interest for those residents that need assistance. The residents would be required to sign a payback agreement with the City which includes a report from a City approved title insurance company showing property owner owns said property. The residents would pay "out of pocket" the cost of abandoning their septic tank and connecting to city sewer because existing household plumbing and home location varies. Again, the residents have the option to voluntarily connect to the sewer system or continue using their septic tanks and avoid all costs. I am scheduling a meeting next week with Dennen area residents to discuss this proposal and the process to connect to the sewer system. Let me know if you have any concerns with this proposal so that I can bring closure to this project. cc: Alan Tandy S:\Darnell\Pan~ 12 sewers ..... I II IIII II II III II III III II I IIII IIIIIIII II s"sues o Dear Dennen Friends: By now, you have surdy had the opportunity to ' learn more about the advantages and beaeftts of joining th~ City of Bakersfield. I have spoken with , .. many of you'and hope I ha~ been able to convey. · 'j my sincere belial that becoming a pan of Bakersfield will be a positive move for the Dennen area. dl~td'l~$ FOg As it fellow Seaior citizon and a mobile home . owner, I can understand your concern about the costs and consequences of }oiai~g the City. The simple fact is thai bv bringing County islands into the Did You Know? ' · City and eliminating duplication ot: services with the County, the City can use existing tax dotlars more '. · A trip to the hospital, in the ve~ same ambutance dRciend¥. This tnable~ us to provide a wider variety can co~t twice ~ much if you live in thc Couaty? of services to the I)ennen a~ea such as relodar tragic j~re/~.e/~.~ City residents enjoy special rates nego~ted iust patrols, safe access to your neighborhood, scheduled for them. street sweeping and maintenance, plus recycling programs and mon~, · City seniors can qualify for 50% off on their Crash Joining rite City DOES NOT mean.higher rexes, hill, meaai~lg just $65 will pay for a whole year of The city does ant lure the legal right under the sue garbage semce, ~eet sweeping and green waste constitution m raise taxes. In fact, b)~ ~oining the collection! your tax bill will even go down a bit, since you will ,, Bakersfield's Police ~pazuaeat provides compre-, no longer pay County Se~ce Area assessments. Ul~iRcor~or~l~¢d hensive waflic enforcement to City neighborhoods.Joining the City DOES NOT mean mandatory hook- Tiffs includes speed enforcement and neighbor, up to city utilities. Your utilities, including water, hood safety patrols, You simply won't find this elecmcity and gas will s;ay the same a~d you can kind of service ~rom the County, decide as an individual homeowner whether you want to hook-up to the ci .ty's sewer services. The · Those Truck Route signs you. see posted around choice is yom's. town can help keep big rigs off your street. The Herein you'll nad my honest answers to many City enforces l;s designated truck rou~ and of the questions that are commonly asked about drivexs who lail to comply risk being cited, annexation. I hope you ~ke the time to review them A~'St~' · city citizenship can bring an end fo "Ruff" nights, before you make up your mind. If you should Local ordinances let us enforce noise regulationshave any other questions, please giveme a call at that ~im?]y don't e. xist ill the Cotlnty. Ual'king 85-[JhriTE. i look forw~ard to speaking with you{ dogs, blaring stereos ired other noise po{lution could quickly, fid~ if you opt for annexation. ', You can choose whether or not tO hook-lip to the Gty's sewer system. The city can insudl the e..atire system at once, yet only charge residents iheir Mayor Price - pro-raled share if they choose to {nan the system It you stay with a septic ~k, you won't be · .~ a ~ounty resident, you pay extra for school crossing guards on your tax bill whether you have kids who use them or not In the cily., crossing guards are included m the basic services provided :q,qT O Spring 1997 to all citizens. 03/09/i999 10:59 805-326-3278 85-UNITE PAGE 02 ds Mayor o/the City of Bakersfield, program, homeowners would pay about $1 ' I've In~ tbs pleasure of talking with local more per month. However seniors, who are residents, answering their questions and eligible for a 50% discount, will ~d that addressing their concerns over the last their rates can actually go down quite a blt! f~w months. What's more, ~ty services include regular Many of you probably bare similar street sweeping and green waL'te pick up.' so I'd like to take this From time to time, the City. also. tuns special ' to share my tlxntgbt$ pick ups for bulkT items such as mattresses wltb you. and appliances. As a City resident, ~ my ~a. What about on-Stree~ patkLng?Wlll that taxes go up? still be OK?. A. No, Propo ,o.., A. allowed, it will remain the same under City taxes'are the same whether'you are in the ~urlsdidton. The ol!l. ~ change would involve City or County. Your property taaes will ,large trucks parked on re~identiai au'eats. ' remain the same as they were under CountT The~ would be cited and fined for strain§ iurisdiction, la ~act, o~er parts'o{ your mx off designated truck routes. You .cmxently bill will go. down as a (;iF resident. If you do.not have this protection with the County. need..specific proof, send us your tax bill g-~ and we'll do the calculations and show you ~i~ Will I be charged maintenance fees by how.much ~0u can save by )olntng the City. 'the city? . ..... .. '. ~ for crossing gua~ls and ind~ic signals, Aa ' the City does not. There will be.no ex'wa Yes. you park there .... maintenance fees imposed unless:, as men_ lmmng the City will not change that. '.~L~* What about sewers? Will I have i0 hook- sewer system. . .. :: · .' · up and if so, how much will 1~ cost? " 0 ' ' "'~ '" ' ' ' ' '. Ng..*' What about water~' Will you.start A. . The~e is no requirement for'yoU to hook- [ . metering? _ ~ ~eighho~ choose to do ~o, typical costs ru~ '~' ~'* You will continue, to be ,erred by the between $2,000 and $5,000 pet home. / . same water company at the same. Fate. you · have no affect on:that Many paris.of the City Traffic on Panama Is a pain, HOw can the a~e On a flat.rate billJn8 structure~ There is Cit~.help ihere? .tm.reason from the City's potm of-dew that .. . ' . · ' '.: this should change .... : . . .. . Upcoming imptov~meats t° the freeway. . ! bops I have been' able to .a~ver interchange should solve most of the prob- 'lam. When complae, there will.be new traf- questWns that bays been on y~ntr mind. ac'signals a~ both ~n and.off./'amps, Th.e,? . · ~fnot, plsasej.~n, us.ot.a~ signals should provide a namral'"break in.' ' . neigbbor~' rtweting and:spook up. the traffic flow to let yon. get in and' out. A '... Betteryet, call us Wa'Il do our best to.'anvv~ evo~ question traffic study will also be done to assess the or find ~rneone' Who can! . need for a traffic signal on I)ennen and ' , Panama if Dennen joins the C,I~., .'. ,. ~~ Qa Let's talk trash. How ~11 garbage service ' "' //:' "'"i' "" . be affected? Ae There will be a few change~in this area, .. First off, instead of receiving a monthly bill, Bob Price you'll find an annual fee as a part of your . Mag~°r property tax smmment. Under the CityI .. ' · . .. ~..:.:.~..: ......'"~. AGREEMENT NO. AGREEMENT TO INSTALL AND NOTICE OF LIEN THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into on , by and between the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, a Charter city and municipal corporation, ("CITY" herein) and ,/."PROPERTY OWNER" herein). RECITALS WHEREAS, PROPERTY OWNER has applied to the Public Works Director for a determination of economic hardship; and WHEREAS, CITY has relied on information supplied by PROPERTY OWNER in determining whether or not PROPERTY OWNER will suffer economic hardship. NOW, THEREFORE, incorporating the foregoing recitals herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. LOCATION OF PROPERTY. PROPERTY OWNER owns a single family residence located at (Address) located within the city limits of the CITY. Exhibit "A" is a report from a CITY approved title insurance company showing PROPERTY OWNER owns said property. Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. 2. PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION. PROPERTY OWNER hereby requests, and CITY agrees to provide for, construction of on said property. 3. COST OF CONSTRUCTION. The cost for the above construction is __ Dollars ($. .), which is calculated as follows: 4. ECONOMIC HARDSHIP. PROPERTY OWNER represents that to pay the cost of construction in one payment would produce an economic hardship on PROPERTY OWNER. 5. MISREPRESENTATION. If PROPERTY OWNER has misrepresented PROPERTY OWNER's economic condition, in any way, CITY may cause the total cost of construction, plus interest, to become immediately due and payable. 6. PAYMENT. PROPERTY OWNER agrees to pay the cost of construction plus interest at the rate of__ percent ( %) for a total payment of Dollars ($.__.), and further agrees the total amount of construction costs, plus interest, -- Page 1 of 4 Pages -- shall be placed on PROPERTY OWNER's property tax bill to be paid in three (3) equal installments of Dollars ($.~) over a three (3) year period. 7. CONSENT FOR LIEN PLACEMENT ON PROPERTY. PROPERTY OWNER further agrees and consents to the CITY placing a lien on the above-property that will remain until such time PROPERTY OWNER pays off the total construction cost plus interest as set forth above. 8. LIEN TIMELINE. CITY will place the above-referenced lien on the above- property as soon as reasonably possible. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. PROPERTY OWNER agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless, CITY, its officers, agents and employees against any and all liability, claims, actions, causes of action or demands whatsoever against them, or any of them, before any administrative or judicial tribunals of any kind whatsoever, arising out of, connected with, or caused by PROPERTY OWNER, or PROPERTY OWNER's employees, agents, independent contracts, or companies in the performance of, or in any way arising from, the terms and provisions of this Agreement, whether or not cause in part by the party indemnified hereunder. 10. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK OR SERVICES. The acceptance of work or services, or payment for work or services, by CITY shall not constitute a waiver of any provisions of this Agreement. 11. ASSIGNMENT. The acceptance of work or services, or payment for work or services, by CITY shall not constitute a waiver of any provisions of this Agreement. 12. BINDING EFFECT. The rights and obligations of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties to the Agreement and their heirs, administrators, executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns. 13. EXECUTION. This Agreement is effective upon execution. It is the product of negotiation and all parties are equally responsible for authorship of this Agreement. Section 1654 of the California Civil Code shall not apply to the interpretation of this Agreement. 14. FORUM. Any lawsuit pertaining to any matter arising under, or growing out of, this Agreement shall be instituted in Kern County, California. 15. NEGATION OF PARTNERSHIP. CITY shall not become or be deemed a partner or joint venturer with PROPERTY OWNER or associate in any such' relationship with PROPERTY OWNER by reason of the provisions of this Agreement. PROPERTY OWNER shall not for any purpose be considered an agent, officer or employee of CITY. 16. NOTICES. All notices relative to this Agreement shall be given in writing and shall be personally served or sent by certified or registered mail and be effective upon S :~PROJECTS~ien~greement. wpd 2 of 4 -~ch24, ~999 -- rage rages -- actual personal service or depositing in the United States mail. The parties shall be addressed as follows, or at any other address designated by notice: CTTY: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California, 93301 PROPERTY OWNER: 17. REMEDIES. In addition to all of the remedies in law or equity which are available to CITY, in the event of PROPERTY OWNER's default CITY, at its option, shall be entitled to cause all installment payments to become immediately due and payable; and foreclose on any and all liens due and owing to CITY, including the sale of PROPERTY OWNER's property. PROPERTY OWNER shall pay all administrative fees and overhead costs incurred by CITY in the collection of any overdue amounts hereunder. The remedies provided in this paragraph are cumulative and are in addition to any other remedies in law or equity which may be available to CITY. The election of one or more remedies shall not bar the use of other remedies unless the circumstances make the remedies incompatible. 18. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. The failure of any party to enforce against another a provision of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of that party's right to enforce such a provision at a later time, and shall not serve to vary the terms of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed, the day and year first-above written. "CITY" "PROPERTY OWNER" APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: By: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT By: Address RAUL ROJAS Public Works Director Assessor's Parcel No. MORE SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE S :~ROJECTS~J. JcnLA40'ccmcnt.wpd --March24, 1999 -- Page 3 of 4 Pages -- APPROVED AS TO FORM: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY By:, COUNTERSIGNED: By: GREGORY J. KLIMKO Finance Director S :XPRO JECTS',LicnLa, grccmcnt.wpd 4 of 4 -~h24, ~999 -- rage rages -- BAKERSFIELD - CiTY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM FEBRUARY 7, 1997 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM'-~~.B. TEUBNER, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: DENNEN PLANNED SEWERAREA If everything goes according to schedule, Dennen will be officially annexed by ~ -2,~-, 1997. Therefore, we need to begin planning now for the sewer improvements which have been proposed for the Dennen area. Public Works has developed a proposal for a Planned Sewer Area for Dennen in which the City builds the sewer infrastructure and as residents voluntarily hook up to the system they will be assessed for their share of the cost of the infrastructure. This was a very satisfactory solution for residents who wanted sewer but did not want to be required to hook up right away if they could not afford it. Public Works has submitted the improvements as a CIP project for FY 97-98. In anticipation of the project, I will meet with the Finance Director to discuss the terms of the payback'by participating residents. Since they are mostly senior citizens on fixed incomes, it will be necessary to provide a fairly long payback period at either a very Iow or no interest rate. I wanted to let you know that we are proceeding with the development of the project. If you have any questions or wish to discuss this further, please let me know. cc: Jack LaRochelle Gregory Klimko .. ' .T;'Y I'v~ANAGE,'"4'S OFF! ". BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: MARCH 22, 1999 SUBJECT: KEEPING WEST END OF SHELLABARGER AVENUE CLOSED Council Referral Record #WF0018064 / 001 Councilmember Couch requested staff review and respond to letter written and petitions concerning opening the west end of Shellabarger Road. Contact Mr. Leonard Koch and Mr. Stuart Baugher to discuss the matter and set a date for a possible meeting wth necessary parties and Councilmember Couch. Senior Real Property Agent Donald M. Anderson met with Councilmember David Couch and Mr. Stuart Baugher on Monday, March 15, 1999. Additional background: On November 18, 1998, the Council granted an appeal brought by Telstar Engineering on Vesting Tentative Tract No. 5684. The condition concerning the intersection of Shellabarger Road and Pepita Way was revised by the Council to read "The subdivider shall match with existing pavement within the existing easement and install curb and gutter at Shellabarger Road and Pepita Way". This required negotiation with the underlying property owner of that referenced easement, with the possibility of eminent domain proceedings. Don Anderson, Senior Real Property Agent with the Finance Department has been negotiating with Mr. Koch, the owner of the property, and his representative, Mr. Stuart Baugher. Mr. Koch is not particularly interested in the offer for the easement only, which is what the Council authorized through its modification of the condition language. What he wishes for, instead, is the construction of a cul-de-sac at the end of Pepita Way and a closure of Shellabarger (with the installation of a crash gate for emergency fire uses at the end of Shellabarger to comply with the neighborhoods desire to keep Shellabarger closed). Unfortunately, because of the way the condition was re-written, the City cannot require the developer to pay for either the additional right-of-way involved with a cul-de-sac, or for its construction. Neither did the Council authorize the use of City funds to for either the right-of-way or construction. In light of this, we could consider the possibility of not proceeding with the right-of-way negotiations with Mr. Koch. Without this right-of-way, the connection of Pepita Way and Shellabarger Road would be only half width. Although not ideal, this would allow sufficient connection for emergency fire access. Because of the layout of Tract 5684, this connection has never been required to serve regular, non-emergency traffic either from or to the tract or Shellabarger Road, and the half width connection should adequately serve the needs of the area. G:\G ROU PDA1AReferrals\ShellabargerAvenueWF0018064.wpd RMR:rnps City of Bakersfield *REPRINT* n WORK REQUEST PAGE 1 ~REQ/JOB: WF0018064 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 3~01~99 " REQUEST DATE: 2/24/99 'CREW: TIME PRINTED: 9:50:01 SCHEDULE DATES ~LOCATION: ~'l'~u~'r: 2~24~99 COMPLETION: 3/08/99 GEN. LOC: WARD4 FACILITY NODES FROM: FACILITY ID: TO: REF NBR: CS 13. REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH REQUESTOR: REFERRAL - COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL USER ID: CVALFRE WORK TYPE: REFERRAL DESCRIPTION: KEEPING WEST END OF SHELLABARGER AVENUE CLOSED. CONTACT LEONARD KOCH & STUART BAUGHER Phone I 805 - 5893939 ( i ) 10931 SHELLABARGER RD. (KOCH) Phone 2 805 - 3996809( 2 ) 7305 LUCILLE AVE. (BAUGHER) BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312 & 93308 REQUEST COMMENTS ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS*** PLEASE REVIEW AND RESPOND TO ATTACHED LETTER WRITTEN AND PETITIONS CONCERNING OPENING THE WEST END OF SHELLABARGER ROAD. CONTACT MR. LEONARD KOCH AND MR. STUART BAUGHER TO DISCUSS THE MATTER AND SET A DATE FOR A POSSIBLE MEETING WITH NECESSARY PARTIES AND COUNCILMEMBER COUCH. ***DO NOT RESPOND TO REFERRAL NO. WF0018054'** Job Order Description: KEEPING WEST END OF SHELLABARGER AVENUE CLOSED. at~gory: PUBLIC WORKS asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS START DATE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE __/ February 22, 1999 Supervisor Barbara P~trick 3rd District Supervisor Kern County Board of Supervisors RE: KEEPING TI--[E WEST END OF SHELLABARGER AVENUE CLOSED · Dear Supervisor Patrick: Please pardon the lateness of this request, thus the urgency that it brings on behalf of the residents of Shellabarger Avenue. I received a call from Mr. Leonard Koch at 9:00 P.M., Friday, February 19, 1999. He discussed with methe problem he and the other residents on Shellabarger have been having with the Morland Developmem CompanY and the City of Bakersfield. A clear majority of residents on Shellabarger Avenue do not want this road opened on the west end. Why involve you and the other supervisors? The attached list of 66 signatures is gathered from 54 out of approximately 68 houses that are presently on Shellabarger Avenue. This equates to a 79% disapproval rate of the total residences. The remaining 14 residences either were not home or did not wish to become involved. The reason for the gathering of these signatures is to state that the people who reside on Shellabarger Avenue are opposed to the opening of the west end of Sheilabarger Avenue. The signatories have concerns with regards to the following: 1. Increased traffic flow through this quiet street due to the housing development to the west, which would jeopardize the safety of the numerous small children in the area. 2. Would compound the problem of the flow of traffic onto Calloway at the frontage road where thc traffic fi'om PaLm/Shcllabarger signal is to be installed. 3. In general, would disrupt the life style that they wanted, and hope to maintain, when they chose to reside in this area (peace and quiet). In the opinion of thc signatories, there is no problem with keeping the west end of this road closed as thc tract development has bccn laid out with two or three streets (collectors) that will interface with Palm on the North and Jewetta on thc West. Also, there is enough, road dedication within the development boundary, when coupled with a negotiated gracious grant of Mr. Koch's land, to accommodate a cul-de-sac turnaround, therefore there is no disruption to the development as originally planned. (See attached sketch) Landowner, Mr. Leonard Koch, whose property is currentlY' fi-onted by the southeast comer of the development, has stated that he would graciously grant a portion of his property (size of gracious grant to be negotiated) for inclusion into a cul-de-sac. For Mr. KOch's consideration, the residents of Shallabarger are grateful and thank him. It should be noted that the city-county boundary exists at the west end of the pavement of Shellabarger. Mr. Koch's property is within the city boundary. This letter and attachments are written and presented to you on behalf ofMr. Leonard Koch, 10931 Shellabarger. and the residents as notedon the attachment. If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please call either Mr. Koch or myself. Thank you in advance for your immediate consideration of this matter. It is especially critical because work has already begun in this area and the existing county road barricade has been knocked down. Sincerely, ~ Smart Baugher 10931 Shellabarger 7305 Lucille Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93312 Bakersfield, CA 93308 589-3939 399-6809 CC: David Couch, City Councilman 4th Ward, City of Bakersfield BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER~ FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/~~.~--~''' DATE: MARCH 25, 1999 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO LETTER FROM MARY NEUFELD, REQUESTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL FOR THE INTERSECTION OF TRUXTUN AT TRUXTUN PLAZA WEST. The intersection of Truxtun Avenue and Truxtun Plaza West is currently warranted for a traffic signal. The future project is not funded at this time. Background: The intersection of Truxtun and Truxtun Plaza West was analyzed by the Traffic Engineering Staff in January, 1997 and found to meet two of the eleven State of California warrants for placement of a traffic signal. The warrants that were met are based on volume during the peak hour and the lack of gaps in traffic to enter Truxtun Avenue. Only one accident had occurred during the previous 12 month period. Based on that study, the location was ranked 20 out of 36 locations warranting traffic signals, at that time. The location was again studied by the Traffic Engineer, in January 1999. The new study indicated that the intersection now met four out of eleven warrants for a traffic signal installation. All four are based on the volume of traffic on Truxtun Avenue. No accidents had occurred in the previous twelve months of the study or in the year 1998. One accident was reported to the Bakersfield Police Department on February 28, 1999. The list of warranted traffic signal locations was again updated. The intersection now ranks number eighteen out of thirty-four warranted traffic signal locations. As a comparison, the number one ranked intersection for a traffic signal is California at Owens Street, near Owens School. This location has about 10,000 cars a day on California and has had fifteen intersection accidents, eleven of which were injury type, in the past 3 years. The fifth ranked intersection is at Stockdale Highway and McDonald Way. This intersection has over 28,000 cars per day on Stockdale and eleven accidents, 6 of which were injury type, in the past 3 years. Truxtun at Truxtun Plaza West is ranked number eighteen. The volumes on Truxtun are similar to Stockdale with over 26,000 cars per day, but has had only three accidents in the past three years. The accident history can greatly affect the ranking of an intersection. Page 1 of 2 CITY MANAG~i~I'S Truxtun Avenue at Truxtun Plaza West was identified as a potential traffic signal location when development of adjacent parcels began about eighteen years ago. Because of the narrow right-of-way for the road, there are few opportunities for U-turns along Truxtun between Oak and Coffee. A traffic signal at this location will ease that inconvenience by making left turns out of Truxtun Plaza West a signal controlled movement. In Summary: The intersection of Truxtun Avenue at Truxtun Plaza West is warranted for traffic signals and the public would benefit from a traffic signal being installed. There are many other locations that warrant traffic signals and have a documented accident history more severe than this location. Those higher ranked, high accident, locations should also be considered for funding. slw: G:\G ROUPDA'lAReferrals\Tandy\Truxtun PlazaWest.wpd Page 2 of 2 l ~ March 18, 1999 ENGINEERING DEPT, Bakersfield City Council ] 50 ~ Tmxtun Avenue BakersQe]d CA. 93301 WHERE'S THE STOPLIGHT Dear City Council Where's the stoplight? WHERE IS THE DAMMED STOPLIGHT? You have created the most incredibly dangerous situation anyone could imagine at Truxtun Avenue and Truxtun Plaza. Someone is going to get killed there and my tax dollars will pay for an unbelievably high settlement. That makes me angry. If you wanted to keep Truxtun Avenue a speedway then you should NOT have allowed business buildings to be built along there. Of all the buildings possible you allowed the worst kind. A Cancer clinic. When one leaves a cancer clinic they are almost always shook up. Then they are expected to enter Truxtun speedway without the benefit of traffic control? Ha! Someone will get killed and the city will get sued big time. I wish they could sue each of you personally. When I lef~ the clinic with my mother at 5 PM I had to drive to the Automobile Club and make a U-tum in their lot in order to return to my home in Rosedale. What kind of planning is that? If you do not have a stop light in place at that location within the next 30 days I am going to write a letter to the insurance carrier for the City of Bakersfield and ask them to demand immediate action. Very truly yours, Distributed to: City Mgr_~ Mary E. Neufeld City Atty.. 11000 Polo Dr. Other ..~,~.~/Z~/,~;.~ Bakersfield, CA. 93312 ay City Clerk late ,.~- [ ~?-'~ County leads suit over lost tax dollars http://www.pressdemo.com/local/news/5305.html Local .... .............. (Home ' ~}i~ Coun leads suit over lost tax dollars Money shifted to schools since '92 M~. 18, 1999 By TOM CHO~EAU ~ [~I ii I~l.]il Press Democrat Staff Writer : In a case expected to have broad statewide rmifications, Sonoma County supe~isors on ........ Wednesday filed suit to stop the California ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Legislat~e ~om shiffing billions of doll,s of ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~ ~ prope~y tax revenue from counties ~d cities '~ERI~I : ~ ~ to schools. ?h~ ]~su~t, which ~s ex~e~ted to ~ ~o~ned ~ ~y~ur borne the coming weeks by 47 other co,ties, ?m~any ~gues that the ~ual t~ shift has cost co,ties ~d cities ne~ly $1 billion ~ually. The new costs, co~ty a~omeys claim, represent a new m~date on co,ties to provide more se~ices, which by law must be ~lly reimb~sed by the state. "Under the law, it is the state ~d not the co,ties that must hnd the schools," said Sonoma Coumy Co~sel Stephen Woodside. "But a sizable potion of the state's obligation to schools has been, shined to the counties. Because of that shffi, the state is also obligmed ~der state law to reimburse co,ties doll~-for-doll~." The issue dates back to the recession of the early 1990s, when state gove~ent faced budget deficits of up to $14 billion a ye~. One of the major reasons for the state's shoafall was the necessity to hnd schools. To solve the problem, the Legislat~e and Gov. Pete Wilson in 1992 enacted a series of se~ice cms ~d layoffs ~d gave the schools more th~ $3 billion in property t~es that no,ally would have gone to co~ty ~d city gove~ents. To soRen the hit on local gove~ent, state la~ers also placed a half-cent sales t~ on the ballot that would proVide cities ~d 1 of 3 3/24/99 12:44 PM County leads suit over lost tax dollars http://www.pressdemo.com/local/news/5305.html counties a new source of revenue for police and public safety programs. Although voters approved the sales tax measure in 1993 and the Legislature enacted several other programs aimed at helping local government, city and county officials continue to complain that they remain short-changed under the program. For example, Sonoma County officials say that under the old property tax collection system, they would have received an average of $35 million for services and programs. Instead, they say, they receive only about $25 million in sales tax and other state money, leaving them a shortfall of $10 million a year. Sandy Harrison, spokesman for the state Department of Finance, one of the agencies named in the suit, said that while the counties may be losing in the transaction, there is no extra money available to make them whole. "This governor has made it clear his first priority is education," said Harrison. "While there may be some sympathy for local '- government, there just isn't the money available to pay for everything needed." Harrison noted the same arguments were raised last year by Sonoma County in a claim raised before the state commission responsible for resolving funding disputes between state and local agencies. The county lost that claim. "We think the law is on our side," Harrison said. A spokesman for state Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin said her office had not yet seen the lawsuit and could not comment. Although 47 counties are expected to join Woodside in the lawsuit, 13 counties actually come out better under the new funding system than the old one, according to a report by the non-partisan Califomia Legislative Analyst. The report also found, however, that the remaining counties can expect to lose from $1 million to more than $50 million this fiscal year because of the shift. Pat Leary of the California State Association of Counties estimated that since the transfer began in 1992, counties collectively have lost 2 of 3 3/24/99 12:44 PM County leads suit over lost tax dollars http://www.pressdemo.com/local/news/5305.html more than $7 billion. Assemblywoman Pat Wiggins, D-Santa Rosa, a member of the Santa Rosa City Council before her election last fall, said she supports the move by Sonoma County supervisors. "I can totally understand why they've decided to sue," she said. "It is a very difficult problem for local government." Wiggins said she will look to introduce legislation to help resolve the issue. She said she already has a bill pending that will save Sonoma County $1 million in the property transfer process. © 1998 The Press Democrat 3 of 3 3/24/99 12:44 PM BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM February 24, 1999 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager .lake Wager, Economic Development Director FROM' George Gonzale munity Development Coodinator SUBJECT: Greenfield Union School District (GUSD) Request for CDBG Funds. In a letter dated February 16, 1999, to Councilmember Carson and Councilmember Salvaggio, the Greenfield Union School District, in conjunction with the Superintendent of Schools, Clinica Sierra Vista, and the Greenfield Baseball Association, submitted a joint request for "left over" and unspent CDBG funds. Their request was for "seed" money to bring a cohesive structure to their collaboration. A similar request was made by the collaborative in a letter dated February 1, 1999, to both the City and County Community Development Departments. By way of background, as early as May 28, 1998 the Economic Development Director met with James Goodgame, Superintendent GUSD to discuss CDBG funds for a community center for FY 99/00. A second meeting was held October 7, 1998 with Mr. Goodgame and two assistant superintendents with the Community Development staff to discuss the timing for the submission of an application to meet the November 24, 1998 City deadline. Community Development staff also provided suggestions on how GUSD's application could be improved for funding in FY 99/00. Soon after that meeting, Community Development was informed by GUSD that they would not be submitting an application in FY 99, but would wait until the following year. On February 9, 1999, in response to the February 1, 1999 letter, staff contacted Gary Rice, Greenfield's Assistant Superintendent of Business to talk about their request. Mr. Rice was informed that the City had already identified available CDBG Funds and an amendment was underway to reallocate those funds' to new activities. He was also informed that it has been the City's practice to assist agencies in "brick and mortar" projects and not planning or feasibility studies. It was exPlained to Mr. Rice that the City would consider funding the "gap" to make the project feasible. Mr. Rice was told of the City's annual CDBG funding cycle and November's deadline for proposals. Mr Rice seemed to understand the process and indicated that they would submit a public facilities application for FY 2000/01. Mr. Rice indicated that a meeting with the City and the County was not necessary at this time. dlk:P:\GEORGE\greefield req cdbg funds.mern Bill Mungary, Kern County Community Developmem Department Director indicated that the County did not have "available" CDBG funds, nor does the County, as a rule provide administrative (planning) funds-for feasibility studies or preliminary design of projects. We will continue to provide technical support to the Greenfield group in assisting them towards achievement of their goal. dlk:P:\GEORGE\greefield rcq cdbg funds.mem BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM March 24, 1999 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager . (~[~) FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directo'r,~.~.~ SUBJECT: Special Meeting of Old Town Kern-Pioneer PAC, March 23 A special meeting was convened for Project Area Committee (PAC) of Old Town Kern-Pioneer on Tuesday, March 23 (no meeting was scheduled for the Southeast Bakersfield PAC). The agenda covered the following item: Adoption of the Draft Redevelopment Plan for the Old Town Kern-Pioneer Redevelopment Area with recommended changes. PAC chair Jerry Randall called the meeting to order at 6:35 PM. All but two members of the PAC were present. One member of the public was also in attendance. After roll call Mr. Randall proceeded to the single agenda item. Two additional items were proposed for inclusion in the plan. The first concerned the historic and cultural resources within the project area and the agency's sensitivity to its preservation where practical and feasible. Language was also proposed which focused on the use of housing set aside funds from the Downtown Project Area should the need arise. The housing set aside reference was similar to that proposed and approved by the Southeast PAC at its March 11 meeting. A motion was then made by Mr. Cohen, seconded by Ms. Warren: "To make a recommendation to the City Council and Agency for the adoption of the Draft Redevelopment Plan as drafted for the Old Town Kern-Pioneer Redevelopment Project Area with the proposed historic preservation and housing language additions." The motion passed by a unanimous roll call vote. A more complete summary of the meeting is being prepared and will follow. S:\REDVAREA\OTK-P PAC meeting 3-23 update memo.wpd