The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/25/03 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM July 25, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager SUBJECT: General Information 1. The State Senate is close to approving a budget that would include the complicated "triple flip". This bill threatens $25 million a year in General Fund money for us permanently! When you cut through the smoke and mirrors, they are essentially borrowing.money to bail the State out by pledging half of our sales tax. We sent strong opposition letters to our local Senate and Assembly representatives last week with follow-up correspondence this week. Attached is an article from the July 24th L.A". Times and the latest update from the League of California Cities. They propose to make up what they take from us in ERAF monies. That was $5 million a year - not $25 million. There is an additional summary from the State Redevelopment Association on the matter. 2. We received notification from the State Department of Transportation of their intention to temporarily borrow locally obligated Federal road funds for existing State advanced construction projects, thereby allowing immediate cash reimbursement from the Federal government. Last week, CalTrans District 6 sent out a request for information on projects currently under consideration for new Federal aid obligation authority. Staff responded with the attached letter which details the City's projects planned for construction within the next three to six months that are now Federally funded. We have requested that the funding for those projects be left in place. Also included is a report from Public Works on the potential impact if we lose the Federal funds. 3. The final public meeting for the Baker Street charrette process took place on Wednesday evening. Staff reports it was well attended and has prepared the enclosed report for your information. Honorable Mayor and City Council July 25, 2003 Page 2 4. David Lindberg, the ambulance rate consultant, will be attending the July 30th Council meeting. He is flying into Bakersfield from Washington D.C. that day and will be arriving about 3:00 p.m. Councilmembers may prefer to contact David by phone with any questions prior to the Council meeting, since his time before the meeting to meet with Councilmembers will be very limited. My office staff can provide you with his phone number. 5. I regret to inform you that Stan Ford has resigned. Alan Christensen will, for the time being, be the interim department head. 6. With regard to the Court decision earlier this week on the adult business site, the City Attorney has sent you a memo under separate cover with details on the decision and what the next steps will be in the legal process. 7. We received good news this week from the State Housing and Community Development Department that the City has been approved for a grant in the amount of $179,600 to fund equipment for our code enforcement program over a three year period. The grant must be officially approved by the HCD Director, and then the contractual paperwork will be processed in the next 60 days. The letter from HCD is enclosed. 8. Donna Kunz prepared the enclosed report summarizing City grant and special funding projects that have been received or are currently being pursued. 9. Correspondence from the County Board of Supervisors to the California High- Speed Rail Authority, along with a resolution stating their endorsement of the Truxtun Avenue site, is attached. 10. A status report on loan requests received, to date, for Southeast CDBG economic assistance is enclosed for your review. 11. Per the enclosed memo from EDCD, Stier's Leisure Vehicles is in compliance with their loan terms for the fourth year of their five year agreement with the City. 12. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: Councilmember Maggard · Report on loss of water pressure in Panorama Drive area; Councilmember Couch · Information provided regarding a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pam McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst July 24, 2003 VIA FAX (916) 327-5989 The Honorable Dean Florez 16th Senatorial Distdct California State Senate State Capitol Building, Room 4090 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Opposition to '"rriple-Flip" Proposal Dear Senator Florez: It is our understanding the "triple flip" budget proposal is now being seriouslY considered by the California Senate. I want to reemphasize how bad this proposal is for the City of Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield is heavily sales tax dependent. A substitution of property tax for sales tax is not equitable, and Bakersfield will sustain a devastating loss of revenues should the "triple flip" occur. The City'S, sales tax revenues represent 38% of its General Fund. A loss of $11.25 million to $12.5 million will have immediate and far-reaching negative impacts. A devastating loss of these revenues upon which the community depends will exacerbate the negative economic effects already being felt by those you are elected to serve. The "triple flip" proposal will be disastrous to Bakersfield residents and the provision of neCeSsarY andmuch-need municipal services,. including police and fire, to the community. We encourage your strongest ormosltion to the "Triple Flip" proposal. This is the worst possible scenario for local government so far proposed. Harvey L Hall /' Mayor L0307241-T~ipleFlipll CC: Assembly Members Kevin McCarthy and Nicole Parra City Council City Manager, City Attorney, Administrative Analyst League of California Cities 15Ol Truxtun Avenue ° Bakersfield, California 93301 · (661) 326-3770 ° Fax (661) 326-3779 E-mail address: mayor@ci.bakersfield.ca.us July 24, 2003 VIA FAX (916) 322-3304 The Honorable Roy Ashburn 18th Senatorial District Califomia State Senate State Capitol Building, Rm. 2068 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Opposition to "Triple-Flip" Proposal Dear Senator Ashbum: It is our understanding the "triple flip" budget proposal is now being seriously conSidered by the California Senate. I want to reemphasize how bad this proposal is for the City of Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield is heavily sales tax dependent. A substitution of Property tax for sales tax is not equitable, and Bakersfield will sustain a devastating loss of revenues should the "triple flip" occur. The City's sales tax revenues represent 38% of its General Fund. A loss of $11.25 million to $t2.5 million will have immediate and far-reaching negative impacts. A devastating loss of these revenues upon which the community depends will exacerbate the negative economic effects already being felt by those you are elected to serve. The "triple flip, proposal will be disastrous to Bakersfield residents and the provision of necessary and much-need municipal services, including police and fire, to the community. We encourage your stronpest oDDosition to the "Triple Flip" proposal. This is the worst possible scenario for local government so far proposed. Mayor L0307241-TripleFlipll CC: Assembly Membem Kevin McCarthy and Nicole Parra City Council City Manager, City Attorney, Administrative Analyst League of California Cities 1601 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield, California 93301 · (661) 326-3770 · Fax (661) 326-3779 Senate Set to Approve Budget Deal Page 1 of 3 ] ~ ~ Home I Member Services I Home Delivery [ Site Map I Archives I Print Edition [ Advertise I Feedback I He~p Hi, rksmiley July 24, 2003 ~ E-mait story ~ Print Senate Set to Approve Budget Deal · Agreement would cut health care and aid for the poor while rolling over a portion of the state's $38-billion . Careers ~ · Cars [~[~ J shortfall to later years. · Homes ~ . Rentals ~ By Evan Halper and Jeffrey L. Rabin, Times Staff Writers · Newspaper Ads . Personals ~ SACRAMENTO -- Leaders of the California Senate agreed Wednesday Art, Theater, Night Life on the framework of a budget deal that promises to break a vindictive Movies, Music, TV, Dining political standoff that has driven the state toward insolvency. Coverage of Catifornia's economic woes, The State Although some key details remained unresolved, senators were expected Times Headlines Inland Empire to vote on the budget as early as Sunday. The proposal, negotiated by Los Angeles the Democratic and Republican leadership, would roll over part of the Davis Recall Qualifies for Orange County Fall Ballot The Valley state's $38-billion shortfall while making substantial cuts in health care Ventura County and aid to the poor. In Capital, a Week for the Columns Books Steve Harvey Steve Lopez What remained to be worked out was the number of years that the state Senate Set to Approve Patt Morrison Budget Deal George Skelton would take to pay off $10.? billion of the deficit that lawmakers hope to Turning 135-Mile Race Into Features finance. Republicans want to pay it off within five years, but Democrats a Rerun Good Turns Inside Politics are holding out for longer, hoping to avoid even deeper cuts in prized Behind the Wheel programs next year and beyond. 24 Child Molesters In the Classroom Released Surroundings more > OutOn the There Law Senate leaders refused to publicly confirm the deal, but several key Community Papers players in the budget drama said that an agreement was at hand. SUBSCRIBE to the~ Burbank Leader Lo s An gele Claremont-Upand click here voice If the Senate approves it -- and leaders believed they had enough votes Coastline pilot -- the measure would be sent to the Assembly for its approval, then to Daily Pilot Huntington Beach Gev. Gray Davis for signing. Lawmakers in both houses, however, have said for weeks that a Independent News-Press Senate deal would be key to breaking the gridlock because the Assembly has been deeply Rancho Cucamonga fractured and dominated by partisan squabbles that at times have mined ugly. Voice The World At the insistence of Republicans, the budget would include no new taxes beyond a recent The Nation tripling of the state vehicle license fee. And, while yielding ground on health care, Democrats California / Local Business were able to avoid further cuts in basic welfare payments to the poor. Politics spo~ts As the budget stalemate intensified in the spring, the divisions between Democrats and Travel Editorials, Op-Ed Republicans helped fuel the drive to recall Davis. In mm, recall politics complicated the budget Sections process. Arts & Entertainment Books Chess Some polls have indicated that a budget agreement could help Davis retain his office. They have Columns Education also suggested, however, that voters are upset with the governor in part over his handling of Environment state finances. Food Health HighwaYHome 1 Given the refusal of Republicans to support raising taxes, Democrats are poised to settle for just Kids' Reading Room half of the $8 billion in tax hikes sought earlier in the year by Davis. The money they got came Magazine Obituaries in the form of the car fee hike enacted by administrative order, without a vote of lawmakers. Real Estate http://www.latimes, com/news/local/la-me-budget24ju124,1,4340259, story?coil=la-home-headlines 7/24/2003 Senate Set to Approve Budget Deal Page 2 of 3 Religion Science & Medicine Sunday Opinion Any other new taxes would require two-thirds approval of the Legislature. Technology Times Poll Week in Focus The budget deal would hit the poor hardest but would largely avoid new K-12 education cuts. For the Record Editions Health-care programs for low-income Californians would be targeted with reductions totaling Print Edition hundreds of millions of dollars more than Democrats had proposed. National (PDF) Wireless Extras Doctors who treat Medi-Cal patients would see their rates cut by 5% annually over the next College Connection Sweepstakes three years. Several optional benefits for Medi-Cal recipients -- such as hearing aids, which Crossword some states provide even though they are not required to do so by the federal Medicaid program Horoscope Lottery -- would no longer be covered, and nursing home workers would not receive cost of living Traffic salary adjustments. Weather Multimedia Archives I-Iealth-carc advocates urged Democrats to resist such cuts. Enter Keyword(s): Detailed Search "Seniors and children and people with disabilities will have a harder time getting medically SITE HaP necessary help" under the proposal, said Anthony Wright, director of Health Access, a group r$*~J~r,-~:¢.~:~ ~'[~that advocates for the poor on medical issues. Subscription Services (800) 252-gl 41 Home Delivery Unlike past budgets, on which most Democrats voted together in a bloc, party leaders do not Gift Subscriptions College Discount expect such unity on this proposal. They said that some more liberal Democrats would not vote Mail Subscriptions for a budget with such steep reductions in aid to the poor. For the spending plan to receive the Additional Subscription Information & FAns necessary two-thirds majority for passage, more than a bare minimum of Republicans would probably have to vote for it. · Careers "We're handing the state over to a minority within a minority," said one Democratic lawmaker, · Cars . Homes who characterized the budget deal as "not a very Democratic proposal." · Rentals · Newspaper Ads . Personals Although the deal appears to be a victory for the GOP, most analysts have said no victors are · Times Guides · Recycler.com likely to emerge fi.om this debate. The most recent Field Poll indicated only 19% of registered i.~ Times Initiatives voters approve of the job the Legislature is doing. Times in Education Reading by 9 LA Times Books ~' The budget deal would also borrow against tobacco settlement money owed California years~ LA Times Family Fund Times-Mirror Foundation 'into the future. State Controller Steve Westly said that paying the interest on such an obligation Community Events Would be very expensive. Inside the Times - Partners .The part of the deficit that would be rolled over would be paid offthrough a complex swap in ~~¢':~ which the state would take a half- or quarter-cent o~-[h~-~ales tax that now goes to local governments and comm-li-{h-a-i- revenue to repay E~'loan. It would take five to 10 years to repay. ~~ the iiTfi-dif bonds t~(-ffi-~ state'~Yb-'fil--d-~ll to investors. To make the swap palatable to cities and counties, the state would return an equivalent share of property taxes to those communities. The net result is that the state would take a hit of as much as $2 billion more per year, which would be offset principally by the additional cuts to health care and aid to the poor. Several reductions that had been put forward by Republicans are not in the proposed budget. The California Coastal Commission would not be eliminated and money to buy food for seeing eye dogs would remain in the budget. Lawmakers also scrapped a GOP proposal that would have delayed kindergarten by a year for 11.0,000 youngsters. http ://www.latimes. corn/news/local/la-me-budget24j u124,1,4340259.story?coil=la-home-headlines 7/24/2003 Jul 2~ '~883 12:33:44 Via Fax -> ~1Z41850 Alan i~. landy Page 881 0£ 8R4 League of C.alifornia Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 6511-8200 Fax: (916) 658-8240 wvr~.¢a¢ities.org Page 1 of 4 July 25, 2003 TO: Mayors, Council Members and City Managers FROM: Chris McKenzie, Executive Director Dwight Stenbakken, Legislative Director RE: State Budget Update Yesterday Senators Burton and Brulte announced that they had reached agreement on a 2003-04 state budget funding package. The Senators indicated that the requisite 27 votes in the Senate would be there when it is taken up for a vote on Sunday evening. The Assembly remains relatively inactive during this budget negotiation, choosing to wait for the Senate to forge an agreement. No schedule has been announced for the Assembly to consider the Senate package, but it would likely be early next week. Consistent with reports, and open public admissions, this proposed budget is nothing but a "get- out- of-town-budget (GOTB)." This means that the budget will do little, if anything, to address the fundamental problems with state finances that continue to spill over and detrimentally affect local government services. It will rather meet the following minimalist requirements: 1. It provides a dedicated source of"new" revenue (the local sales tax) to finance and give adequate assurances to the financial community that the state can sell deficit reduction bonds on the market. 2. It contains the requisite amount of program cuts. 3. No new taxes! The Senators briefly outlined the proposed budget, but, of course, no written version of the budget has surfaced and will likely surface only after it is passed. The reason for this delay may be due to a shortage of time or it may be calculated to create confusion. Since our last communication, the same proposals affecting local government finance remain the focus of our attention. Those proposals include: RECEIVED: 7/25/03 9:43AM; ->CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; #242; PAGE 2 Jul Z5 2BB3 1Z:34:BB Via ~ax -> 3241BSB A]an B. ~anay Pa~e BBZ Of 884 The "Flip-flop" This proposal "swaps" ½ cent of the Bradley-Burns sales ~x for an equal amount of property ~ax. The ~A cent sales tax lost at the local level is then reenacted at the state level. This accomplishes two tasks: 1) the state can dedicate to, the satisfaction of the financial community, a "new," state- enacted, ½ cent sales tax, to fund the deficit reduction bonds for a period of 5 years to help finance $10.7 billion of the state budget deficit; and, 2) most importantly for two caucuses in the Legislature, it does not raise the overall state tax burden. The proposal is being billed as a "hold-harmless" proposal for local governments. This is not entirely accurate. There are two problems that get in the way of that claim: 1. Cash Flow Problems. The property tax reimbursement payments for the sales tax loss will only be paid twice a year, as property tax is now paid. Sales tax payments, on the other hand, are made monthly. For cities without adequate reserves, revenue anticipation notes (RANs) may have to be issued to cover any cash flow problems this new payment schedule will create. This will cost some local governments money to finance these cash flows gaps. 2. Lost Interest. With the property tax reimbursement checks being made only twice a year, local governments will lose the interest earnings on the sales tax they would have had from the monthly payments. This has been estimated at the individual jurisdiction level to mean 0.33% (one third of one percent) loss in FY 04-05 and 0.52% loss in subsequent years. The bottom line: this proposal is not without revenue loss to cities. Vehicle License Fee Loan In earlier reports, we described what was then called the vehicle license fee (VLF) loan proposal. Under this proposal, the state would have stopped VLF backfill payments to local government and then pay local governments back in three years for the loss of revenue - about $852 million (city and county). This measure was somewhat tenuous in recent days of the negotiation, but apparently survived and is included in the proposal to be voted on Sunday evening. In the meantime, VL1~ revenues from the increased VLF tax will continue to ramp up between the June "trigger' date and October 1 when the VLF will be at full implementation. Redevelopment The proposal also contains the $250 million cut to redevelopment agencies. It is our understanding that the proposal to cut the $250 million will include an option for a city or county to pay for the RDA cut with any other revenue available to the city or county, ffnecessary. Final Analysis There may be o~her cuts that we are unaware of at this point, but until we get some of the details this captures the "bigger picture" issues. As soon as we get figures and language, we will do a more thorough analysis for your review. RECEIVED: 7/25/03 9:43AM; ->CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; #242; PAGE 3 To sum up, once again, local governments are being used to balance the state budget. The Legislature will never give cities the stability needed to deliver needed local services. The only alternative is to go to the ballot with a proposal that sets parameters on the state when it comes to local government revenues. If that wasn't clear before, it has never been clearer than after this budget. Last weekend the League Board of Directors voted unanimously to support a ballot measure to give local government protection from the fiscal ups and downs of state finance. It will be the focus of the organization for the next 18 months and it will require the concerted support of all city officials to get behind the measure in word and deed. The alternative is to continue business as usual with local governments providing the "bailout" to state government in times of crisis. It's our choice. Some Quick Messages on Proposed Senate Budget Senate leaders said today that the "Local Government Package" of cuts in the proposed Senate budget totals approximately $1.2 billion, the amount in the Governor's May Revision. We do no~t yet have the breakdown of all details, but we understand it includes cuts of $852 m for the 3-month VLF backfill "Gap", $250 million for redevelopment, and $98 million in miscellaneous cuts (some including law enforcement programs). The budget deal is also said to include the "Triple Flip". Based on what we know right now (6:30 p.m., Thursday, July 24, 2003), these are our suggested messages. Triple Flip: The Sales TaxmProperty Tax Flip--OPPOSED The League supports the use of deficit reduction bonds that would be retired with state tax revenues to help address thc state budget deficit, but thc League board opposes the proposed Triple Flip which would rely on a "temporary" ½ cent shift of local sales tax to the state to retire the state's deficit reduction bonds. The proposal could endanger a critical local revenue source that funds police, fire, EMS and other vital community services. This temporary (estimated 5 year) exchange of sales and property tax raises serious constitutional and practical questions. Thc state should use its own revenues to manage its deficit-not put vital local funds at risk. Il'the proposal is really designed to be revenue neutral, it must compensate local governments for the loss of interest income due to the delays in the distribution of revenue to cities through the less frequent property tax distribution system. VLF Backfill Reduction-OPPOSED The League opposes any cuts to the VLF backfill during the three-month reinstatement of the VLF. It is unthinkable that the state would consider removing over $800 million in local funds to balance the state budget when they are used primarily for public safety services. In order to avoid a complete cut of this important source of funding, the League would reluctantly remove its opposition if it wcrc structured as a loan to the state, with interest due upon repayment. We understand it may be structured this way. RECEZVED: 7/25/03 9:44AM; ->CZTY OF BAKERSFIELD; #242; PAGE 4 J~I-..Z5,E003 1Z:35:81 9ia ~ax -> 3Zq1858 ~lan E. ~anag ?a~e 00q 0£ 00q Redevelopment Cut--OPPOSED Redevelopment is the most powerful affordable housing and economic development program in California. It has generated billions of dollars of private investment, growing the California economy and providing needed state and local tax revenues. We oppose cuts to redevelopment of any kind. If cuts are made, however, we support the proposal of the Senate leaders to give local governments flexibility in allocating the fiscal burden of the cut. Grassroots Network South San Joaquin Valley Division Catherine Medina Regional Representative P.O. Box 5296 .... '.'.: · Fresno, CA 93755-5296 E MAIL cmedina@cacities.or§ www.cacities.org FAX 559/432-7945 Cell 559/351-2272 Update To: City Managers Re: State Budget, Ballot Measure Date: 7/24/2003 BUDGET As you may know, Senators Brulte and Burton have agreed to a Senate Budget deal they outlined in a press conference today. The Senate is expected to go into session at 6:00 pm on Sunday for the debate and vote. Senate leaders said that the "Local Government Package" of cuts in the proposed Senate budget totals approximately $1.2 billion, the amount in the Governor's May Revision. We do no__~t yet have the breakdown of all details, but we understand it includes cuts of $852 m for the 3-month VLF backfill "Gap", $250 million for redevelopment, and $98 million in miscellaneous cuts (some including law enforcement programs). The budget deal is also said to include the "Triple Flip". Based on what we know right now (6:30 p.m., Thursday, July 24, 2003), these are our suggested messages. We will send updated information as we learn more. Triple Flip: The Sales Tax--Property Tax Flip--OPPOSED The League supports the use of deficit reduction bonds that would be retired with state tax revenues to help address the state budget deficit, but the League board opposes the proposed Triple Flip which would rely on a 'lemporary" 1/= cent shift of local sales taxto the state to retire the state's deficit reduction bonds. The proposal could endanger a critical local revenue source that funds police, fire, EMS and other vital community services. This temporary (estimated 5 year) exchange of sales and property tax raises serious constitutional and practical questions. The state should use its own revenues to manage its deficit--not put vital local funds at risk. If the proposal is really designed to be revenue neutral, it must compensate local governments for the loss of interest income due to the delays in the distribution of revenue to cities through the less frequent Property tax distribution system. VLF Backfill Reduction--OPPOSED The League opposes any cuts to the VLF backfill during the three-month reinstatement of the VLF. It is unthinkable that the state would consider removing over $800 million in local funds to balance the state budget when they are used primarily for public safety services. In order to avoid a complete cut of this important source of funding, the League would reluctantly remove its opposition if it were structured as a loan to the state, with interest due upon repayment. We understand it may be structured this way. Redevelopment Cut--OPPOSED Redevelopment is the most powerful affordable housing and economic development program in California. It has generated billions of dollars of private investment, growing the California economy and providing needed state and local tax revenues. We oppose cuts to redevelopment of any kind. If cuts are made, however, we support the proposal of the Senate leaders to give local governments flexibility in allocating the fiscal burden of the cut. BALLOT INITIATIVE Tomorrow the following article below will run in Priority Focus. I wanted you to have it in advance and in a separate document to ensure that each of you read it. Now that there are no questions as to rather or not we will have an initiative on the ballot, I will begin setting up appointments with you and your councils to let you know what you and your cities can do to help me in my efforts within the division to support the initiative. League Board Votes Unanimously to Sponsor Initiative In what many-members described as a historic vote, on July 19, 2003 the board of directors of the League of California Cities cast a unanimous roll call vote to develop and sponsor a proposed constitutional amendment that would check the power of the state government to balance the state budget by confiscating local tax funds that pay for police, fire, EMS, infrastructure maintenance, park and library services. The measure would be placed before the voters by initiative in November 2004. The board of directors also voted to seek the approval of the General Assembly of City Voting Delegates that will meet in connection with the League's Annual Conference in Sacramento, September 7-9, 2003. Final decisions on the content of the ballot measure have not been made, but research suggests it should ask voters whether they should be consulted before the state government confiscates local tax funds to pay for state services. Decisions on the content of the initiative are expected by mid-September. John Russo, League President and City Attorney of Oakland, said: 'q'his is really all about local democracy and voter control. Over the last 12 years more than $6 billion of city property tax funds have been taken by the state to balance its budget, and the legislature is poised to take other city funds in this year's budget. That's $6 billion less for local police, fire, EMS, park, library and street maintenance services. It is time to ask the voters whether they think the state should be able to keep doing this without their approval." The League board reviewed a tentative timetable for the campaign and estimated costs. Funding for the campaign will come from private sources-individuals and businesses. If all goes according to the preliminary plan presented to the board, the proposed initiative could be filed with the Attorney General in later September or early October of this year. Signature gathering could begin as early as November 2003. City officials will be kept abreast of developments on this issue as further developments occur and are encouraged to consider becoming active advocates of this initiative as the details unfold. <img src="http://cra.irisl .com/images/mh71 .gif" BORDER=0>FROM: JOHN F. SHIREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Legislative Update This could be it. The two leaders of the Senate, Senators John Burton and Jim Brulte, have announced agreement on a compromise budget package that is scheduled to be voted on this Sunday (July 27). As expected, the package contains a substantial one-time cut of $250 million in redevelopment funding that will be done as an ERAF shift. Also, as expected, the package contains the '1lip-flop" or "~riple-flip" proposal which will shift one-half cent of the local sales tax to the State to be used to finance $10.7 billion of the deficit rolled over from last fiscal year. Local government revenue lost from the sales tax will allegedly be backfilled on a dollar-for-dollar basis using local ERAF funds, and the State will cut other programs in its general fund to replace those ERAF funds that would have otherwise gone to schools. Other elements of the package include a loss of $850 million in backfilled vehicle license fees to local governments that supposedly will be repaid in 2006, no new taxes, no suspension of Proposition 98 funding guarantees for K-12 schools, and an unresolved projected $7.9 billion deficit at the end of this fiscal year. Coincidently, the announcement on the agreement came the same day that Standard & Poor's announced it had lowered the State's credit rating to one notch above junk bond status, the lowest in the country among states. We believe that AB 1755 will be used as the implementing trailer bill for the redevelopment cut with one additional change. That amendment to be added to the bill, apparently at the request of Senator Brulte, would give local governments the option of making all or a portion of their redevelopment agency payments from other local government funds if they so elect. The essential features of AB 1755 in its current form are as follows: · Shifts $250 million from redevelopment agencies to ERAF funds in FY 2003-04 · Individual agency cuts will be determined as a proportion of that agency's share of total tax increment collected statewide (This is the same as ERAF shifts in years past.) · Each agency cut will be calculated based on 50% from gross tax increment received and 50% from net tax increment received after pass-throughs · 20% housing set-aside funds will be held harmless from cuts · Payments do not have to be made until May 10, 2004 · If an agency has insufficient funds to make its payment, it may borrow up to 50% of the current year set-aside for its housing fund to make its payment. Amount must be repaid within 10 years. · If an agency is unable to make, or fails to make, its required payment in full, that portion unpaid will be taken from property taxes of the host city or county government. · Any agency having to make an ERAF payment may have its redevelopment plan amended to extend the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan by one year. · Any agency having to make an ERAF payment may have its redevelopment plan amended to extend the time limit on use of tax increment to repay indebtedness by one year. · ERAF payments made this fiscal year and last can be subtracted from an agency's tax increment ceiling. Senators Burton and Brulte are claiming they will be able to deliver the necessary two-thirds vote from their respective party members to pass this budget package. Assembly members are just now learning the contents of the compromise. There is no announcement yet as to when the Assembly will take up consideration of the budget if it is passed by the Senate Sunday. [As is often the case in this environment, some of the above information was learned through verbal communication and is not yet in writing. Bill language is now being drafted. We will contact you if any of the above changes or if we receive more details.] ..................... P.S. This message was transmitted to you since you are an enrollee on one of California Redevelopment Association's email lists. You can change from which lists you receive transmissions. Here is how: Go to www.ca-redevelopment.org Click on Members Only Enter your User Id and Password Click on Update My Profile Select your lists JJlJl_ 2 5 2003 B A K E R S F I E L D Public Works Department Memorandum DATE: July 25, 2003 FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director ~.~ _~_~ TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager SUBJECT: Federally Funded (FHWA) ClP Projects Due to the severe State budget crisis, Caltrans has been searching for cash to cover its existing construction contracts and operational expenses. On July 21, 2003, staff responded to a letter we had received from Caltrans regarding potential un-used federal funding. ^ copy of the City's response letter is attached. Caltrans' letter asked all local agencies to identify their federally funded (Federal Highway Authority funding) projects for which the agencies would be appropriating funds before October 1, 2003. Staff's response letter basically states that the City plans to appropriate the federal funds for all of our non-freeway projects within the next six months. c: Jack LaRochelle Ted Wright Arnold Ramming Reading File S:\PROJECTS~RNOLD\Federal Funding Issue 072403.doc BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WOI~K.~ 'DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUB BAKI~R~F~m.r~ CALIFORNIA 93301 (661) 326-3724 July 21, 2003 Marvin Johnson Caltrans District 6 5156 N. Blackstone Fresno, CA 9370 Re: Local.Obligations Dear Mr. Johnson: This letter is submitted in response to Tony Harris' July 18, 2003 letter and your e-mail dated today. The City of Bakersfield must issue the following federally funded projects for construction .within the next three to six months: Widening of Calloway Drive north of Rosedale Highway; Traffic Signal and Ughting System on Stockdale Highway at McDonald Way; Right Turn Lanes on Truxtun Avenue at Commercial Way, Truxtun Avenue at Office Park Drive, and Ming Avenue at SR99; Safe Routes to School Along Belle Terrace and Texas Street; and Traffic Signal Interconnects at various locations (see attached spreadsheet for specific locations). The above projects are necessary to maintain public safety on the street systems in the Bakersfield area. In addition, the Calloway Drive widening project is being funded with federal money that we obtained from another local agency in exchange for the local-funds. The City of Bakersfield is not able to re-gain those local funds in the event that the State does not provide an obligation authority for this project. In addition to the above list~ please be aware that the City has executed a Cooperative Agreement With the State for federal funds for the sound wall on SR99 at White Lane. We were informed that a sub;sequent obligation authority document was being prepared by the State for these funds. However, we have not yet received that document. If these federal funds are not obligated for this project, the City could be sited for failure to comply with the environmental mitigations required for the widening of this interchange. The City appreciates the State's funding situation. But we respectively request that the federal funding for all of the above listed-projects be kept in place. Very truly yours, RAUL M. ROJAS Public Works Director c: KernCOG Alan Tandy Allen Christensen Steve Walker Ted Wright Arnold Ramming Reading File S?~PROJECTS~ARN~ 072103.doc FED #: CML-5109(079) City #: TIK008 Description !FTIP # Total IPE Local % Const Fed % Local % Total Fed % Total Fed % Local % Chester Ave:23rdto W. Columbus KER990520 $157~000 $138,992 $18,008 5000 $4,427 $574 152000 $134~566 $17,434 Inter;Niles:AltaVista-Hale¥ KER990512 $11,6~000 $102~695 $13,305 $3,000 $2,656 $344 $113~000 $100,039 $12,961 Inter;Misc. Branch Communications: KER010502 $159,000 $140,763' $18,237 $0 $0 $0' $159,000 $140,763 $18~237 Truxtun:Mohawk-Truxtun Plaza W. ,. Stockdale Hw~Coffee-Callowa¥ Hale), St.:Niles-Montery Inter;Misc. Branch Communications KER010503 $94,000 $83,218 $10,782 $3~000 $2,656 $344 $91,000 $80~562 $10,438 Hageman Road:Coffee Rd.-Drakes total $526,000 $465,668 $60,332 $11,000 $9~738 $1,262 $515,000 $455,930 $59r071 Description FTIP # Total PE Const I Fed % Local % Total Fed % Local % Total Fed % Local % Inter;Chester:23rd-W. Columbus KER990513 $157,000 $138,992 $18,008 $5~000 $4,427 $574 $152,000 $134,566 $17~434 FED #: CML-5109(080) City #: T2K045 Description ~- IIp # · Total PE Const Fed % Local % Total . Fed % Local % Total Fed % Local % Inter;H St: White-Panama Ln. KER000504 $131,622 $116,525 $15,097 $5,062 $4,481 $581 $126;560 $112,044 '$14,516 Inter;Stine Rd: White Ln. to Harris KER000505 $93,850 $83,085 $10,765 $3,610 $3,196 $414 $90,240 $79,889 $10~351 Inter;Ashe:ClubView to N Half Moon KER000506 $59~571 $52,738 $6,833 $2,291 $2,028 $263 $57,280 $50~710 $6,570 Inter;Misc. Branch Communications KER000507 $120,000 $106,236 $13,764 . $4,800 $4,249 $551 $115,200 $101~987 $13~213 Mt. Vernon Ave:Panorama-Hwy 178 total $405,043 $358,585 $46,458 $15,763 $13,955 $1,808 $3891280 $344,630 $44,650 STATE OF CAL[FORNIA~BUSINESs. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIs. Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~ OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 1120 N STREET P. O. BOX 942873 SACRAMENTO, CA 94273-0001 ~ex your power! PHONE (916) 654-5266 Be energy efficient! FAX (916) 654-6605 ~ (916) 653-4086 July 18, 2003 'To: Regional Transportation Planning Agencies Metropolitan Planning Organizations The Public Works Departments of Cities and Counties Dear Executive Director: On July 10, 2003, DireCtor Jeff Morales informed transportation cOntractors that the ongoing failure of the Legislature to pass a budget raised the likelihood that we would have insufficient cash in the State Highway Account (SHA) to coVer ongoing commitments after July 20, 2003.' To mitigate this' situation, the California Department of Transportation (Department) has already initiated 'action to reduce cash expenditures on State projects already in construction. Tb.ese actions include: · Arranging with contractors to continue work with the expectation of delayed payments. · Arranging with cities and counties to advance funds to contracts.that are funded partially by the local agencies.. · Arranging with Self-Help Counties to temporarily proVide funds to continue construction on projects in their counties.. · Delaying bid.openings for advertised projects. · · Suspending recently awarded contracts. These actions alone do not provide the funding to meet obligations. With the State being faced with' the choice of meeting existing expenses or moving more projects toward construction, the Department is taking an additional step to. meet estimated expenditures. This step. is the temporary borrowing of local obligation authority (OA)and necessary' apportionments. This OA and apportionments will be applied to existing State advanced construction (AC) projects thereby allowing immediate cash reimbursement from the federal government. This step will impact transPortation agencies throughout the State. "C. altrans improves mobility across California" Regional Transportation Planning Age. ncies, et al duly 18, 2003 Page 2 We are ceasing immediately all new local obligations. If the ·budget impasse continues, we will need to start de-obligating some projects where billing is not anticipated .in the near future.' LoCal agencies should anticipate the ability to begin normal obligations upon' passage of the· State budget Or as additional OA is provided in the next federal budget. Repayment of the OA is anticipated during the State fiscal year. We face many challenges in our important roles of providing transportation systems to Californians. 'We hope the current budget impasse is short-lived..We will keep you informed of the status of our funding ·capacity to help 'you in meeting these challenges. ·Sincerely, Chief Deputy Director "Ca/trans improves mobility across California" B A'.'K E..'-:R' S.'.'F,:.I E"iL D Economic'. and 'Comm'Unity Development Department M E' M O"R',A N D.:U"M July 25, 2003 TO: Alan Tandy,.'CitY Manager FROM: ~--~Onna L Kunz, Economic.Development Director SUBJECT: Baker Street COmmunity Forum #3- JulY'23; 2003 Over 80 people attended the final, in a series of three public meetings, to develop the Baker Street Economic Strategy on the evening of July 23. The community was well represented with business and property owners, residents, social service providers, 'and indiViduals. Several attendees who had participated in the previous meetings returned, as well as quite a few who attended for the first time. Councilmember Sue Benham welcomed the group and introduced the consultants from MIG. After a brief summary of the community vision established by the May 16 and 17 charrette, economic data, and the June 26 meeting, the attendees moved into discussion groups to review and comment on the Draft Baker Street Economic Development Strategy. All five groups were asked to modify goals and actions and add new ones. They were also charged with assigning priorities for implementation of the 12 goals and dozens of actions included in the draft plan. The attached single-page summary outlines the strategy from which the groups worked. The consultants are now compiling the recommendations. During the next two months, staff and consultants will be working to complete the strategy and implementation plan, develop benchmarks and evaluation criteria. The final document will be presented to City Council in late September or early October. Attachment S:\Baker Street Revitalization\BS-EDS~T memo July 23 follow-up.doc ....,--- City of Bakersfield - July 23, 2003 Thank you for participating in the third City of Bakersfield Baker Street Community Forum. This activity is designed to provide Bakersfield residents and workshop participants the opportunity to review and confirm the draft action plan before a final document is created. Please review the actions listed on the following pages; feel free to modify the existing goals, delete actions you do not agree with or add you own ideas. Also please designate if you think the actions should be a high, medium or low priority during the implementation process. 1. Priority Area: Housing Rehabilitation and Development A. Promote home ownership for individuals and families at a variety of income levels in the Baker Street area B. Encourage building rehabilitation and infill of. multi-family dwelling units and mixed-use development in the Baker Street area C. Improve SRO hotels in the Baker Street area 2. Priority Area: Community Services D. Preserve the Baker Street area as a major employment center for school district, county and other civic employees E. Provide safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular circulation, public - transportation and parking systems F. Foster an attractive and well-maintained street environment, supplemented with recreation opportunities G. Utilize physical improvements and programmatic elements to maintain a safe and secure environment H. Provide additional affordable, clean and healthy housing opportunities, programs and services at each stage of the homeless assistance process I. Establish and maintain a coordinated effort among local service providers to the homeless to improve the provision of services 3. Priority Area: Retail and Business Services J. Attract ethnic-oriented and local-serving retail in the Baker Street area. Retain and increase destination retail and restaurants in the Baker Street area K. Encourage the preservation of local historical resources L. Retain and encourage home and building improvement district in the Baker Street area B A K~E R S' F I.'£ L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM July 24, 2003 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: John W. Stinso~,,~ssistant City Manager SUBJECT: Additional Ambulance Rate Information Vice-Mayor Couch requested that the ambulance consultant provide additional spreadsheets showing ambulance rate information included in the consultant's report for different levels of profit margin ranging from 5% to 15% in one percent increments. These are provided to the Council for informational purposes. Document3 RECEIVED: 7/18/03 12:50PM; ->CITY OF BAKERSFTELD; #213; PAGE 2 Jul 18 03 12:41p David Lindberg 480-422-4491 p.2 Ambulance Rate Analysis for the City of Bakersfield Measurements Data Assumptions: 10,506 Profit Margin: 5% Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU ' ' 0.379 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary .to-Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 370.58 i Measurements Data Assumptions: Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: 6.0% Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost & ProF. Margin $ 374.53 Measurements Data Assumptions: Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: 7% Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount :Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 378.55 I HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 1 © 2003 RECEIVED; 7/18/03 12;50PM; ->CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; #213; PAGE 3 ~ Jul "18 03 12:4ip David Lindber~ 480-422-4491 p.3 Ambulance Rate Analysis for the City of Bakemfield Measurements Data Assumptions: Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport 'UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 382.67 Measurements Data Assumptions: Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 !Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 !Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 CoslJTransport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 386.87 Measurements Data Assumptions: Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: 10% Transports 8,598 Unit .Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Rasp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 39t.17 HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 2 © 2003 RECEIVED: 7/18/O3 12:5OPM; ->CTTY OF BAKERSFTELD; #213; PAGE 4 '~ 3ul "18 03 12:41p David Lindber'c 480-422-4491 p.4 Ambulance Rate Analysis for the City of Bakersfield Measurements Data Assumptions: Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport 'UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94:89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 ;Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 395.57 Measurements Data. Assumptions: Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: 12% Transports 8,598 'Unit Houm 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $* 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 400.06 Measummenls Data .Assumptions: Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: 13% Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 404,66 HealthAnaiytics, LLC Page 3 © 2003 RECEIVED: 7/18/O3 12:51PM; ->C'rTy OF BAKERSFTELD; #213; PAGE 5 ~'3ul '~8 03 1,2:42p David Lindberg 480-42~-4491 p.S Ambulance Rate Analysis for the City of Bakersfield Data Assumptions: 10,506 Profit Margin: 8,598 ~Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 ~Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to .Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 409.37 Measurements Data Assumptions: · ReSponses 10,506 Profit Margin: 15% Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Costrrransport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost. & Profit Margin $ 414.18 HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 4 © 2003 RECEIVED: 7/18/03 12:51PM; ->CTTY OF BAKERSFTELD; #213; PAGE 8 ~ Jul '18 03 12:42p David LindberC 480-422-4491 p.6 Ambulance Rate Analysis for the City of Bakersfield Net Gross Collection Adjusted Collection Collected Collection Charge Degradation! Gross Per Weighted Per TX % Increase Fac;~ Collection Private'Pay $81,08 10,7% '~4,$% 95% $870,77 $88.28 $4;81 Facility Contract $533,95 73,6% 14,6% 95% $831.81 $581.36 $86,03 Private Insurance, $564,20 73,7% 14:6% 90% $877,72: $581,96 $127.06 Medi-Cal $132,82 17.8% 0,0%. 100% $132,82 $32.07 Medicare $412,99 56,2% 0,0% 100% $412,99 $115,11 Collections $93.18 12,0% 0.0% 100% $93,18 $5.5(; 39% $747,25 $359.29 48.1% I$370.58 a 5% profit marg!n Built in:. $ 370.58 Net Incr.: $11.29 3.1% Net Gross Collection Adjusted Collection Collected Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted Per TX % Incm--_== Factor Coliec~on Private Pay $81,08 10,7% 16,7% 95% $886.55 $89,88 Facility Contract $533;95 73,6% 16.7% 95% $591.89 $87,59 Private Insurance $564,20 73,7% 16,7% 90% $592.51 $129.37 MediCal $132,82 17.8% 0.0% 100% $132.82 $32,07 Medicare $412,99 56,2% 0.0% 100% $412.99 $115,11 Collections $93.18 12,0% 0,0% 100% $93,18 $5,5C $747,25 $359.29 48,1% I ~ort with a 6% profit marklin Built in: $ 374,53 Net Incr,: $15,24 4,2% Net Gross Collection Adjusted Collection Collected Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted Per TX % Increase Fac!or Collection Pdvate Pay $81.08 10.7% 18,8% 95% $902,62 $4,98 Facility Contract $533.95 73,8% 18,8% 95% $862.24 $602.62 $89.18 Private Insurance $564.20 73,7% 18,8% 90% $909,82 $603125 $131,71 Medi-Cal $132.82 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32,07 Medicare $412.99 56,2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.99 $115,11 Collections $93.18 0,0% 100% $779.38 $93,18 $747.25 $359.29 48,1% I $378.55 with a 7% profit matin Built in: $ 378,55 Net Incr,: $19,26 5,4% HealthAnalyfics, LLC Page 1 © 2003 RECETVED: 7/18/O3 12:51PM; ->CTTY OF BAKERSF'rELD; 8213; PAGE 7 ~.]ul t8 03 12:42p David Lindber~ 480-422-4491 p.? Ambulance Rate Analysis I~or the City of Bakersfield Gross Net Gross Collection i AdJusted Collection Charges Collected Collection Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted' Payor Type % Per TX Per TX % Incre_=~e__ Fa_~_~_r Charges T~;~.,t Collection Pdvate Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81:08 10.7% 21.0% 95% $919.08 $93.18 $5.08 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73.6% 21.0% 95% $877.97 $613,61 $90.80 Pdvate Insurance 21.8% $765.84 $564.20 73.7% 21.0% 90% $926.42 $614.25 $t34.11 Medi-Cal 24.1% $747.03 $132.82 17.8% 0,0% 100% $747.03r $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412,99 $115.11 Collections 5.9% $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747,25 $359.29 48.1% I. $382.67 Cost rper transport with a 8%.profit marklin Built in: $ 382,67 'Net Incr.: $23.38 6.5% Gross Net Gross Collection Adjusted Collection Charges Collected Collection Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted PayorType % PerTX PerTX % Increase Factor ChaRes Transport Collection; Private Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81.08 10.7% 23.2% 95% $935.87 $94.88 $,5.17 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73.6% 23.2% 9S% $894.00 $624.82 $92.46 Private insurance 21.8% $765.84 $564.20 73.7% 23.2% 90% $943.34 $625.47 $136.56 MediCal 24.1% $747.03 $132.82 17.8% 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.99 $115.11 Collections 5.9% $779.38 $93.i8 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747.25 $359.29 48.1% · $386.87 Cost per transport with a 9% profit matin Built in: $ 386.87 Net Incr.: $27.58 7.7% Gross Net Gross Collection AdjUSted Collection Charges Collected Collection Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted 'Payor Type % Per TX Per TX % Incre=_~_e Factor Cha;~c-~ Transport Collection Private' Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81.08 10.7% 25.4% 95% $953.05 $96,63 $5.26 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73.6% 25,4% 95% $910.4'1 $636,29 $94.16 Private Insurance 21.8% $765.84 $564,20 73.7% 25.4% 90% $960,66 $636.95 $139.07 Medi-Cal 24.1°/, $747.03 $132.82 17,8% 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.99 $115.11 Collections 5.9°/, $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747.25 $359.29 48.1% ~ $391.17 Cost per transport with a 10% profit mar~in Built in: $ 391.17 Net Incr.: $31.88 8.9% HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 2 © 2003 RECETVED: 7/18/O3 12:52PM; ->CTTY OF BAKERSF];ELD; #213; PAGE 8 ~ Jul 'lB 03 12:42p David Lindberg 4B0-42~-4491 p.B Ambulance Rate Analysis for the City of Bakersfield Gross Net Gross Collection Adjusted Collection Chargesl Collected Collection Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted .PayorType % PerTX PerTX % Increase Factor Char~es Transport Collection Private Pay 5.4% $759.771 $81.08 10.7% 27.8% 95% $970.63 $98.41 $5.36 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73:6% 27.8% 95% $927.21 $848.03 $95.9C] Privatelnsurance 21.8%' $765.84 $564.20 73.7% 27.8% 90% $978.38 $648.70 $141.64 Medi-Cal 24.1% $747.03 $132.82 17.8%! 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.99 $115.11 Collections 5.9% $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747.25 $359.29 48.1% I $395.57 Cost per transport with a 11% profit marklin Built in: $ 395.57 Net Incr.: $36.28 10.1% Gross Net Gross Collection Adjusted CollectiOn Charges Collected Collection Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted Payor Type % Per TX Per TX % Increase Factor Char~]es Transport Collection Private Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81.08 10.7% 30.1% 95% $988.58 $100.23 $5.46 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78' $533.95 73.6% 30,1% 95% $944.35 $660.01 $97.67 Private Insurance 21.8% $765.84 $564.20 73.7% 30.1% 90% $996.47 $660.69 $144.25 Medi-Cal 24.1% $747.03 $132.82 17.8% 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735;02 $412.99 $115.11 Collections 5.9% $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747.25 $359.29 48.1% I, $400.06 Cost per transport with a t2% profit marlin Built in: $ 400.06 Net Incr.: $40.77 11.3% Gross Net Gross Collection Adjusted Collection Charges Collected'Collection Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted Payor Type % Per TX Per TX % Increase Factor I Char~e-~ Transport Collecfi_nn Pdvate Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81.08 10.7% .32.5% 95% $1,006.96 $102.09 $5.56 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73.6% 32.5% 95% $961.91 $672.28 $99.48 Private Insurance 21.8% $765.84 $564.20 73.7% 32.5% 90% $1,015.00 $672.98 $146.94 Medi-Cal 24.1% $747.03 $132.82 17.8% 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.9G 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.99 $115.11 Collections 5.9%! $779.38 $93.18 12;0%, 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747.25 $359.29 48.1% I $404.66 Cost per transport with a 13% profit matin Built in: $ 404.66 Net Incr.: $45.37 ..12.6% HealthAnalytics. LLC Page 3 © 2003 RECEIVED; 7/18/o3 12;52PM; ->¢TTY OF 8AKERSFTELD; #213; PAGE 9 ~'Ju~~' {8 03 12:42p David Lindberg 480-422-4491 p.9 Ambulance Rate Analysis for the City of Bakersfield Gross Net Gross Collection Adjusted Collection Charges Collecl~l Collection Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted Payor Type % Per TX Per TX % Increase Factor Char~es Transport Collection Private Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81.08 10.7% . ,~o.~- ~°',o 95% $1,025.78 $104.00 $5.66 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73.6% 35,0% 95% $979.89 $884.85 $101.34 Private Insurance 21.8% $765~84 $564.20 73.7% 35.0% 90% $~1,033.97 $685.56 $149.68 MediCal. 24.1% $747:03 $132.82 17.8%1 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.99 $115.11 Collections -I 5.9%1 $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747.25 $359.29 48.1% I $409.37 Cost per transport with a 14% p.roflt marklin Built in: $ 409.37 Net Incr.: $50.08 13.9% Gross Net Gross Collection Adjusted Collection Charges Collected Collection Charge Degradation Gross Per Weighted Payor T]q~m % Per TX Per TX % Increase Factor Chamfer_ Transport I Collec~on Private Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81.08 10.7% ,37.5% 95% $1 ~045.00 $105.95' $5.77 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73.6% 37.5% 95% $998.25 $697.68 $103.24 Pdvatelnsumnce 21.8% $765.84 $564.20 73.7% 37.5% 90% $1,053.34 $698.40 $152.49 Medi-Cal 24.1% $747.03 $132.82 17.8% 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56:2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412,99 $115.11 Collections 5.9% $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747.25 $359,29 48.1% I $414.18 Cost per tmnslport with a 15% profit matin Built in: $ 414.18 Net Incr.: $54.89 15.3% HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 4 © 2003 Ambulance.Rate Analysis for the City ol~ Bakersfield Hall Rate Rate Rate at Rate at Rate at Rate et Rate at Rate at Rate at Rate at Rate at Rate at Rate at Current !Requested Suwey Survey 6% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 1i% 12% 13% 14% 15% Uno Item Charge Rate Rate Mean Median Margin Margin, Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin Margin BLS Base Rate $357.00 $536.00:$453.87 $466.00 $409.16 $416.57 $424.12 $431.86 $439.74 $447.82 $456.08 $464.51 $473.15 $481.9§ $491.02 ALS Base Rate :$575.00 $718.00 $680.80 $651.00, $659.00 $670.95 $683.11 $695.57 $708.27 $721.27 $734.56 $748.16 $762.07 $776.32 $790.86 Mileage $16.00 $21.00 $14.12 $13.03' $18.34 $18.67 $19.01 $19.35 $19.71 $20.07 $20.4~l $20.82 $21.21 $21.60 $22.01 Night Charge $70.00 $92.00 $74.00 $61.00 $80.23 $81,68 $83.16 $84.68 $86.22 $87.81 $89.43 $91.08 $92.77; $94.51 $96.28 ~ Emergency Response $52.00 $92.00 $84.96 $87.88 $59.60 $60.68 $61.78 $62.90 $64.05 $65.23 $66.43 $67.66 $68.92 $70.21 $71.52 Oxygen $57.00 $71.00 $65.33 $62.75 $65.33 $66.51 $67.72 $68.95 $70,21 $71.50 $72.82 $74.17 $75.54 $76.96 $78.40 ff. Supplies $100.00 $100.00 None None None None None None None None None None None None None ~ Medications $275.00 $275.00 None None None None None None None None None None None None None o ff' ~. I .J m ir- ~ "' ' HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 1 © 2003 tr' · ~ :~ : FOR THE CI'TY OF ::~ ',~:: BAKERSF]'ELD, CALI'FORNZA AMBULANCE RATE ANALYSIS Main Office: 54.50 E. McLellan Rd., Suite 217 Mesa, Arizona 85205 866-283-8765, Ext. 1 www. healthanalytics.net East Coast Office: PO Box 2128 Lakeland Florida 33806 866-283-8765, Ext. 2 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~:i..~/HE/kLT,., AMBULANCE RATE' SUPPLEMENTAL .ANALYSIS ,~/ ANALYTICS. .' TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Summary .................... , .................................................................................................. 2 II. Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2 A. Ambulance Rate Survey ................ ............................................................................. 2 B. Current Kern County Rates ....................................................................................... 3 III. Ambulance Rate Matrix Results ................................................................................. 3 IV. Ambulance Rate Adjustment Results ........................................................................ 4 A. Ambulance Rate Survey Results ............................................................................... 4 B. Hall's Current Kern County Rate Results ................................................................ 4 C. Liberty's Current Kern County Rate Results ........................................................... 5 V. Ambulance Rate Survey Tables ............................................ : ..................................... 7 A. BLS Base Rates ............................................................................................................. 7 B. ALS Base Rate .............................................................................................................. 8 C. Mileage Rates ............................................................................................................... 9 D. Night Charge Rates ................................................................................................... 10 E. Emergency Response Rates ..................................................................................... 11 F. Oxygen Rates ............................................................................................................. 12 HealthAnalytics, LLC Page I © 2003 CITY OF' BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA '"~ HEALTH' AMBULANCE RATE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS ~'/AI~'4ALYTICS I. SUMMARY HealthAnalytics has been asked to provide some additional analysis regarding the Ambulance Rate issue. Specifically, HealthAnalytics was asked to provide the following: 1. To use the mean and median values from the Ambulance Rate Survey completed and included in the previous report. Specifically, to plug into the Ambulance Rate Matrix these values and determine what kind of profit margin these rates would generate for Hall Ambulance Service Inc. HealthAnalytics was also asked to incorporate the mean and median values excluding the lowest and highest values reported by other agencies into this analysis. 2. To plug' into the Ambulance Rate Matrix Model the current Kern County Ambulance Rates and determine what kind of profit margin that would generate. II. METHODOLOGY A. AMBULANCE RATE SURVEY HealthAnalytics utilized the original tables for each rate category, copied and pasted them below the' original table and then took out the lowest (other than zero)and highest values from the mean and median calculations. We then averaged the mean and median from the original table with the new mean and median from the second table to come up with a value to be used in the Ambulance Rate Matrix Model. These Ambulance Rate Survey tables are included at the end of this document and the numbers highlighted in yellow represent the numbers used in the matrix for each rate category. Once all of the figures for each rate category were plugged into the ambulance rate matrix, a global percentage change from Hall Ambulance Service Inc.'s current rates was calculated. This percentage rate change was then plugged into the Ambulance Rate Adjustment table to determine what the average gross charge would be with percentage increase proposed. Once an average gross charge was determined, the average gross charge was plugged into an Ambulance Cost/Rate Analysis model to determine what the profit margin would be at new average gross chare rate given Hall Ambulance Service Inc.'s'current cost of providing services. HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 2 © 2003 CITY OF-BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (~,.,' 'EALT'Id AM BU LAN C E RATE SUPPLE M E NTAL ANALYSIS A NALYTI CS B. CURRENT KERN COUNTY RATES HealthAnalytics was als© asked to use a similar approach using current Kern County Ambulance rates. The difficulty in using this approach is that every provide]{ in Kern county has different rates. HealthAnalytics decided to compare against Hall Ambulance Service Inc.'s current Kern county rates and 'Liberty Ambulance current Kern county rates because both providers are and the low and high end respectively and both are the only approved providers in the City of Bakersfield. III. AMBULANCE RATE MATRIX RESULTS The table that follows includes, by line item charge category: 1. The current City of Bakersfield's rates 2. Hall's requested rates from January of 2003 3. The percentage increase Hall's requested rates would generate 4. The average of the two mean and median rates from the ambulance rate survey 5. 'The percentage difference the ambulance survey rates would generate as compared to the City of Bakersfield'scurrent rates 6. Hall's current Kern county rates 7. The percentage difference Hall's current Kern county rates would generate as compared to the City of Bakersfield's current rates 8. Liberty's current Kern county rates 9. The percentage difference Liberty's current Kern county rates would generate as compared to the City of l~akersfield's current rates ~<~,~:.~:.~ Averaoe Difference Hall er Difference Kern Difference ~1~ Su~ey from Hall Coun~ from Hall County from Hall ~;Rate %~ ~t~ Rates ~:~i'~i~ ~'~ ~ ~:~'7~%~ ~b~t~ Current Rates : CUrrent Rates Current BLS Base Rate $357.00 $536.00 50% $4~.06 28.3% $429.00 20.2% $6~ 5.0C 72.3% ALS Base Rate $575.00 $718.00 25% $665.58 15.8% $575.00 0.0% $782.0C 36.0% Mileage $~6.00 $21.00 3~% $~3.54 -~5.4% $~7.30 8.1% $23.25 45.3% Night Charge $70,00 $92.00 3~ % $67.2~ -4.0% $74,00 5,7% $~25.0C 78.6% Emergency Response $52.00 $92.0C 77% $86.24 65.9% $74.00 42.3% $~ 05.00 ~01.9% Oxygen $57.00 $7~ .0C 25% $63.94 12.2% $57.00 0.0% $82.00 43.9% Supplies $100.00 $100.00 None None ~:~ None ~i~I~e~I~ ~;k~ None Medications $275.00 $275.00 None None None ~;, ~x~k :,;;: ~ ~ ;,~ None 39.9% 17.1% 12.7% 63.0% The percentage changes for the ambulance su~ey rates, Hall's Kern county rates and Liberty's kern county rates as compared the Ci~ of Bakersfield's current approved ambulance rates were 17.1%, 12.7 and 63.0% respectively. HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 3 © 2003 · :'' '": .' '.':: .':' i 'AMBULANCE RATE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIs' i,'x~: ANALYTICS...'.. i IV. AMBULANCE RATE ADJUSTMENT RESULTS The previous rate increase calculations were then plugged into the following Ambulance Rate Adjustment Analysis tables and generated the following results: A. AMBULANCE RATE SURVEY RESULTS Using the 17.1 percent increase from the Ambulance Rate Matrix generated an average gross charge of $375.32. Private Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81.08 10.7% 17.1% · 95% $889.69 $90.20 $4.91 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73.6% 17.1% .' 95% $849.89 $593.99 $87.90 Private Insurance 21.8% $765.84 $564.20 73.7% 17.1% 90% $896.79 $594.61 $129.83 Medi-Cal 24.1% $747.03 $132.82 17.8% 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.99 $115.11 Collections 5.9% $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 39% $747.25 $359.29 48.1%· ~ $375.32 Cost per transpo~ with a 6% profit margin Built in: $375.32 Net Incr.: $~6.02 4.5% ~e $375.32 average gross charge was ~en plugged ~to the Ambulance Cost/Rate ~alysis Model w~ch calculated an expected profit margin of 6% based on Hall Ambulance Se~ice ~c.'s current cost. Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: 6% Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 375.32 B. HALL'S CURRENT KERN COUNTY RATE RESULTS Using the 12.7 percent increase from the Ambulance Rate Matrix generated an average gross charge of $366.95. HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 4 © 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (~": ~ H'EALT;' .' AMBULANCE' RATE SUPPLEMENTAL.ANALYSIS \~'ANALYTICS 6oIle~on_ Private Pay 5.4% $759.77 $81.08 10.7% i2:7%" 95% $856.26 $86.81 $4.73 Facility Contract 14.8% $725.78 $533.95 73.6% 12.7% 95% $817.96 $571.67 $84.60 Private Insurance 21.8% $765.84 $564.20 73.7% 12.7% 90% $863.10 $572.27 $124.95 Medi-Cal 24,1% $747.03 $132.82 17.8% 0.0% 100% $747.03 $132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.99 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.99 $115.11 Collections 5.9% $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18 $5.50 $747.25 $359.29 48.1% I $366.95 Cost per transport with a 4.1% profit margin Built in: $366.95 Net Incr.: $7.66 2.1% The $366.95 average gross charge was then plugged into the Ambulance Cost/Rate Analysis Model which calculated an expected profit margin of 4.1% based on Hall Ambulance Service Inc.'s current cost. ResponseS 10,506 Profit Margin: 4.1% Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Average Amount Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 366.95 C. LIBERTY'S CURRENT KERN COUNTY RATE RESULTS Using the 63.0 percent increase from the Ambulance Rate Matrix generated an average gross charge of $462.58. HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 5 © 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA (~' })HEALT:.: AMBULANCE RATE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS 5~ ANALYTICS ~.~T'i'I~J'T ~liT~'.I~, ~"~[[ILL~I lf[~li,lr~'~Ll~ ~]l[.Tldj~l~.]i;~.l;(;]d~'li ~'-I~IlJ~"III[~II~;T~ ]];~dlJ! I]llil~-d~"l(~.-]~ Private Pa,/ §.4% .$759.77 $8'1.08 '10.7% 83.0% 95% $'1,238.43 $'125.56 $8.84 FacilR,/Contrac~ '14.8% $725.78 $533.§§ 73.6% 63.0% 95% $'1,'183.02 $826.82 $'122.35 PriYate Insurance 2'1.8% $765.84 $564.2C 73.7% 63.0% 90% $'1,248.31 $827.6~ $180.7'1 Medi-Cal 24.'1% $747.03 $'132.82 '17.$% 0.0% '100% $747.03 $'132.82 $32.07 Medicare 27.9% $735.02 $412.9c~ 56.2% 0.0% 100% $735.02 $412.9~ $115.'11 Collections 5.9% $779.38 $93.18 12.0% 0.0% 100% $779.38 $93.18, $5.50 $747.25 $359.29 48.1% I $462.58 Cost per transport with a 24% profit margin Bull,! in: $462.58 Net Incr.: $103.29 28.7% The $462.58 average gross charge was then plugged into the Ambulance Cost/Rate Analysis Model which calculated an expected profit margin of 44.0% based on Hall Ambulance Service Inc.'s current cost. Responses 10,506 Profit Margin: 24% Transports 8,598 Unit Hours 27,740 Tx UHU 0.310 Average Task Time 1.150 Adjusted Transport UHU 0.270 Resp UHU 0.379 Unit Hour Cost $ 94.89 Cost/Transport $ 352.06 Necessary to Cover Cost & Profit Margin $ 462.58 HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 6 © 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFTELD, CALfFORNTA (O HEALT'H AMBULANCE RATE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS ANALYTICS AMBULANCE RATE SURVEY TABLES BASE RATES 1 Ontario ~,MR $315.64 2 Fresno American Ambulance Service $319.06 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, P~riority One Medical 3 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $327.06 4 Moreno Valley AMR $353.00 5 Riverside AMR $353.00 7 Pomona Schaefer $386.75 8 Santa Clarita &MR $386.75 9 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $397.50 10 Iwine Doctor's Ambulance $466.00 11 Garden Grove Care Ambulan~ ~66.0C 12 Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Fire Depadment $466.0~ 13 Anaheim Care Ambulan~ $466.0~ 14 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Depadment $466.00 15 Modesto AMR $500.00 16 Salinas 'AMR $509.24 . . . . ........ . ~.'z ~,~.~.~36~0 17 Santa Rosa AMR $618.04 18 Sacramento Sacramento Fire DepaAment $661.81 . 19 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Depa~ment $712.00 Mean $453.87 Median $466.00 Standard Deviation $115.98 I $4~.06 Taking Out the Lowest and Highest Submitted ~ Ontario AMR $3~5.~4 2 Frosno Amedmn ~bulan~ So.ice $3~.00 Stockton Fire, AMR, ~aramedic Arab., First ~aramodic, ~riodty 3 Stockton lranspo~, ~-~ Ambulance $327.00 4 Morono Valle7 AMR $353.00 5 Riverside AMR ' $353.00 7 Pomona Schaefer $386.75 8 !Santa Clarita AMR $386.75 9 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $397.50 10 I~ine DoctoCs Ambulance $466.00 11 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $466.00 12 Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Fire Depa~ment $466.00 13 Anaheim Care Ambulan~ $466.00 14 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Depa~ment $466.00 15 Modesto AMR $500.00 16 Salinas AM R $509.24 17 Santa Rosa AMR $618.04 18 Sacramento Sabramento Fire Depa~ment $661.81 19 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Depa~ment $712.00 Mean $446.38 Median $466.0~ Standard Deviation $115,98 LLC Page 7 © 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA HEALT'I I AMBULANCE RATE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS ANALYTICS BASE RATE Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Priority One Medical 2 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $580.00 3 Pomona Schaefer $593.00 4 Santa Clarita AMR $593.00 5 Fresno American Ambulance ServiCe $595.00 6 Salinas AMR $628.66 7 Modesto AMR $650.00 8 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $651.00 9 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $651.00 10 Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $651.00 11 Anaheim Care Ambulance $651.00 12 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Department $651.00 13 Ontario AMR $687.50 14 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $747.25 15 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $759.05 16 Moreno Valle)/ AMR $781.00 17 Riverside AMR $781.00 18 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $802.00 19 Santa Rosa AMR $802.0C Mean $680,80 Median $651.00 Standard Deviation $77.11 I $665.58 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Priority One Medical 2 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $580.00 3 Pomona Schaefer $593.00 4 Santa Clarita AMR $593.00 5 Fresno American Ambulance Service $595.00 6 Salinas AMR $628.66 7 Modesto AMR $650.00 '8 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $651.00 9 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $651.00 10 Hunting]ton Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $651.00 11 Anaheim Care Ambulance $651.00 12 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Department $651.00 13 Ontario AMR $687.50 14 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $747.25 15 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $759.05 16 Moreno Valley AMR $781.00 17 Riverside AMR $781.00 18 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $802.00 19 Santa Rosa AMR $802.00 Mean $679.53 Median $651.00 Standard Deviation $77.11 HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 8 © 2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~ ':':~ HEALTI-q AMBULANCE'RATE SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS' .¥~:~4-Z/ANALYTICS MILEAGE RATES I Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $12.00 2 Anaheim Care Ambulance $12.25 3 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $12.25 4 Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $12.25 5 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $12.25 6 Santa Ana Santa Aha Fire Department $12.25 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Priority One Medical 7 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $12.30 8 ~omona Schaefer $13.00 9 Santa Clarita AMR $13.00 10 Ontario AMR $13.05 11 Salinas AMR $13.17 12 Modesto AMR $14.48 13 Fresno American Ambulance Service $14.76 15 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $16.50 16 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $16.63 17 Santa Rosa AMR $17.10 18 Moreno Valley AMR $18.50 19 Riverside AMR $18.50 Mean $14.12 Median $13.03 Standard Deviation $2.30 I $13;54 1 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $12.00 2 Anaheim Care Ambulance $12.25 3 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $12.25 4 Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $12.25 5 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $12.25 6 Santa Aha Santa Ana Fire Department $12.25 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Priority One Medical 7 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $12.30 8 Pomona Schaefer $13.00 9 Santa Clarita AMR $13.00 10 Ontario AMR $13.05 11 Salinas AMR $13.17 12 Modesto AMR $14.48 13 Fresno American Ambulance Service $14.76 15 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $16.50 16 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $16.63 17 Santa Rosa AMR $17.10 18 Moreno Valley AMR $18.50 19 Riverside AMR $18.50 Mean $13.98 Median $13.03 Standard Deviation $2.30 LLC Page 9 © 2003 CITY OF'BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA ~f' ~,) HEALT,' '-' AMBULANCE RATE.SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYsis: ~' ANALYTICS CHARGE RATES 1 Modesto AMR $0.00 2 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $0.00 3 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $0.00 4 Salinas AMR $0.00 5 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $0.00 6 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $0.00 7 Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $0.00 8 Anaheim Care Ambulance $0.00 9 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Department $0.00 10 Fresno American Ambulance Service $0.00 11 Santa Rosa AMR $0.00 12 Pomona Schaefer $58.75 13 Santa Clarita AM R $58.75 14 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $60.63 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Priority One Medical 15 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $61.00 17 Ontario AMR $88.85 18 Moreno Valley AMR $95.00 19 Riverside AMR $95.00 Mean $74.00 Median $61.00 Standard Deviation $i7.87 I $67.21 1 Modesto AMR $0.00 2 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $0.00 3 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $0.00 4 Salinas AMR $0.00 5 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $0.00 6 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $0.00 7 Hunting]ton Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $0.00 8 Anaheim Care Ambulance $0.00 9 Santa Ana Santa Aha Fire Department $0.00 10 Fresno American Ambulance Service $0.00 11 Santa Rosa AMR $0.00 12 Pomona Schaefer $58.75 13 Santa Clarita AMR $58.75 14 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $60.63 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Priority One Medical 15 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $61.0C 17 Ontario AMR $88.85 , Ba~i~fibld;E H~ll~A/rfil~l ~'n'i~e~d $92~'0C, 18 Moreno Valley AMR $95.00 19 Riverside AMR $95.00 Mean $72.85 Median $61.00 Standard Deviation $17.87 LLc Page 10 .. © 2003 EMERGENCY RESPONSE RATES 1 . Modesto AMR $0.00 2 Moreno Valley AMR $0.00 3 Riverside ' AMR $0.00 4 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department · $0.00 5 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $0.00 6 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $0.00 7 Hunting]ton Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $0.00 8 Anaheim Care Ambulance $0.00 9 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Department $0.00 10 Fresno American Ambulance Service $0.00 11 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $50.00 13 Salinas AMR $65.28 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Arab., First Paramedic, Priority One Medical 14 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $68.00 15 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $85.25 16 Pomona Schaefer $90.50 17 Santa Clarita AMR $90.50 ~..;~ B~'l~b~t§fi~! ~§i!;~ul~n~l $g2,~00 18 Santa Rosa AMR $106.04 19 Ontario AMR $124.10 Mean $84.96 Median $87.88 Standard Deviation $23.71 [ $86.24 1 ,Modesto AMR $0.00 2 Moreno Valle)/ AMR $0.00 3 Riverside AMR $0.00 4 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $0.00 5 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $0.00 6 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $0.0C 7 Hunting]ton Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $0.0C 8 Anaheim Care Ambulance $0.00 9 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Department $0.0C 10 Fresno ' American Ambulance Service $0.0¢ 11 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $50.0(; ?,~ ,;~ ~f~ ,,,,, ,~, , , .......... 13 Salinas AMR $65.28 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Priority One Medical 14 Stockton q:ransport, A-1 Ambulance $68.00 15 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $85.25 16 Pomona Schaefer $90.50 17 Santa Clarita AMR $90.50 18 Santa Rosa AMR $106.04 19 Ontario ~,MR $124.10 Mean $84.26 Median $87.88 Standard Deviation $23.71 HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 11 © 2003 AMBULANCE RATE SUPPLEM ENTAL AN ALYSIS ..... F. OXYGEN RATES I Fresno American Ambulance Service $0.00 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Pdodty One Medical 2 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $46.00 3 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $50.00 ~ all Ambulanc,~ !nc 5 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $60.50 6 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $60.50 7 Hunting]ton Beach Huntington Beach Fire Department $60.50 8 Anaheim Care Ambulance $60.50 9 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Department $60.50 10 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $60.75 11 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $62.75 12 Salinas AMR . $62.98' 13 Pomona Schaefer $64.00 14 Santa Clarita AMR $64.00 15 Modesto AMR $66.84 16 Ontado AMR $76.96 17 Moreno Valley AMR $81.50 18 Riverside AMR $81.50 19 Santa Rosa AMR $90.88 Mean $65.33 Median $62.75 Standard Deviation $11.39 t $63.94 1 Fresno Amedcan Ambulance Service $0.00 Stockton Fire, AMR, Paramedic Amb., First Paramedic, Pdodty One Medical. 2 Stockton Transport, A-1 Ambulance $46.00 3 Oceanside Oceanside Fire Department $50.00 5 Irvine Doctor's Ambulance $60.50 6 Garden Grove Care Ambulance $60.50 7 Huntin,qton Beach Huntington Beach Fire Depadment $60.50 8 Anaheim Care Ambulance $60.50 9 Santa Ana Santa Ana Fire Department $60.50 10 Sacramento Sacramento Fire Department $60.75 11 Oxnard Gold Coast Ambulance $62.75 12 Salinas AMR $62.98 13 Pomona Schaefer $64.00 14 Santa Clarita AMR $64.0C 15 Modesto AMR $66.84, 16 Ontado AMR $76.96 17 Moreno Valley AMR $81.50 18 Riverside AMR $81.50 19 Santa Rosa AMR $90.88 Mean $64.92 Median $62.75 Standard Deviation $11.39 HealthAnalytics, LLC Page 12 © 2003 ~TATI= t')F C. AI I FC~RNIA -RI IRINFRR TRAN.C:;PC3RTATIC)N AND HC)[ IRIN~ ARFN(-;,Y DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF CODES AND STANDARDS 1800 Third Street, Suite 260 P. O. Box 1407 Sacramento, CA 95812-1407 (916) 445-9471 FAX (916) 327-4712 TDD Phones: 1-800-735-2929 Mr. Alan Tandy, City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: code Enforcement Grant Program Award Dear Mr. Tandy: I am pleased to inform you that on June 27, 2003, this Department's Local Assistance Loan and Grant Committee recommended that the Director approve your Code Enforcement Grant Program award. This letter constitutes a conditional commitment of grant funds in the amount of $179,634.77 to be used for capital expenditures that supplement or enhance your local housing code entbrcement program. Presently, the Committee's funding recommendations are being forwarded to the Director of the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the final funding decision. Once the recommendations have received the Director's approval, staff will begin preparing your contract documents in accordance with the approved Staff Report and supported by information submitted with your application. Please note that, as always, no funds may be expended nor any costs incurred until a contract is fully executed by both the local jurisdiction and HCD. It is anticipated that HCD program staff will be contacting you within the next 60. days to arrange for the execution of the Department's Standard Agreement and-other necessary.documentation. Program staff thanks you for your continued interest in the Code Enforcement Grant Program and looks forward to working with you on this grant. If you have questions Or need assistance, please contact Teresa E. Grossi, Grant Specialist, at (916) 327-2659. Sincerely, Deputy Director, Codes and Standards Enc: Approved Staff Report - · ", .... '. ' ~ · State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Housing and Community Development Code Enforcement Grant Program Action Item IV.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Chairperson and Members HCD Local Assistance Loan and Grant Committee SUBMITTED AND PREPARED BY: Teresa E. Grossi, Grant Specialist SUBJECT: City of Bakersfield, Kern County Request for Code Enforcement Grant Program Grant Grant Request The City of Bakersfield, a Central Valley city is requesting a Code Enforcement Grant Program (CEGP) grant in the amount of $179,634.77 for capital expenditures to be used to improve the effectiveness of and supplement its existing local funding for code enforcement programs related to housing code maintenance or compliance. Requested Capital Expenditure The City operates an inter-disciplinary housing code enforcement program throughout the city limits. Bakersfield has both reactive and proactive programs in place that encourage housing preservation through these programs. The City has requested funding to purchase vehicles, a utility trailer, safety equipment, a surveillance system, computer equipment, a copier, and inspection equipment for its code enforcement team. See Attachments A and B for special conditions and a detailed description of proposed capital expenditures. Technical and Financial Capabilities 'The proposed capital expenditures will augment the City's-code enforcement budget. The City's current funding level fbr its code entbrcement programs are stable and expected to remain constant during the three year grant period. Addkionally, the City has demonstrated the technical capacity to support each proposed capital expenditure. Recommendation Staff recommends funding in the amount of $ 179,634.77, subject to special conditions, to purchase the requested capital expenditures as outlined in Attachment "A" and detailed in Attachment "B". State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Housing and Community Development Code Enforcement Grant Program Action Item IV.A. ATTACHMENT "A" Special Conditions Prior to disbursement of any grant funds the Contractor shall have executed a California Code Enforcement Grant Program Standard Agreement, and :provided the State with the following additional documents, subject to State approval and substantially consistent with the application and staff report: 1. Program implementation schedule. 2. Copy .of current City budget for Code Enforcement Activities. 3. Updated annual budget for year one consistent with the modified approved grant alIlOUnt. 4. Name and title of CEGP lead person and contact. 5. Provide State with a paid invoice, purchase order, repair order, contract or any other documentation deemed necessary by the State to ensure the success of the Code Enforcement Grant Program and the eligibility of the expenditure. The Department will not authorize payment for supplies, consumables, consultants or other soft costs associated with the requested capital assets. 6. Certified resolution authorizing receipt of the state funds and the obligation to financially and technically support the capital expenditures during the three year grant period. 7. Bond funds may not be used to pay consulting, licensing or monthly fees associated with any capital expenditures. · Proposed Capital Expenditures See Attachment B for further details Requested ,~ Amount Approved ~ Amount Vehicles $93,662.31 $93,662.31 Dump utility trailer $5,495 $5,495 Safety Equipment $2,701.92 $2,701.92 Video Surveillance system $15,000 $15,000 Computers and scanners $58,515.98 $58,515.98 Inspection equipment $4,259.56 $4,248.81 Totals $179,634.77 $179,634.77 State of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency Department of Housing and Community Development Code Enforcement Grant Program- Action Item IV.A ATTACHMENT B Anticipated Costs Summary Table Exhibit 3A Description of Capital Asset Anticipated Cost Carson Dump Bed Utility Trailer $5,495.00 Ford 1-Ton Diesel Truck w/Stakebed '-. $29,425.95 Ford Expedition 4x4 SUV $28,046.36 (2) Ford Taurus 4-Door Sedans $36,190.00 (7) Second Chance Body Armor $2,701.92 Video Surveillance Systems $15,000.00 (7) Panasonic Toughbook Laptop Computers $56,944.99 (7) Milwaukee Cordless Drills $2,131.50 Sharp Digital Copier $999.99 Hewlett-Packard Document Scanner $571.00 Noise Dosimeter wi Calibrator $1,302.31 (7) Stinger Rechargeable Flashlights $825.75 Total Funds Requested $179,634.77 B."A K::...E R."..S .F'I E.-L D Economic and CommunitY'DevelOpment Department M E M O'R A N D July 23, 2003 TO: AlanTandy CitY. Manager ~.. · xcel,, FROM: Donna L. Kunz, EConomiC DeVelOpmbntDirect°r SUBJECT: Quarterly.Activity RePort on City Grant and SpeCial FUnding Activities The following grant and special fUnding opportunities are either under pursuit or have been recently received by various departments as outlined below: EDCD The Mill (Creekwalk) - Linear park-water development along Kern Canal from Golden State to California Avenue. Staff is.working with a city wide team to prepare 2 separate applications to the California State Parks under the Prop 40 Bond. Grants up to $2.5 million each may be applied for under the Urban Park Development Grant and the Murray-Hayden Park Grant. Applications are due in January 03. The Mill (Creekwalk) - Special earmarked funds are being sought by staff through Congressman Thomas for the project detailed above. Staff submitted a letter request to Thomas in May for $5 million. Baker Street (Streetscape and Public Plaza) - Special HUD earmarked funds are being sought by congressman Thomas for the continuation of the Baker street Streetscape and the public works plaza planned in the redevelopment project. Thomas has requested $1 million dollars in the federal FY 03-04 HUD' Budget. The HUD budget is under consideration by the House Appropriations Committee at this time. We expect to hear on the request sometime in August. EPA Revolving Brownfield Loan' Fund - Grant of $1 million awarded in June 2003. Staff submitted required work plan. Funds should be available to the City after October 2003. Citywalk (Affordable Housing Project) - Deferred loan of'$1,750,000 was awarded to the Bakersfield RDA in June 2003. Staff is working out the agreement with Cai H FA and expects the funds to be available in early September. Funds will be used for land acquisition by the RDAfor property along the canal and east of Q Street. 'Jobs/Housing Balance Grant- Rio Vista Park Improvements. Staff received notice of a funding award of $314,000 in June 2003. Staff is coordinating with the Parks Department to submit the follow up paperwork to release the funds to the City. P:~Kunz-Grants-072303.doc Police Federal COPPS Program - Police staff have applied for a grant related to ~;chool/community policing officers from this federal program. They are requesting eight officers and related expenses..The funding award will be announced sometime before the end ~,f 2003. 'Development Services Habitat Conservation Fund - A proposal is being drafted by Development Se~rvices staff to use these funds as a match to assist in northeast open space acquisitions. Recreational Trails Program - This proposal would be to apply for $200,000 f~r a culvert needed under Alfred Harrell HWY to connect trails north and south of the road as parit of the Northeast Parks and Trails Specific Plan. The application is being prepared by Developrr',~ent Services staff. P:\Ku nz-Grants-072303.doc BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DENISE PEN-NELL SUPERVISORS CL~P,X O~ BOARD O~ SU~'F~VISORS Jon McQuiston ................ District I Kern County Administrative Center Don Maben .................... District 2 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor Barbara Patrick ............... District 3 Bakersfield, California 93301 Raymond A. Watson ...... District 4 Telephone 661-868-3585 Pete H. Parra ................... District 5 TrY Relay 800.735-2929 July 1,2003 Mr. Rod Diridon, Chairperson California High-Speed Rail Authority 925 L Street, Suite 1425 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Metropolitan Bakersfield High-Speed Rail Terminal Preferred Site Dear Chairperson Diddon: For a number of years, Kern County has participated in activities that support the development of the California High-Speed Rail system. County staff and policy makers have spent considerable time and effort in analyzing vadous rail corridor alignments and potential terminal locations. We appreciate having had the opportunity to work with your fellow Authority members and capable staff on this important program and we look forward to continuing that relationship. As you are aware, the Kern Council of Governments has retained a consultant team to evaluate the three potential terminal locations previously identified for our community. Our staff have participated in this analysis and given consideration to a number of cdteda previously established for the purposes of this review. Following this review, the Kern County Board of Supervisors has voted to adopt the enclosed Resolution in support of the terminal site known as the Truxtun Avenue site as the preferred alternative of Kern County. For these reasons, our Board respectfully requests that the California High- Speed Rail Authority support the Truxtun Avenue base system site for the Metropolitan Bakersfield High-Speed Rail terminal. 'Sincerely, Pete H. Parra, Chairman Kern County Board of Supervisors PHP:DP Enclosure BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF KERN, STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the matter of: Resolution No. 2003-290 DESIGNATION OF A PREFERRED SITE FOR THE METROPOLITAN BAKERFIELD HIGH-SPEED RAIL TERMINAL I, DENISE PENNELL Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kem, State of California, do hereby certify that the following resolution, on motion of Supervisor Maben, seconded by Supervisor Watson, was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of. Kern at an official meeting thereof on the 1st day of July, 2003, by the following vote and that a copy of the resolution has been delivered to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. AYES: McQuiston, Maben, Patrick, Watson, Parra NOES: None ABSENT: None DENISE PENNELL Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County of Kern, State of California RESOLUTION · Section 1. WHEREAS: (a) The matter of designating a preferred site for the Metropolitan Bakersfield High- Speed Rail Terminal has been under consideration by Kern County for over six years; and (b) County staff have reviewed issues concerning the siting of the Metropolitan Bakersfield High-Speed Rail Station and have participated on a regional steering committee created by the Kern Council of Governments; and (c) The Kern Council of Govemments retained a consultant team to analyze three potential High-Speed Rail Terminal sites in the Bakersfield Metropolitan area; and (d) After careful consideration of available information, the consultant team has issued a report recommending that the site identified as the Downtown Truxtun Avenue site be named as the most attractive site for the Bakersfield region; and (e) County staff has reviewed the consultant report and concurs with the findings, including the concept that having a one locally adopted preferred site will allow the community to better focus its efforts to support and promote its preference to the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Se(~tion 2. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Kern, State of California, as follows: (1) The Kern County Board of Supervisors endorses the Truxtun Avenue site as the preferred base-system local alternative site for the Metropolitan Bakersfield High-Speed Rail Terminal. (2) The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall send copies of this Resolution to the following: California High Speed Rail Authority Resource Management Agency County Counsel I COPIES FURNISHED: BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department MEMORANDUM /...~~ ~ TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: onna . unz, conomic eveopment irector SUBJECT: Southeast CDBG Economic Loan Status The following individuals responded in writing to a request for interest letter. Each was initially called by staff and sent a letter outlining the City's financial loan requirements, along with the CDBG Loan application. The call and letter encouraged them to set up an appointment at their home or business to discuss further their project or application requirements. Applicants were also informed that assistance by the Small Business Development Center was available to put together the required financial documents. The following is a brief status of the requests to date: East California and Owens Street: Housing Authority commercial project Housing Authority submitted an application proposing a commercial complex that could. include a job training center, police substation, child care facility and retail space. Staff is waiting on the Housing Authority to secure tenants and the majority of the financing for the development, before bringing their request to Budget & Finance for review. Project costs - $3,000,000 Requested City funds - $500,000 ($200,000 Section 108 / $300,000 CDBG) . 800-828 East California Avenue: Strong's Business Service Center Vernon Strong submitted a request to fund the remodel and construction of new retail space within his existing commercial center. Director met with Mr. Strong (twice) to discuss the application documents required and funding requirements. A letter was sent, at applicant's request, outlining potential City/RDA funding available if a completed and approved application was submitted. Applicant has not called or submitted required documents. Project costs - $487,850 Requested City funds - $487,850 (plus all building fees waived) 802 Union Avenue: Ernest Stokes Restaurant & Music Club Ernest Stokes submitted the required CDBG application to fund equipment and parking lot construction for a building he is currently renovating. After submitting the application, Mr. Alan Tandy Page 2 7/21/2003 Stokes changed the business from a sole ownership to a partnership with four other individuals. Staff has asked for an updated application reflecting financial statements of partners and a revised pro forma. Unfortunately, Mr. Stokes also did not take his project through site plan review. Staff set up a meeting with Planning and is assisting Mr. Stokes with site plan review process. Project Costs - $200,000 Requested City funds - $60,000 City Municipal Airport - Bob Clark Restaurant Bob Clark, the previous operator of the restaurant/bakery prior to the fire, recently (7/18) submitted a request to rehabilitate and reopen the restaurant. Funds are requested for reconstruction and equipment. Staff will begin working with Public Works and applicant to determine if the project is fundable. Applicant still needs to provide the CDBG Loan application documents required. Project costs - $150,000 Requested city funds - $75,000 431 Lakeview Avenue: Quality Choice 99 Cent Plus store Henry Shipes submitted a request for funding to assist in the expansion of his existing store (1,175 sf). Funds are requested for construction and equipment purchase. Mr. Shipes contends the original agreement he had with the City entitles him to the parcel now owned by Mt. Elgon. Mt. Elgon is willing to sell parcel for fair market value, but he has declined to purchase the parcel necessary for the expansion. Applicant has not sUbmitted application information. Project costs - $75,000 Requested City funds - $25,000 513 California Avenue: vacant building, Incubator/Credit Union Stephanie Campbell submitted for funding to develop incubator/credit union in a then vacant motel. The motel has since been rehabbed and is occupied. Applicant submitted another vacant office building but has not called staff or submitted updated application information relevant to the new project site. Project costs - $500,000 Requested City funds - $200,000 Requested County funds - $300,000 SE corner Lakeview and Virginia avenues: New commercial project Evelyn Nelson, dba Groomed for Greatness (owner of five vacant parcels) submitted a request for funding for a two story commercial retail/office project (10,700 sf). Applicant has not called staff or submitted application information. Project costs - $425,000 Requested City funds - $200,000 414 Lakeview Avenue: Footlong's Barbershop & Food Court John Johnson, barber, submitted a request to remodel an existing building and construct additional space for a barbershop and food court. Funds are requested to purchase and Alan Tandy Page 3 7/21/2003 remodel the property. Applicant has not called staff or submitted application information. Project costs - $70,000 Requested City funds - $45,000 110 Lakeview Avenue: Freddie's Barbershop Rosanne Wilson, executrix of Freddie Montgomery Estate, submitted a request for assistance to remodel an existing building they own for a barbershop. Applicant has not called staff or submitted application information. Project costs - $50,000 Requested City funds - $20,000 801 Brundage Lane: StanCil's Custom Welding and Automotive Mr. Stancil, owner, requested assistance in relocating to existing facility or constructing new facility for his business in order to expand and provide vocational training. Applicant has not called staff or submitted application information. Project costs - $100,000 Requested City funds - $50,000 730 Union Avenue: Fabious Corner Restaurant Fabious Worthy requested assistance to relocate his existing restaurant to another location outside the Southeast Project Area. Applicant has not called staff or submitted application information. Project costs - $150,000 Requested City funds - $75,000 S:\CHARLES\SE CDBG mtg\Carson memo - CDBG loan update 3-06-03.dot i'Iii JUL 2 I 2003 BAKERSFIELD Economic and Community Development Department" .... MEMORANDUM July 17, 2003 FROM: Donna L. Kunz, Economic Development Director SUBJECT: Employment Status for Stier's Leisure Vehicles, Inc. d.b.a. Stier's RV Sales Agreement No. 99-83 between the City of Bakersfield and Stier's RV Sales, provided a $60,000 loan to the company for a term of five years. This loan is not a forgivable loan and Will be repaid at 0% interest in 2004. However, if in any year the company fails to comply with the terms of the agreement, 20% of the loan (or $12,000) would reimbursed to the city. These terms include: · hiring eight workers from Bakersfield during the first year, twelve during the second year, five during the third year, five durin.q the fourth year, and zero during the fifth year for a total of 30 new jobs over the term'of the agreement; and · of those workers hired each year, at least 51% must be Iow- and moderate-income individuals. During the third year (2002-03), the company exceeded the terms and conditions of the agreement, with 26 new employees, 54% of which were Iow- and moderate-income individuals. Therefore, Stier's RV Sales, Inc. has met the terms and conditions required in the agreement for the fourth year and will not be required to reimburse the city for 20% of the loan. Payment for the entire loan is due on April 14, 2004. With you approval we will be sending a letter to the company acknowledging their status concerning the conditions of the loan. P:\Stier's\Forgive 20% Year 4 memo.doc dlkP:\Stier's\Forglve 20% Year 4 memo.doc B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM JULY 25, 2003 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Gene Bogart, Water Resources Man SUBJECT: Loss of Water Pressure in the Panorama Dr. Area Council Referral No. 0000531 (Ward No.3) Councilmember Maggard would like staff to investigate reasons for a loss of water pressure in the Panorama Drive area and report back. California Water Service Company's district manager, Timothy Treloar was contacted concerning the pressure complaint in the Panorama area. His explanation is as follows: The Iow water pressure experienced in the northeast portion of the city was the result of several factors occurring simultaneously. Cai Water's Panorama tanks (consisting of 2 five- million gallon tanks) were drawn down in preparation to receiving water from the new treatment plant. The evening the tanks were drawn down in anticipation of filling, vandals opened a fire hydrant sometime during the night at the corner of Paladino and Morning Drive, evacuating a large quantity of water from the system feeding the Panorama area. With levels pulled down, the vandalism exacerbated Iow pressures in the area. At the same time, a mechanical malfunction at a secondary pumping station in the neighborhood prevented a back-up supply from entering the system. Cai Water has since made repairs to the secondary station and has instituted additional measures to prevent the Panorama tanks from going Iow. Another Iow pressure incident has occurred in the area since the July 8th council referral. This happened due to a power surge at a pumping station on University Ave. The station has a power monitor that caught the surge (to prevent equipment damage), but it does not automatically re-start the station. The station was manually re-started and no incidents were reported due to the temporary Iow pressure. B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM JULY 25, 2003 TO: Alan Tand_~C~~.~e r FROM: Florn Core,Mater Resburces Director SUBJECT: Storm Water Pollution Plan Council Referral No. 0000538 (Ward No.4) Councilmember Couch would like to know if we have a "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan" and if so he would like a copy. Also, if we have one, is it in the form of an ordinance? A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) is required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) for industries and construction projects that may potential!y discharge storm water to "waterways of the United States." The City of Bakersfield is only required to have a SWPPP when the City is constructing a project. The SWPPP is specific to that project. In general, a SWPPP is required when projects disturb 1 or more acres of soil, for instance a large industrial or commercial construction project or housing sub-division. The City of Bakersfield holds a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, issued by the CRWQCB, to monitor regulate storm water discharges within the City. This is a joint permit with the County of Kern and the permit covers the Metro Bakersfield area. Generally, a Notice of Intent (NOI) is filed by the project applicant with the CRWQCB and a SWPPP is part of the NOI. The City of Bakersfield has Municipal Code Ordinances for Storm Water Discharges (excerpts following): 8.34.020 General "No person shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, any industrial wastewaters directly or indirectly to the city's storm water collection systems, surface canals or any waterway within the city. Storm water runoff from industrial sites, not including industrial wastewater, may be discharged into the city's storm water collection system, surface canals or any other waterway included in the city's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) May 17, 1992 application only after filing proper "Notice of Intent" and complying with other permit requirements of the State's General Industrial Storm Water Permit. (Ord. 3527 § 1 (part), 1993)" 8.35.020 Illicit discharges into storm water system prohibited. It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association to throw, dump, empty or in any way cause sanitary wastewater, rubbish, refuse, litter, accidental spill discharges, garbage of any kind whatsoever, or any unsanitary or deleterious matter including, but not limited to, petroleum products, pesticides, herbicides, controlled substances or hazardous materials to be introduced into any storm water system or conveyance that discharges into a storm water system. (Ord. 3528 § 1 (part), 1993)