Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/99 BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM May 28, 1999 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Nell Diamond sold out in one day. 2. I will be off on vacation from June 11th through June 15th. During my absence, John Stinson will be in charge. 3. The Civil Service process for the Police Chief selection is now complete. Interviews and selection are scheduled for next week. 4. A status report on the plans for the New Year's Eve event, "First Night Bakersfield 2000" is enclosed. 5. Responses to questions from the May 24th budget hearing are enclosed. 6. The Panorama house sale countdown is at one remaining! 7. We are pursuing the suite catering problems at the Garden with the highest Food and Beverage official of Ogden on the west coast. This is a resolvable issue - we will get their attention. AT: rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst B A K E R S F I E L D Economic and Co--unity Development Depa~ment May 20, 1999 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direc SUBJECT: First Night Bakersfield 2000 Update Mayor Bob Price hosted a breakfast this week to inform some of the community's leaders about First Night Bakersfield and to solicit their support. Those in attendance included Mark Bagby (CALCOT, Ltd.), Kelly Blanton (Kern County Superintendent of Schools), Dwight Byrum (Bakersfield Pipe and Supply), Nick Darling (Spanish Radio Group), David Gay (Dean Gay Enterprises), Ed Hickman (Bank of Stockdale), Dana Nichols (Bakersfield Envelope & Printing), Cynthia Pollard (Cynthia Pollard Communications), and Mary K. Shell (Harper & Shell). After a video and presentation by staff and representatives of the Arts Council of Kern, the Mayor explained how those in attendance could become involved in the First Night effort through financial support, as well as participation on various committees. He also asked if they would lend their names to a letterhead through which First Night Bakersfield could demonstrate community support for the celebration. The response was enthusiastic. While most took their response forms with them to complete later, staff and the Mayor received verbal assurances of broad-based support. Several invited guests who could not attend have also expressed support and will be contacted again shortly. First Night Bakersfield has been busy on other fronts as well. Outreach into the community was kicked off at the Cinco de Mayo parade and street faire. Staff and volunteers handed out flyers and helped children make "shakers" out of empty water bottles donated by the Water Resources Department, then partially filled with dried beans. A "What are You Doing New Year's Eve?" sticker was then applied. The children loved them and the parents were very interested in the celebration plans. The committee will be at all of this year's Street Faires as well as other community events. The first highly visible exposure First Night is getting can be seen on the "big board" outside the Centennial Garden where the message is periodically flashed asking "What are You Doing P:\First Night\ 1 st Night mem at3.wpd First Night Bakersfield Update Alan Tandy May 19, 1999 Page 2 New Year's Eve?" Additionally, Jim Foss is planning to run the First Night video on the internal screens during intermission of Elton John and future events as well. Staff is working closely with the Garden's marketing team to coordinate compatible marketing opportunities. The Steering Committee is growing, with membership assigned to various sub-committees. Representatives from each sub-committee meet monthly to report on their progress and to coordinate the various aspects of the event. After the staff presentation to the Department Heads last week, the Recreation and Parks Department and Fire Department each expressed interest in assisting with planning and logistics. A second presentation was made to the Recreation and Parks Department to inform the management team and encourage their participation. Staff is available for similar presentations to other departments or interested groups. We will keep you informed as plans continue to mature and milestones occur. P:\First Night\l st Night mem at3.wpd FY 1999~00 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES Date: _May 28, 1999 Question Response Councilmember May 24 No. 1' Can we improve security at Yokuts Park by The Police Department has indicated they will be increasing bike cleaning out brush and shrubs around the park area patrols and installing a monitoring system. Parks staff will be trimming Mayor Price and river banks? and cleaning out some of the vegetation in the area. No. 2: Is the band shell at Jefferson Park still The stage area was replaced years ago with a picnic shelter, and functional and can we have concerts there? does not seem suitable for use as a stage. However, the lack of a DeMond formal stage or amphitheater does not prevent this or any park from being a suitable site for a concert. Staff will determine the suitability of the park as a venue for this type of event by evaluating electrical capacity, traffic and parking, and compliance with City dode regarding amplified sound, etc. No. 3: When can the feasibility study of a park patrol Attached is a memo from John Stinson regarding this issue which be completed and can we make sure there is public recommends the establishment of a park patrol pilot program. This Couch input? item will be included as part of the proposed changes to the budget for further Council consideration. No. 4: Has any thought been given to rotating multi- The program was intended to introduce citizens to a variety of cultural events to various City parks? cultures. The primary focus was to take a culture and its traditions to Carson the people to a location that was centralized, easily accessible and provided such amenities as a stage. The department does offer other programs that were purPosely designed to be held at locations throughout the City, such as the children's carnivals. No. 5: What plans do Recreation and Parks have to Attached is a memo providing background on this issue. Staff has get more involved and assist with the Good Neighbor asked the organizing committee to identify their needs to determine Carson Festival? what further City assistance is required. There is a continued commitment to provide the park as well as staff to assist with site operations. No. 6: Can staff look at the rotation and addition of Staff has a plan to add six additional concerts that will provide this concerts to other park sites in the northeast and opportunity in each council ward. The plan has an estimated cost of Maggard southeast areas of the City? $1,000 per event for a total cost of $6,000. If approved, concerts would be held in September and October 1999. This item will be included as part of the proposed changes to the budget for further Council consideration. No. 7: Do we need dedicated police patrol on the Beginning in June 1999 a park patrol overtime program will begin. In Kern River Parkway and what is the status of police addition to the authorized overtime positions the department will Salvaggio patrol in the area now? explore utilizing bike patrols and specialized units in identified problem areas. In addition, regular district cars will be instructed to give particular attention to city parks in their respective districts during the busy summer months. No. 8: How can we investigate ways to expand Preliminary review indicates the possibility for the addition of Yokuts Park and the park green belt areas, with input approximately ten acres of turf area. This area would be a . Rowles from involved groups? continuation to the west of the existing grass area. Access and parking appear to be issues that must be resolved, as well as funding. Staff will also need to discuss any proposed modifications within the parkway with the Kern River Foundation as well as other interested parties. No. 9: What can be done to get the Kern River This agreement was reviewed by the City of Bakersfield Water Board Parkway Flow Agreement with the Kern County February 17, 1999. Kern County Water Agency staff has indicated a Salvaggio Water Agency implemented? meeting with City staff is needed to work out the final details of the agreement before it will be forwarded to the KCWA Board. City staff has repeatedly expressed willingness to discuss this, and is currently waiting for notification of this meeting. City staff will actively pursue meeting with KCWA to finalize the agreement. A progress report to the City Water Board will be made at the June 1999 scheduled meeting. No. 10: What is the total number of signalized Presently, there are 250 intersection signals with two more to be intersections and how many signals are located at completed with FY 98-99 monies. 42 signals are located at major Mayor Price major intersections? intersections No. 11: Can the City use the additional ISTEA funds One of the qualifications required for a project to be funded with to upgrade the traffic signals on Chester Avenue at ISTEA funds (CMAQ fund) is that an air quality benefit is derived from DeMond 23rd and 24th Streets? the project. This is demonstrated with new'signals by eliminating a stop sign, but not by an upgrade project such as Chester Avenue at 23rd and 24~ Streets. City and Caltrans staffs have met repeatedly to discuss options. It was determined that the City would participate 50% in the project, with hopes for execution of a cooperative agreement in July to begin design. Then, either an appropriation, or FY 2000-01 budget request using Gas Tax Funds would be necessary to provide funds for the City's share of the project. No. 12: What is the most critical position that is The most critical position is in the area of construction inspection, needed in the Public Works Department in place of especially for developer-related projects. The current goal is to Salvaggio the Ombudsman request? schedule inspections within 24 hours of the request. The average time currently now ranges from one to two weeks, and is due not only to increased development activity, but also the shear size of the City requires extended travel time resulting in less inspection time. This item will be included as part of the proposed changes to the budget for further Council consideration. No. 13: Does the intersection at 8th and "T" Street Currently, this intersection does not meet any warrants for a four-way warrant a four way stop sign? What is the status? stop control. Although the accident history is excellent, staff will Carson continue to monitor and re-evaluate the intersection for any substantial changes to traffic in the area. The current status is a through street with "T" Street stopping at 8th Street. No changes are proposed at this time. No. 14: Is there one central City telephone number in The main telephone number for the Public Works Department is 326- your department that the public can call and a person 3724, which is answered from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm Monday through always answers inquiries rather than being Friday. In the event, voice mail is reached for any employee, and the Carson transferred to an answering machine? need is to speak to someone right away, staff has ways to reach these people besides their main number. 3 No. 15: Are there other revenue sources that could Attached is a memo from Public Works detailing possible revenue be used to fund refuse operations other than the sources and options the staff would recommend if the rate increase is proposed Refuse rate increase? What are options not approved. This item will be included as part of the proposed Carson staff would recommend if the rate increase is not changes to the budget for further Council consideration. approved, and other options available to the Council? No. 16: Could the sewer connection fee be frozen at The City Attomey's office indicates that freezing the fees would most $1,750 for the Palm/Olive areas until the de- likely be violative of the equal protection clause of the State annexation election outcome is known? Were there constitution. Both this office and that of the City Manager have Couch any commitments made to freeze rates for the · researched files and found no evidence any commitment was made to Palm/Olive area? freeze rates. Only occasional informational inquiries from residents of the Palm-Olives areas have been received asking how their neighborhoods might receive sewer service, and in each no one has indicated any expectation of a frozen sewer connection rate. No. 17: What can be done'to address the problem of Prior studies have indicated that posting a street sweeping schedule is parked cars blocking the City street sweepers and the answer, to implement such a program would be costly. Residents preventing them from effectively cleaning the street also do not like the signs on their streets or the resulting citations. DeMond curb areas? Staff will be experimenting with the sweeping schedules of two streets, and will report to Council on the merits of the program within six months. No. 18: Would staff provide a copy of the A copy of the memo is enclosed. Also included is a status report from memorandum from Alan Tandy which outlines the the Finance Director summarizing the sources and uses of revenues cost of the landfill closure and funding alternatives? resulting from the home sales on Panorama Drive. Rowles No. 19: Would staff prepare a financing or funding The City's 55% share of the landfill closure cost is estimated to be plan and a time line for setting money aside to fund between $4,950,000 and $7,150,000. The City would plan to finance the City's share of the landfill closure project costs? the project cost through a revenue bond or other debt instrument once Maggard the cost and the timing of fund requirements are confirmed. Attached is a memo from the Solid Waste Director assuming twenty year debt retirement and explaining the increase in refuse rates required to pay the debt. 4 No. 20: Do we follow up on housing rehabilitation Attached is a memo from the Community Development Coordinator loans to make sure the property continues to be detailing loan requirements, and the responsibilities of the City. To maintained? date, staff has pursued foreclosures on the maintenance provision Mayor Price detailed in the loan agreement only in extreme cases. To further assure compliance, staff will begin to randomly select 10 rehabilitation loan recipients every month and monitor the conditions of the dwelling in conformance with the agreement. In addition, by December 1999, staff will prepare a handbook for all rehabilitation loan recipients which will provide tips on how they can maintain and make repairs on their own homes. DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: May 28, 1999 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks SUBJECT: Responses to Budget Presentation Questions 1. Can we improve security at Yokuts Park by cleaning out brush and shrubs around the park area and river banks? (Mayor Price) The department will be trimming and cleaning out some of the vegetation in the area. Staffwill be meeting with representatives from the Kern River Foundation to discuss the removal of approximately ten plants that appear to be the source of much of the concern. We will also discuss with them the options for replacement plants in order to preserve the delicate balance of the riparian habitat. 2. Is the band shell at Jefferson Park still fUnctional and can we have concerts there? (Councilmember DeMond) The stage area of the amphitheater was replaced years ago with a picnic shelter. Staff does not believe that this new configuration is suitable for use as a stage. However, the lack of a formal stage or amphitheater does not prevent this or any park from being a suitable site for a concert. We must also determine the suitability of the park as a venue for this type of event by evaluating electrical capacity, traffic and parking issues, compliance with city code regarding amplified sound, etc. 3. When can the feasibility study of a park patrol be completed, and can we make sure there is public input? (Councilmember Couch) I met with John Stinson and Chief Brummer regarding possible solutions and John has prepared our response as a separate memorandum. 4. Has any thoughts been given to rotating multi-cultural events to various city parks? (Councilmember Carson) When staff designed this program there was discussion about the merits of rotating the program throughout the city versus having a consistent site. It was determined that rotating events would be in conflict with the mission and goals of this program. Specifically, the program was intended to introduce the citizens to a variety of cultures and create a tradition for the program much like the one that has been created with the concerts at Beale Park. The primary focus was to take a culture and its traditions to the people in a pleasant and enjoyable setting that enhanced the experience. It was determined that the single best site for these events was Jastro Park given its central location within the city, accessibility and visibility from Truxtun Avenue, size, and amenities such as the stage. The department does offer other programs that were purposely designed to be held at locations throughoutthe city such as the children's carnivals. These events have been very successful and we will continue to provide this opportunitythroughoutthe city. 5. What plans does Recreation and Parks have to get more involved and assist with the Good Neighbor Festival? (Councilmember Carson) Some background information may be helpful for the newest members of the council. The departmentwas told that this event was originally launched by ED/CD as a project of Vista volunteers, eleven of whom worked to coordinate the event for its first four years. We also understand that it was always the intent that this event would become a community event; without significant city support. After the end of the Vista project, ED/CD stated that their entire staff was involved full-time in organizing efforts in the weeks preceding the Good Neighbor Festival. Because the intent was for the city not to have a direct role in the event, the department did not make any plans to get involved at a level beyond our current involvement. Council policy has been to assist with the initial planning and operations of activities such as this, and then to reduce city involvement and encourage increasing community involvement, with the ultimate goal of community "ownership" and self reliance. Department staff did meet with representatives of the events organizing committee to try to clarify our role and help eliminate some pre-existing problems. We understood that the biggest problem that occurred last year was a date conflict with the Bakersfield Business Conference. This conflict created sponsorship problems for the Good Neighbor Festival, as well as requiring city staffto support the Mayor's tent at the conference. We have asked the organizing committee to identify their needs to determine if we can assist without creating a precedent that would create future difficulty for the city. We have also committed to providing the park, as in years past, as well as staff to assist with site operations. Once we receive a response we can better determine their needs as well as make a recommendation for future involvement. 6. Can staff look at the rotation and addition of concerts to other park sites in the northeast and southeast areas of the city? (Councilmember Maggard) Staff will evaluate opportunities for these events throughout the city. Previous sites have been selected based on history, centrality, popularity, and resource capacity (e.g. electrical power, parking, etc.). Also, city code currently permits amplified sound to five parks. We have proposed a plan to add six additional concerts that will provide this opportunity in all council wards. This plan has an estimated cost of $1,000 per event with a total of $6,000 for the additional concerts. If approved, concerts would be held in September and October, 1999. 7. How can we investigateways to expand Yokuts Park and the park green belt areas, with input from involved groups? (Councilmember Rowles) Staff will evaluate any opportunity to expand the park and green belt area. Preliminary review indicates the possibility for the addition of approximately ten acres of turf area. This area would be a continuation, to the west, of the existing grass area. Access and parking appear to be issues that must be resolved, as well as funding. Staff will also need to discuss any proposed modifications within the parkway with the Kern River Foundation as well as other interested parties. Also, we would need to review the Kern River Parkway Plan to ensure that any changes would be consistent with the provisions and elements of the plan. BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM May 28, 1999 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: John W. Stinso~,~sistan~ City Manager SUBJECT: Park Patrol In response to the comments made by Councilmembers at the recent budget workshop regarding the need to address security concerns in city parks and along the Kern River Parkway, I conducted a meeting with Stan Ford, Steve Brmnmer and Bill Rector to discuss alternatives to improve park security. We discussed the existing efforts by the Police Department to provide additional patrol to parks throughout the City using overtime and the bike patrol along the Kern River Parkway. The Police Department intends to continue a focused but limited park patrol effort using overtime and will be evaluating continuing bike patrol and other focused enforcement efforts related to the parks. A concern with use of sworn officers to perform park patrol is the likelihood they will get called away from their park patrol duties to handle more pressing and serious law enforcement calls. The North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District has a successful park patrol program that uses civilian (unarmed) personnel to patrol their parks and deal directly with the public to resolve minor conflicts in their parks such as picnic area / ball diamond reservation disputes etc. They also make sure park buildings and facilities are secure. They have one full-time security employee and the remaining staff are part-time. They generally have two employees per day on duty with one covering district parks east of Highway 99 and one covering district parks west of Highway 99. The park patrol employees drive white marked vehicles identified as "Park Patrol". North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District Staff indicated that the park patrol employees role is to provide a district presence after hours when parks are used and to interact with park users in a positive manner. They will call law enforcement personnel (City Police, County Sheriff or California Highway Patrol depending on jurisdiction) for assistance if they identify criminal activity or have other safety concerns. There are several altematives available for the City to consider in developing a park security program. SSJOHN~ark Patrol.wpd 1) Utilize reserve police officers, adult police cadets or temporary transportation officers as temporary (unarmed) park patrol employees. These individuals would be trained in the basics of law enforcement and could bc used as nccdcd on a seasonal basis. The cost would be more reasonable than using sworn officers. These individuals typically have been through background checks and have been screened by the Police Department. The program could be started relatively quickly since some of these individuals are current temporary employees. They could use existing park vehicles (pick-up trucks) in the evening and weekends that are available after park crews are off duty. Another option would be to utilized surplus police vehicles painted white and identified as "Park Patrol" similar to those used by North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District. Advantages of this option include a familiarity with city police procedures, city ordinances and regulations and communications systems. They would also gain public contact experience and skills. Additional experience gained by these individuals would be helpful should they pursue a career with the Police Department. The cost for this type of program would vary depending on the number of staff and coverage desired. 2) Increase overtime for existing police officers to increase city-wide park patrol. A concern with this option is the long-term ability to commit these valuable police resources to park patrol efforts given more pressing public safety demands. This option would also tend to be more expensive on an hour for hour basis compared to other alternatives. 3) Hire temporary civilian personnel to serve as park patrol staff. These individuals would most likely be individuals that may have some limited training in basic law enforcement such as law enforcement students or other untrained individuals who would require additional training. The concern with this option is the level of training required and possible turn-over due to the use of students. This could be more cost effective due to a potentially lower cost than if reserve officers or temporary transportation officers were used. However, there could be recruitment issues at a lower pay level. 4) Hire a private security firm. This would likely be a more expensive option (we have not been able to fully evaluate the costs of this option due to time constraints) and there would not be an identification of these individuals with the city. The city would have less control over the selection of patrol employees under this option. Staff is recommending that a pilot "Park Patrol" program be implemented on a limited basis for a base period from July through September 1999 and for a more limited focused patrol of potential problem areas such as Yokuts Park or special events after that period. The base program would provide 8 "Park Patrol" employees from 6:00 to 11:00 p.m. weekdays and 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. weekends and would use Police Cadets or Reserve Police Officers hired as temporary employees at the Police Cadet pay level. The pilot program would cost approximately $50,000 and includes personnel, vehicle .and other operational costs. Staff would evaluate the program and make recommendations regarding its effectiveness as part of the F.Y 2000-2001 budget process. S:~lOHN~ark Patrol.wpd MEMORANDUM ~ May 28, 1999 FROM: Flora Cofe,'Wqater Resources Director 'SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 1999/00 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTION The following is in response to City Council questions from the Water Resources Department budget hearing on Monday May 24, 1999: Question - What can be done to get the Kern River Parkway Flow Agreement with the Kern County Water · Agency implemented? (Salvaggio) Response - The draft of the Kern River Parkway Water Supply Management Agreement between the City and the Kern County Water Agency (KCWA) was reviewed by the City of Bakersfield Water Board at its February 17, 1999 meeting. Subsequently, the agreement was transmitted to the KCWA for their review and consideration. The KCWA staffhas generally agreed with the causes and operational aspects of the agreement, but as of this date has not forwarded the agreement to the KCWA Board. The KCWA staff has indicated a meeting with City staff is needed to work out the final details of the agreement. City staffhas repeatedly requested meetings to do so. City staff will actively pursue meeting with KCWA to finalize the agreement. A progress report to the City Water Board will be made at the June 1999 scheduled meeting. In anticipation of approving the Parkway Water Supply Agreement, KCWA is cooperating with the City in implementing an arrangement for the 1999 Memorial Day weekend, of providing greatly increased State Water Project flows through the Kern River Parkway. A similar arrangement is being planned for the 1999 July 4th weekend holiday. These increased river flows during the recreation season are the result of operational cooperation to be expected when the Parkway Water Supply Agreement is formally approved. Given the 1999 Kern River yield to the City of Bakersfield being well below normal, this type of enhanced river flow from City operations would not be possible. S:\ 1999memos~BudgetworkQuestions.wpd BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM -CONFIDENTIAL- October 9, 1998 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR-AND CITY CO~NC~L FROM: ALAN .T,~I~DY~' (~iTY.MA. NAMER _ ~i.K [ SUBJECT: SALE OF PANORAMA HOMES AND POTENTIAL USE OF MONEY FOR LANDFILL CLOSURE This is in response to a Council referral. The issues surrounding the subject are as follows: potential Funds and Obligations a) Funds received, to date, from Sale of six homes: $ 947,692 ~'"- Previous commitments on these funds: Arena (1,000,000) Transfer to sanitation in lieu of rate increase (300,000) Balance needed to cover obligations $ 352,308 '" Estimated value of remaining homes: $ 1,400,000+ Balance of potential available after meeting obligations $ 1.047.692 b) Proceeds from litigation (possible only, not earneci) $1,400,00'0 - $3,400,000 --' ~ c) Original sources of home purchase General Fund $ 2,000,000 Self Insurance Fund $ 1,200,000 i Honorable Mayor and City Council Confidential October 9, 1998 Page 2 d) Original source of home purchases General Fund $ 2,000,000 Less amount paid back (to arena) - 1.000.000 Balance due General Fund . $1,000,000 Facility Replacement Reserve Self Insurance Fund $1,200,000 Less $300,000 Sanitation $ 300,000 Balance due Self Insurance Fund $ 900,000 e) Projected revenues after Pay Backs Revenues Sale of Homes $1,047,692 Litigation potential $1,400,000 - $3,400.000 Total $ 2,447,692 - $4,447,692 Less Repayments General Fund $1,000,000- $1,000,000 Self Insurance $ 9.000.00(Y'- $ 900.000 Balance Possibly Available $ 547,692 - $2,452,308 f) Areas of Demand for Funds 1) Landfill closure $3.3 - $5.0 million (Needed by approximately 2001 or 2002) Alternate source - sanitation fund 2) Cash basis reserve - needs to be increased up to $2.0 million to cover periodic cash flow shortages and to enhance financials for future debt issuance. prefer orrow. Honorable Mayor and City Council Confidential October 9, 1998 Page 3 4) G_ _~~n sp o rt~tioh-~ev~t~nt fe~f--~ ~offee~itigation. ~d~/e4he amount of road work being d~/o~n futu~ears. Summary_ Staff would suggest that we delay m~king a final decision at this time, for the following reasons: First, the homes sold quickly, at the beginning, but it has now gotten very slow, and we do not know when sales will occur. The litigation is even more speculative .as .to whether it will be realized and, particularly, when. Second, we should repay the fUnds that originally paid out the money first, then deal with other priorities. Third, we have other financial priorities that have a more immediate time frame than the 2001 or 2002 of the landfill closure. Fourth, the landfill closure is properly a Sanitation Fund-enterprise function and paying for it from rates is appropriate. Nothing stated here says it absolutely should not be used for this purpose. It is certainly legal to do so. Repaying the sources that originally laid out money should be the next priority after existing obligations. Beyond that, the matter can be kept open for a later decision. AT:rs BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM May 27, 1999 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR//~~~ SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 1999100 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES 1. What is the total number of signalized intersections and how many signals are located at major intersections? (Mayor Price) Response: Presently, there are 250 intersection signals maintained by the City with 2 more to be completed with FY 1998-99 monies. Breakdown by class of major intersection is as follows: Street Pending Built Class No. No. Arterial-Arterial 1 42 Arterial-Collector 1 78 Collector-Collector 18 Total 21 3S{ The 2 pending intersection signals that are nearing construction are: Buena Vista Road/White Lane (Arterial-Arterial) College Avenue/Fairfax Road (Arterial-Collector) The remaining 112 signalized locations are at intersections of a local street and a major street or a shopping center entrance and a major street. G:\GROUPDATXMemo~ 1999~Budget Workshop Quesfions-Responses.wpd 2. Can the City use the additional ISTEA funds to upgrade the traffic signals on Chester Avenue at 23rd and 24~ Streets? (DeMond) Response: Unfortunately no. One of the justifications required for a project to be funded with ISTEA funds (CMAQ funds) is that an air quality benefit is derived from the project; something that can be demonstrated with new signals (eliminating a stop sign), but could not with an upgrade project. However, additional developments have recently occurred regarding these signal upgrade projects. Earlier this Spring, Engineering Division staff had a meeting with Caltrans at their offices in Fresno regarding signal modifications at Chester Avenue and 23rd and 24"~ Streets. Caltrans staff had determined that modification to the signals at 23rd and F Street and 23r~ and Chester Avenue were warranted, and they wanted to design the projects and have the City participate 50% in the projects. However, their cost to only modify these two signals was estimated at nearly $400,000. City staff countered that 24"~ and Chester was the major location of traffic accidents in the City, and that any modification project involving the City must include this intersection. City staff further recommended that the City be the lead agency for design and construction of these projects as savings for construction engineering costs (inspection) could be realized (full time on-site engineer not necessary, no office trailer needed, etc.). Caltrans recently contacted staff tentatively agreeing with this lead agency proposal and with the concept 6f upgrading the signals at all four intersections that involve 23rd and 24th Streets, and Chester Avenue and F Street. They indicated that they would be contacting City staff in July to complete a cooperative agreement so that design can proceed. Then either an appropriation, or budgeting in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 using Gas Tax Fund monies, would be necessary to provide funds for the City's share of the project. 3. What is the most critical position that is needed in the Public Works Department in place of the Ombudsman request? (Salvaggio) Response: The most critical position that is needed for the Public Works Department is in the area of construction inspection. This need is especially critical in construction inspection of developer related projects. Our current goal is to schedule inspections within 24 hours of the request. The average time to schedule an appointment is now nearly one (1) week and at times has reached two (2) weeks. This is due not only to increased development activity, but also the sheer size of the City requires more travel time to get to appointments resulting in less time available for actual inspections. We think this is a completely unacceptable level of service to the development community. Last fiscal year, a similar unacceptable level of service existed within the plan checking section of Engineering. To solve that problem, one additional plan checker was added resulting in a decrease in turn-around time from about eight (8) to less than two (2) weeks. With the addition of one (1) inspector for developer related projects, we believe that once again, scheduling of inspections will fall within our goal of 24 hours. G:\GROUPDATLMemo\ 1999~Budget Work, hop Questio~s-Responscs.wpd A favorable fiscal impact results from substituting the ombudsman with an inspector position as detailed below: Net Increase One Time Annual Costs Savings In Annual Costs Costs Inspector $50,201 $(23,054) $27,147 $23,305 Ombudsman 68,209 68,209 $24,220 $41,062 Decrease 4. Does the intersection at 8~ and "-r" Street warrant a four way stop sign? What is the status? (Carson) Response: Currently, the intersection of 8th and T Streets does not meet any warrants for a four-way stop control. There has been no change in the character of the street, intersection operation or neighborhood development. The accident history is excellent. Staff will continue to monitor and re-evaluate this intersection for any substantial changes to the traffic in the area. The current status of the intersection is 8"' Street is a through street with T Street stopping at 8th Street. No changes are proposed at this time. 5. Is there one central City telephone number in your department that the public can call and a person always answers 'inquiries rather than being transferred to an answering machine? (Carson) Response: The main telephone number for the Public Works Department is (661) 326-3724. There is generally someone to answer this number from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Some of the Divisions that have one or two office staff do have voice mail to pick up their calls in the event they need to be away momentarily. In the event you do reach voice mail and want to speak to someone right away, the staff at 3724 have other ways to reach people in these Divisions besides their main number and are always happy to do so. The Graffiti Hotline at 32-ERASE (323-7273) is answered during the business hours of 7:00 - 3:30 except for occasional shod periods. However, this number is equipped to take messages 24 hours a day and the messages are checked on a regular basis and requests handled in a timely manner. G:\GROUPDAT~,~emo~Iggg~Budget Workshop Ques~.ons-Responses.wpd 6. Are there other revenue sources that could be used to fund refuse operations other than the proposed Refuse rate increase? What are options staff would recommend if the rate increase is not approved, and other options available to the Council? (Carson) R~po~¢: Our current refuse rates recover only operations and maintenance costs. Both the current rates and the proposed rate increase of 3.73% are insufficient to build a fund balance to. cover the anticipated costs of capping the landfill. The only financing mechanism identified to this point for the landfill capping is the debt service payments the Refuse Fund is making on an interfund loan. The last payment on this loan will be in the 99/00 FY. This will free up $240,000 a year for capping of the landfill. This still will not provide enough funds to complete the project. In addition, the current and proposed rates do not cover unanticipated expenditures such as increased demand for tan and green carts. Last year, one-time monies were used to balance the budget. This year, if no rate increase is approved, $630,000 of one-time monies would be needed to balance the budget. Using one-time monies to fund ongoing operations and maintenance costs is, at best, a short term solution. Therefore, we will eventually have to raise the rate. Deferring a rate increase for several years would mean a large increase in the catch-up year. Council could also instruct staff to come back with expenditure cuts equal to the rate increase. The proposed 3.73% rate increase is expected to generate approximately $630,000 in revenue. Potential cuts include elimination of the street sweeper position, elimination of drop-off recycling program and reduction of operating hours at the Mt. Vernon Recycling Center. Attached is a schedule identifying proposed cuts and an, establishment of an additional interfund loan for purchase of carts. 7. What can be done to address the problem of parked cars blocking the City street sweepers and preventing them from effectively cleaning the street curb areas? (DeMond) Response: Niles Street and Monterey Street, from Union Avenue east to Virginia Street are considered major arterial streets. Normally major arterial streets are swept during the night shift. However, these two streets have a combination of apartments, homes and businesses which makes it very difficult to sweep at night, so they are swept during the day shift. Prior studies have indicated that while a posted street sweeping schedule is the answer to having cleaner streets, to implement such a program would be costly and residents do not like the signs on their streets or the citations that would be issued to vehicles that are not moved during the scheduled sweeping days. G:\GR. OUPDATLMemo\ 1999~Budget Workshop Queafions-Re~ponses.wpd However, we are always in search of ways to provide better service to the public. With this in mind, we will experiment with the sweeping of Niles and Monterey in the following manner: I. A firm once a month sweeping schedule will be implemented for these two streets. II. Residents and businesses will be notified of the sweeping schedule. This will be done with the use of door-hangers. Residents will be instructed to mark the schedule on their calendars. These two streets will be swept every 2nd 'Friday of each month between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. commencing the month of July 1999. Staff will report to Council on the merits of the program within six months. 8. Would staff prepare a financing or funding plan and a time line for setting money aside to fund the City's share of the landfill closure project costs? (Maggard) Response: The Finance Director will prepare the response to this request. G:\GROUPDATLMemo\ 1999~udget Workshop Questions-Responses.wpd Public Works Department Solid Waste Division Alternative to Proposed 3.73% Rate Increase Changes with Suggestion 0% Rate Inc. Comments Eliminate additional residential sweeper and $210,000 Cannot ensure all residential full-time position streets swept on a monthly basis. Sweeping cycle will go from 4 to 5 weeks if position not approved. Eliminate City-wide drop off recycling program $155,000 One-time savings includes sale of truck and recycling boxes. On-going savings are roughly $130,000 per year, thereafter. This would eliminate one existing full time position. Existing employee will be reassigned through attribution. Reduce days and hours of Mt. Vernon Recycling $170,000 Currently open 9 hours/day, 7 days Center per week. This change will reduce it to 8 hours/day, 6 days per week (closed Sundays). Defer construction project test pad for $70,000 Delays final capping of landfill. landfill cap Must also notify State regulators regarding delay in project. Reduce street cleaning schedule in $25,000 Sweeping cycle will go from 5 weeks residential areas from October to February to approximately 10 weeks during (Regular position will be assigned to leaf the leaf collection season. collection program during this time frame which will eliminate the need to hire temporaries for this seasonal program) $630,000 G:\GROUPDA%Georgina\SW Alternative to Rate Increase.wb3 MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: GREGORY J. KLIMKO, FINANCE~"/ ~ DIRECTOR///~/L," DATE: May 28, 1999 SUBJECT: PANORAMA HOMES / BURN DUMP The $3.3 million Panorama Homes acquisition/maintenance was financed with $2.0 million from General Fund one time revenues received in 1995-96 and $1.3 million from Self Insurance Fund resources. One time General Fund revenues are usually dedicated to Capital Improvement Projects. Sale of the Panorama homes is estimated to generate $2.3 million with $300,000 budgeted to the Refuse Fund in lieu of a rate increase for 1998-99 and $2.0 million to Capital Improvement Funds. The General Fund one time revenue is effectively returned to its original intended purpose. Additionally, the Self Insurance Fund is recovering its $1.3 million from insurance settlements. The Self Insurance Fund transactions covering 1995-96 through 1998-99 related to the Panorama homes and burn dump litigation excluding the actual mitigation cost are summarized as follows: Source Of Funds Home Sales $2,300,000 Insurance Proceeds 1,538,068 Transfers from Refuse Fund (Advance Returned) 500,000 Transfers from General Fund 3,236,000 Total Sources $7,574,060 Use Of Funds Panorama Homes $3,293,787 Transfers to Refuse Fund (Attorney Fees) 667,709 Transfers to Refuse Fund (Advance) 500,000 Transfers to Capital Improvement Funds 3,100,000 Balance $7,574,068 If my recollection is correct, during the City Council discussion of the 1996-97 proposed budget a council person stated that the transfers from the General Fund should be returned upon the sale of the homes. The summary above reflects General Fund transfers to the Self Insurance Fund totaling $3,236,000. Self Insurance Fund transfers to Capital Improvement Funds, which are usually financed by General Fund Transfers, total $3,100,000. We have, for the most part, implemented City Council direction. A Schedule of transactions by fiscal year is attached along with a chronological list of events. GK/dwb May 28, 1999 (9:56AM) S:\Secretary\GREG\MEMO - Tandy - May 28 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD SELF-INSURANCE FUND SOURCES AND USES - BURN DUMP Revised Proposed Actual Estimates Budget 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 Total Sources Home Sales (G) 149,517 (G) 1,850,000 (G) 300,483 2,300,000 Insurance Settlements: Pacific Indemnity .(D) 600,000 600,000 Planet (J) 50,000 50,000 Westporte/Puritan (J) 50,000 50,000 Fireman's Fund (J) 550,000 550,000 Mead (L) 250,000 250,000 US Fire Providence Washington Industrial Indemnity Other 38,068 38,068 Transfers In: General Fund (C) 2,000,000 (F) 736,000 (M) 500,000 3,236,000 Refuse Fund (Advance Returned) (E) 500,000 500,000 Total Sources 3,100,000 923,585 2,750,000 800,483 7,574,068 Uses Panorama Homes: Maintenance/Security/Etc (C) 35,357 (C) 76,279 111,636 Acquisition (B) 231,733 (C) 2,723,517 (C) 226,901 3,182,151 Attorney Fees 17,709 17,709 Transfers Out: Refuse Fund (Mitigation) (A) 500,000 500,000 Refuse Fund (Attorney Fees) * 650,000 650,000 Capitallmprovements (E) 1,100,000 (H) 1,000,000 (M) 1,000,000 3,100,000 Total Uses 731,733 3,876,583 303,180 1,650,000 1,000,000 7,561,496 Cumulative Net (731,733) (1,508,316) (887,911) 212,089 12,572 12,572 * (I) + (K) + (L) C,PERKINS S:\CH ERYL\G REG~Self-lns. Bum dump 27-May-99 (A) July 1995 - City Council approved a $500,000 transfer from Self-Insurance Fund to the Refuse Fund to assist in funding the burn dump mitigation. (B) August 1995 - City purchased the first of fifteen homes through the Self-Insurance Fund for $231,733. (C) June 1996 - City Council adopted the 1996-97 budget which included a $2 million General Fund transfer to the Self-Insurance Fund and budgeted $3.2 million in the Self-Insurance Fund for the Panorama homes. (D) November 1996 - The City received $600,000 from Pacific Indemnity, the primary insurance company. (E) December 1996 - The City Council approved a $500,000 Refuse Fund transfer to the Self-Insurance Fund to reimburse it for the transfer approved in July 1995. It also authorized this $500,000 and the $600,000 received from Pacific Indemnity to be transferred to finance general Capital Improvements (Arena). (F) December - April 1998 - The City Council approved $736,000 transfers from the General Fund to the Self Insurance Fund for unanticipated Self Insurance program claims. (G) Home sales revenue is estimated to be $149,517 in 1997-98 (one); $1,850,000 in 1998-99 (twelve); and $300,483 in 1999-00 (two) totaling 2.3 million. (H) ' The 1998-99 revised budget includes a $1,000,000 Self Insurance Fund transfer for Capital Improvements (Arena - from Home Sales). (I) June 1998 - The City Council adopted the 1998-99 budget including a $300,000 Self Insurance Fund transfer to the Refuse Fund, necessitated by $300,000 in prior attorney fees (Home Sale Proceeds). (J) January 1999 - The City Council approved insurance settlements with Planet ($50,000), Westporte/Puritan ($150,000) and Mead ($550,000). (K) January 1999 - The City Council approved a $200,000 Self Insurance Fund transfer to the Refuse Fund for additional attorney fees (Insurance settlements proceeds). (L) May 1999 - The City Council will consider a $250,000 insurance settlement with Mead and $150,000 transfer to the Refuse Fund for additional legal fees. (M) The 1999-00 proposed budget includes a $500,000 General Fund transfer to the Self Insurance Fund to cover a projected fund deficit and a $1,000,000 Self Insurance Fund transfer for Capital Improvements (Home Sales). GK/dwb May 25, 1999 (2:40 p.m.) S:\Secretary\GREG\1999Wlerno-Tandy-5-25-99 BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM May 27, 1999 TO: Jake Wager, Economic Development Director FROM: George Gonzale unity Development Coordinator SUBJECT: City COuncil Buret ltearing Referral At the May 24, 1999, Economic and Community Development Department budget presentation to the City Council, Mayor Price asked if staff provided a follow-up on housing rehabilitation loans to insure that the properties were maintained. All rehabilitation loan recipients are required to execute a Deed of Trust to secure the repayment of the City loan assistance. The Deed of Trust includes language that the home owner must maintain the improvements/landscaping on the site in "good repair." Failure to correct any deficiencies within 30-days of receiving a written notice from the City, the City will make the necessary corrections and charge the home owner or place a lien on the property for the cost of those repairs. Further, the property owner would be in breach of the agreement and the City could foreclose on the property. To date, staff has pursued foreclosures on the maintenance provision only in extreme cases. To further assure compliance with the maintenance provision of the rehabilitation loan agreement, staff will begin to randomly select 10 rehabilitation loan recipients every month and monitor the conditions of the dwelling in conformance with the agreement. In addition, by December 1999, staff will prepare a handbook for all rehabilitation loan recipients which will provide tips on how they can maintain and make repairs on their own homes. RECE ¥ MAY 2') Iggm9: !CITY MANAGER'S ~:?~': dlk:P:\OEORGE\council referral response MEMORANDUM TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: GREGORY J. KLIMKO, FINANCE DIRECTOR,//~/~'''- /v DATE: May 27, 1999 SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 1999/00 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES On Monday, May 24, 1999 Councilman Maggard requested staff to prepare a financing or funding plan and a time line for setting money aside to fund the City's share of the landfill closure project cost. The City's 55% share of the landfill closure cost is estimated to be between $4,950,000 and $7,150,000. The City would plan to finance the project cost through a revenue bond or other debt instrument once the cost and the timing of fund requirements are confirmed. Attached is a memo from the Solid Waste Director assuming twenty year debt retirement and the increase in refuse rates. GK/dwb May 27, 1999 (4:57PM) S:\Secretan/\GREG\1999\Memo-B-Tandy-5-27-99 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 1999 TO: Gregory Klimko, Finance Director FROM: Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director p SUBJECT: LANDFILL CLOSURE PROJECT COSTS Per your request, I am providing a range of estimated project costs and the resulting impact on refuse rates, in excess of the currently proposed 3.73% increase. Please note that these estimates are for the City's net expense, after receiving the County's share of costs as revenue. The currently proposed CIP budget lists $70,000 for FY 99/00 and $260,000 for FY 00/01, which are preparatory costs not included in the main construction estimate. These amounts will .be expensed as listed, unless you recommend including some in the finance instrument for construction. Finally, the construction amount is currently listed in FY 01/02, but may be pushed out to as late FY 03/04 due to regulatory agency requirement. Low End Medium High End Construction Cost $9,000,000 $11,000,000 $13,000,000 Net Cost to City @ 55%* $4,950,000 $ 6,050,000 $ 7,150,000 Annual Debt Service $ 445,500 $ 544,500 $ 643,500 at 0.09 bond factor Impact on Refuse Rate (%) 2.6% 3.2% 3.7% Impact on Residential Refuse Rate (annually) $3.60 $4.39 $5.19 *City is responsible for 100% of landfill gas and burn ash issues, bringing the 50~50 agreement to approximately 55 City/45 County. KB:stop c: Georgina Lorenzi, Asst to P. VV. Director SMP S:~Landfili\LNDFIL CLO PRJ CST.wpd May 25, 1999 "£~ ~ BAKERSFIELD POLICE May 27, 1999 To: Alan Tandy, City Manager From: Steve Brummer, Chief of Police Subject: Response to Budget Workshop Question - Kern River Parkway Council Member Salvaggio Do we need dedicated police patrol on the Kern River Parkway and what is the status of po/ice patrol in the area now? During the Budget Workshop of Monday, May 24th, Council Member Salvaggio inquired about police patrol.on the Kern River Parkway. The attached memorandum by Special Projects Sergeant Phillip Clarke outlines current police Coverage and the department overtime program dedicated to City park security. .~ , .,.. ,, , ~.~1~.~,~¥~ ~, . .'. ,: ,: ,,,,, : : ~/~,.. ,:..,..,; ..... .:,.. ,~..? ,~,- :,,.~ , ~ ,. '.,.. ., ,,c , ,~ ,..~:,~,."'..~,.,, .. ,,. . . ... "" ..... ' .... .-' "" '.' ..... '-'BAKE FIELD P.OLICE '.': :':, " - . ._.: . -:, ,....' .:. · , ,' ',' .:..: ' ~ - .-. ,, .~ -'. - ,~ ", ' :- TO: W.R. Rector, Capt~in, O~)erations "' ' ' Fr°m: P. Clarke, Sergeant, Special Projects Subject: Park Security As part Of a proactive resPonse to criminal activity in city parks the Bakersfield Police Department, in April, 1998, began authorizing overtime shifts to exclusively patrol city parks. Initially, two 8 hour shifts were manned, Wednesday through Sunday, with officers given specific parks to patrol. In June this was increased to four 5 hour shifts seven days a week with the city parks divided into quadrants. Officers were instructed to provide random, high visibility patrol to all parks in their quadrant and take any enforcement action necessary. This program continued until the first week of October when park · activity began to significantly decrease. The total cost of the operation was approximately $113,504. Following this initial overtime program the department conducted a study of calls for service and police reports in city parks from July 1997 to July 1998. This report identified the city parks requiring high levels of service and will assist us in developing an appropriate deployment strategy in the coming summer months. Beginning in June 1999, the department will once again begin a park overtime program with the hours and days to be determined. In addition to the authorized overtime positions the department, based on our study, will explore the possibility of utilizing bike patrols and specialized units in identified problem areas. As always, regular district ears will be instructed to give particular attention to city parks in their respective districts during the busy summer months. P. Clarke, Sergeant Special Projects  M E M O R A N D U M CONFIDENTIAL PROTECTED BY ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND May 27, 1999 ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES TO: ALAN TANDY, City Manager ~ FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, City Attorney SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS RESPONSES On May 25, 1999, you posed two questions. The first question was "Could the sewer connection fee be frozen at $1,750 for the Palm/Olive areas until the deannexation election outcome is known?" Attached is a memorandum from Carl Hernandez which addresses this issue. In essence, that memorandum concludes that since no policy exists as a basis for a proposed freeze of the fees at issue, such an action to freeze the fees would most likely be violative of the equal protection clause of the State Constitution. The second question you asked was "Were there any commitments made to freeze rates for the Palm/Olive area?" We have researched our files, which included information associated with the Palm/Olive litigation, and could find no reference to the freezing of any rates for sewer connection fees or any other fees which the City may charge. Therefore, we can only conclude that we found no commitments were made to freeze the sewer connection fee rates for the Palm/Olive area. You may wish to check with Alan Christensen or other members of other departments to determine whether their records indicate whether any commitments were made. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. BJT:laa Attachment S:\Manager\M EMOS\BudgWkshp Rsps.wpd CONFIDENTIAL o PROTECTED BY A'I'rORNEY/CLIENT AND AIIORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES May 27, 1999 TO: BART J. THILTGEN, CITY ATrORNEY FROM: CARL HERNANDEZ III, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~_~.~l~ SUBJECT: FREEZING OF SEWER CONNECTION FEE FOR PALM-OLIVE AREA QUESTION PRESENTED Can the sewer connection fee be frozen at $1750 for the Palm-Olive area until the March 2000 election when the City raises the fee to $2000 effective on July 1,19997 SHORT ANSWER The equal protection clause of the state constitution requires that persons similarly situated be treated equally. Therefore, if the City chooses to require one citizen to pay a $1750 sewer connection fee while another is required to pay $2000, it must provide a reasonable basis for doing so. If the City establishes a policy that all annexed areas are entitled to a sewer connection fee freeze for a set period of time after annexation in order to encourage people to annex, then this may be construed as a rational basis for freezing the fee. No such policy exists as a basis for a proposed freeze of the fees at issue. Even if the City can establish a reasonable basis for freezing the fee at $1750 in an annexed area of the City, developers and others may challenge the newly established $2000 fee as beyond the amount necessary to cover the reasonable expense of providing sewer connection services (i.e., the $1750 is what is actually necessary). Also, the fee difference could provide an unfair competition advantage for developers in the Palm-Olive area. DISCUSSION Any person desiring to connect to the City sewer system must obtain a permit and pay a sewer connection fee. (Bakersfield Municipal Code sections 14.12.160 and 14.12.380.) In cases of economic hardship, the City may enter into an agreement with a BART J. THILTGEN, City Attorney May 27, 1999 CONFIDENTIAL Pa.qe No. 2 single-family residence owner to allow payment of the sewer connection fee in installments not to exceed three (3) years. (Bakersfield Municipal Code section 14.12.390(B).) Recently, the City offered residents of the Dennen annexation the opportunity to enter into an agreement with the City, as allowed under the Municipal Code, to pay the current sewer connection fee of $1750 in installments. Once an agreement has been entered into by the City and a single-family homeowner, the City is bound to honor the agreement. Raising the fee to $2000 cannot affect the agreed upon $1750 fee. There are no exemptions, credits or other arrangements providing for different levels of payment for the sewer connection fee. The law requires that persons who are similarly situated must be afforded equal protection under the laws. (California Constitution, Article I, Section 7). A fee that distinguishes between parties does not violate the equal protection clause if the distinction rests on a rational basis. (Ladd v. State Board of Equalization (1973) 31 Cal. App.3d 35.) For instance, if the City were to determine that the costs for providing the sewer connection service in the Palm-Olive area were less than any other area of the City, this would be a rational basis for a difference in fees. Moreover, If the City establishes a policy that all annexed areas are entitled to a sewer connection fee freeze after annexation in order to encourage people to annex, then that could be construed as a rational basis for freezing the fee. No such policy exists as a basis for a proposed freeze of the fees at issue. The City requires payment of a sewer connection fee to cover the cost of providing a sewer connection service. The fee cannot exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service. (Carlsbad Municipal Water District v. OLC Corp. (1992) 2 CaI.App.4th 479, 485.) In addition, fees must be reasonable, fair and equitable, and proportionally representative of the costs incurred by the city to provide the contemplated service. (Associated Homebuilders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore (1961) 56 Cal.2d 847.) The sewer connection fee must follow Government Code section 66013's guidelines which provide that "when a local agency imposes fees for water connections or sewer connections..., those fees or charges shall not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee or charge is imposed, unless a question regarding the amount of a fee or charge imposed in excess of the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two- thirds of those electors voting on the issue." Accordingly, freezing the sewer connection fee at $1750 for the Palm-Olive area and at the same time increasing the sewer connection fee to $2000 for all others raises the issue of whether the City is imposing a fee in excess of the estimated reasonable costs of providing reasonable sewer connection service without putting the matter to a vote of the citizens. (Government Code section 66013). Developers would be the likely opponents BART J. THILTGEN, City Attorney May 27, 1999 CONFIDENTIAL Pa~e No. 3 of providing reasonable sewer connection service without putting the matter to a vote of the citizens. (Government Code section 66013). Developers would be the likely opponents to having the Palm-Olive area subject to a lower fee amount. Another concern would be whether developers in the Palm-Olive area would be granted an unfair business advantage if they are allowed to pay a lesser fee. CONCLUSION The sewer connection fee regulations of the City require that all persons connecting to the sewer pay the requisite sewer connection fee. There are no exemptions, credits or other provisions allowing for different levels of fees. If the City desires to freeze fees at the current level, they must establish a reasonable basis for doing so. Furthermore, the City may only charge a fee for the estimated reasonable costs of providing the sewer connection service. Increasing the fee to $2000 while freezing the fee at $1750 for the Palm-Olive area raises the issue of whether the City is truly charging what is reasonably necessary to provide the sewer connection service. CH:lsc S:~Building~IE MOS~bjt.sewerconneclfee.wpd BAKERSFIELD CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM May 27, 1999 TO.' Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager]~ ¢ SUBJECT: Responses to Budget Workshop Questions Question: We're any promises given, written or implied, to the Palm-Olive residents indicating that sewer connection fees would be frozen at the $1,750 rate that was in effect at the time of the annexation? Response: Our review of written materials and discussions with key members of the Annexation Task Force that were working at the time shows that staff communicated to the residents that sewer service would be available to them if they were annexed to the city. Staff outlined what costs were at the time, but there was no promise to freeze the rate for any period of time. We have received only occasional informational inquiries from residents of the Palm-Olive areas about how their neighborhoods might receive sewer service. In these inquiries the Palm-Olive residents have not indicated there was any expectation of a frozen sewer connection rate.