HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/30/04 B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
January 30, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager/-~
SUBJECT: General Information
1. As of Thursday afternoon, the Westside Police Station had three construction issues to
resolve to be ready to have a Certificate of Occupancy issued. Fire Station No. 15 has
119! A report is enclosed.
2. At the staff level, we are continuing to work on the various budget scenarios that might
come about as a result of State actions, as I indicated during my January 14th
presentation to Council on that subject. Our efforts to downsize, to date, have been
primarily based on attrition and luck, so departments have had varying degrees of
severity of impact.
In working on the future alternatives, we will attempt to take into account Council priorities
for public safety and streets, special conditions such as not cutting revenue producing
positions, and finally, considering damages and employee loss to date in the budget
plans. Thus, the future plans would hopefully be more balanced than what has taken
place to date.
3. The media has not yet picked it up, but Bakersfield is joining 20+ other charter cities in
filing litigation to stop the "triple flip," which is one of the actions of the past legislative
session. It threatens our largest revenue source, the sales tax.
4. In reference to Councilmember Maggard's suggestion on cost savings efforts related to
the large volume of paper included in the Council packets, we are looking at some
possible ways to trim it down.
The City Clerk has already reduced the number of packets, and has eliminated mailings
and encouraged the use of on-line access for minutes and agendas for the public and
staff. As we continue to look for more ways to cut back, we welcome your suggestions,
so please contact the City Clerk if something comes to mind.
5. At the request of Council, the Executive Director of the League of California Cities, Chris
McKenzie, is scheduled for the February 11th meeting agenda to talk about their efforts
on behalf of local government. McKenzie will also be speaking about the League's
proposed initiative for the November ballot that is designed to increase local control over
tax dollars, known as the "Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act". A packet
with background on that issue is enclosed for your review.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 30, 2004
Page 2
6. The Convention and Visitors Bureau is moving into their attractive new office at 515
Truxtun. We still own the adjacent mini park and we will be sprucing that up in the near
future. When the CVB is settled in a bit more, they will hold an event or reception.
7. For months, staff has been meeting with a variety of property owners north of Snow Road
about annexation. Some have been talking to Shafter and/or Kern County to compare
developing in their jurisdictions to Bakersfield. It is, of course, in the long-term interest of
the City to apply our standards to development, to plan for infrastructure, and, generally,
to expand the City in a rational, planned manner! The sessions with the groups we have
met with have gone generally well.
To our surprise, recently the Planning Commission came out of left field and, on a 4 - 3
vote, turned down the first of the applicants to come in. We will bring it before the City
Council to correct this error. Their action was contrary to City Council goals and months
of effort by staff.
8. Staff is likely to bring forward a recommendation to you to drop the 10-ton annual air
pollution "insignificant impact" measure. If we take that to zero, it shows leadership
towards reducing air pollution more than is required by State law, and will strengthen our
position on future lawsuits.
9. The Economic and Community Development Department Activity Report covering the
second quarter of FY 2003-04 is enclosed.
10. A memo is enclosed from Economic Development listing the Intra-City proposals 'that
have been received for FY 2004-05, CDBG Assistance.
11. Attached is the January CIP Report update.
12. Per the enclosed report, the Building Division is continuing the process of updating the
City's URM list. Of the 205 URM buildings within the City, 164 meet the City's ordinance,
and 14 property owners have obtained retro-fit permits, but have either decided not to
follow through or simply failed to schedule a final building inspection. There are no
mitigation measures pending for the remaining 27. Investigations are continuing.
13. The December statistics for the Red Light Photo Enforcement system are enclosed.
14. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
Councilmember Sullivan
· Follow-up to a previous referral regarding the road conditions at the railroad
crossing of Morning Drive and Edison Highway;
Councilmember Salvaggio · Report on increased patrol on the 1400 block of Clipperhills Drive;
· Status of Police response to neighborhood concerns of 1800 Mallard Court.
AT:rs:al
cc: Department Heads
Pam McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
Fire Station #15
Report as of Jan 29, 2004
On Jan 26, City staff, Contractor and Design Consultant did a job site walk through that
generated 144 items onto a punch list. As of Jan 29, Colombo has completed 25 of those
items. Colombo anticipates completing the remaining items on that punch list by mid - to
late - next week. We can then schedule a final inspection with the Building Department.
Westside Police Substation
Report as of Jan 29, 2004
Colombo has three items left on the punch list that was prepared at the job site walk through.
In addition, on Jan 26, City Building Department added a requirement for two brand new
items; an additional roof access ladder and changing out all the lavatory faucets to have
automatic closing valves. On Jan 27, PW Department staff has inquired to Assistant
Building Director as to whether or not those items are really necessary. As of Jan 29, we do
not have an answer on those items.
S:\PROJECTS~,RNOLD\Fire Station 15_Westside Police Substation\Construction Completion Status.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
January 27, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: TRUDY SLATER, ADMINISTRATIVE ANALYST III ~ ~
SUBJECT: EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION ON
LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT
A long-standing member of the League of California Cities, the Bakersfield City Council requested that
Chris McKenzie, Executive Director of the League of California Cities attend a City Council meeting to
provide information on the League's activities. Part of his presentation will be education on.the
League's proposed "Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act," an initiative designed to
increase local control over local tax dollars. The ballot measure is proposed for the November 2004
election. Attached to this' memo is educational information on the initiative (downloaded from the
League as of January 21, 2004). Included in the attached information is the Title and Summary by the
Attorney General, the language of the Act, and questions and answers on the measure.
Language in the initiative states "The People of the State of California find that restoring local control
over local tax dollars is vital to insure that local tax dollars are used to provide critical local services..."
The initiative requires a 2/3rds vote of the Legislature and voter approval for any reduction, based on
January 1, 2003 levels, of local governments' vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers and
revenues, and proportionate share of local property tax revenues. It permits the Legislature to create
tax exceptions and reduce vehicle license fee revenues without voter approval only if legislation
reimburses local government for lost revenues. It provides that local government may, with limited
exceptions, suspend performance of state mandate if State fails to reimburse local government within
180 days of final determination of state-mandated obligation. The Legislative Analyst and the Director
of Finance summarize the effects of the initiative over time as higher and more stable local government
revenues than otherwise would have been the case and significant changes in state finance, potentially
including higher state taxes than otherwise would have been the case or lower spending on state
programs. The magnitude of the state fiscal effect would be commensurate with the measure's impact
on local government.
P:\L&L\Educational Information
Attachments
Title and Summary By Attorney General
File No.: SA2003RF0053
January 2, 2004
LOCAL FUNDS AND REVENUES. STATE MANDATES. INITIATIVE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Requires two-thirds vote of Legislature and
voter approval for any reduction, based on January 1, 2003 levels, of local
governments' vehicle license fee revenues, sales tax powers and revenues, and
proportionate share of local property tax revenues. Permits Legislature to create
tax exemptions and reduce vehicle license fee revenues without voter approval
only if legislation reimburses local government for lost revenues. Provides that
local government may, with limited exceptions, suspend performance of state
mandate if State fails to reimburse local government within 180 days of final
determination of state-mandated obligation. Summary of estimate by Legislative
Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments:
Over time, the initiative would have the following major fiscal effects: Higher and
more stable local government revenues than otherwise would have been the
case, possibly in the range of several billion dollars annually. Significant changes
to state finance, potentially including higher state taxes than otherwise would
have been the case-or lower spending on state programs. The magnitude of the
state fiscal effect would be commensurate with the measure's impact on local
government.
THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT
SECTION ONE. Short Title.
These amendments to the California Constitution shall be known and may be
cited as the LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT.
SECTION TWO. Findings and Purposes
(a) The People of the State of California find that restoring local control over local
tax dollars is vital to insure that local tax dollars are used to provide critical local services
including police, fu'e, emergency and trauma care, public health, libraries, criminal
justice, and road and street maintenance. Reliable funding for these services is essential
for the security, well-being and quality of life of all Californians.
(b) For many years, the Legislature has taken away local tax dollars used by local
governments so that the State could control those local tax dollars. In fact, the Legislature
has been taking away billions of local tax dollars each year, forcing local governments to
either raise local fees or taxes to maintain services, or cut back on critically needed local
services.
(c) The Legislature's diversion of local tax dollars from local governments harms
local governments' ability to provide such specific services as police, fire, emergency and
trauma care, public health, libraries, criminal justice, and road and street maintenance.
(d) In recognition of the harm caused by diversion of local tax dollars and the
importance placed on voter control of major decisions concerning government £mance,
and consistent with existing provisions of the California Constitution that give the people
the right to vote on fiscal changes, the People of the State of California want the right to
vote upon actions by the State government that take local tax dollars from local
governments.
(e) The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act is designed to insure
that the People of the State of California shall have the right to approve or reject the
actions of state government to take away local revenues that fund vitally needed local
services.
(f) The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act strengthens the
requirement that if the State mandates local governments to implement new or expanded
programs, then the State shall reimburse local governments for the cost of those
programs.
(g) The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act does not amend or
modify the School Funding Initiative, Proposition 98 (Article XVI, section 8 of the
California Constitution).
(h) Therefore, hhe People declare that the purposes of this Act axe to:
(1) require voter approval before the Legislature removes local tax dollars
from the control of Local Government, as described in this measure;
(2) insure that local tax dollars are dedicated to local governments to fund
local public services;
(3) insure that the Legislature reimburses local governments when the
State mandates local governments to assume more financial responsibility
for new or existing programs; and
(4) prohibit the Legislature from deferring or delaying annual
reimbursement to local governments for state- mandated programs.
SECTION THREE. Article XIIIE is hereby added to the California Constitution to
read as follows:
ARTICLE XIIIE Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act
Section 1. State-wide Voter Approval Required.
(a) Approval by a majority vote of the electorate, as provided for in this section,
shall be required before any act of the Legislature takes effect that removes the following
funding sources, or portions thereof, from the control of any Local Government as
follows:
(1) Reduces, or suspends or delays the receipt of, any Local Government's
proportionate share of the Local Property Tax when the Legislature
exercises its power to apportion the Local Property Tax; or requires
any Local Government to remit Local Property Taxes to the State, a
state-created fund, or, without the consent of the affected Local
Governments, to another Local Government;
(2) Reduces, or delays or suspends the receipt of, the Local Government
Base Year Fund to any Local Government, without appropriating
funds to offset the reduction, delay or suspension in an equal amount;
(3) Restricts the authority to impose, or changes the method of
distributing, the Local Sales Tax;
(4) Reduces, or suspends or delays the receipt of, the 2003 Local
Government Payment Deferral; or
(5) Fails to reinstate the suspended Bradley-Bums Uniform Sales Tax
Rate in accordance with Section 97.68 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code added by Chapter 162 of 2003 Statutes; or reduces any Local
Government's allocation of the Property Tax required by Section
97.68 while the Sales Tax Rate is suspended.
2
(b) A vote of the electorate, as provided in this section, shall also be required if
an act of the Legislature that establishes classifications or exemptions from the Local
Property Tax or the Local Sales Tax does not include a continuous appropriation to
reimburse Local Governments for the actual loss of revenue from those classifications or
exemptions.
(c) Prior to its submission to the electorate, an act subject to voter approval under
this section must be approved by the same vote of the Legislature as is required to enact a
budget bill and shall not take effect until approved by a majority of those voting on the
measure at the next statewide election in accordance with subdivision (d).
(d) When an election is required by this section, the Secretary of State shall
present the following question to the electorate: "Shall that action taken by the
Legislature in [Chapter of the Statutes of ], which affects local revenues, be
approved?"
Section 2. Definitions
(a) "Local Government" means any city, county, city and county, or special
district.
(b) "Local Government Base Year Fund" means the amount of revenue
appropriated in the 2002-2003 fiscal year in accordance with Chapters 1 through 5,
commencing with section 10701 of Part 5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code, adjusted annually based upon the change in assessed valuation of vehicles that are
subject to those provisions of law. In the event that the fees imposed by those provisions
of law are repealed, then the Fund shall be adjusted annually on July 1 by an amount
equal to the percentage change in per capita personal income and the change in
population, as determined pursuant to Article XIIIB.
(c) "2003 Local Government Payment Deferral" means the amount of revenues
required to be transferred to Local Government from the General Fund specified in
subparagraph D of paragraph 3 of subdivision (a) of section 10754 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code in effect on August 11, 2003.
(d) "Local Property Tax" means any Local Government's January 1, 2003
proportionate share of ad valorem taxes on real property and tangible personal property
apportioned pursuant to the Legislature's exercise of its power to apportion property
taxes as specified in Article XIIIA, section 1. "Local Property Tax" also means any
Local Government's allocation of the ad valorem tax on real property and tangible
personal property pursuant to Article XVI, section 16.
(e) "Local Sales Tax" means any sales and use tax imposed by any city, county,
or city and county pursuant to the Bradley-Bums Uniform Sales and Use Tax (Chapter 1
of Part 1.5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code) in accordance with the law
in effect on January 1, 2003.
3
(f) "Special District" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general
law or special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions
with limited geographic boundaries, including redevelopment agencies, but not including
school districts, community college districts, or county offices of education.
(g) "State" means the State of California.
Section 3. Interim Measures
(a) The operation and effect of any statute, or portion thereof, enacted between
November 1, 2003 and the effective date of this Act, that would have required voter
approval pursuant to Section 1 if enacted on or after the effective date of this Act (the
"Interim Statute"), shall be suspended on that date and shall have no further force and
effect until the date the Interim Statute is approved by the voters at the first statewide
election following the effective date of this Act in the manner specified in Section 1. If
the Interim Statute is not approved by the voters, it shall have no further force and effect.
(b) If the Interim Statute is approved by the voters, it shall nonetheless have no
further force and effect during the period of suspension; provided, however, that the
statute shall have force and effect during the period of suspension if the Interim Statute or
separate act of the Legislature appropriates funds to affected local governments in an
amount which is not less than the revenues affected by the Interim Statute.
SECTION FOUR. Article XIIIB Section Six (6) is hereby amended as folloWs:
SEC. 6. (a) Whenever the Legislature or any state agency mandates a new program or
higher level of service on any local government, the State shall annually provide a
subvention of funds to reimburse such local government for the costs of such program or
increased level of service, except that the Legislature may, but need not, provide such
subvention of funds for the following mandates:
(-a.) (1) Legislative mandates requested by the local agency affected;
(b-) (2) Legislation defining a new crime or changing an existing definition of a
crime; or
(-c,) (3) Legislative mandates enacted prior to January 1, 1975, or executive orders
or regulations initially implementing legislation enacted prior to January 1, 1975.
(b) The annual subvention of funds required by this section shall be transmitted to the
local government within 180 days of the effective date of the statute or regulation or
order by a State officer or agency that mandates a new program or higher level of
service, or within 180 days of a final adjudication that a subvention of funds is required
pursuant to this section. For purposes of this section, the Legislature or any State
agency or officer mandates a new program or higher level of service when it creates a
new program, requires services not previously required to be provided, increases the
4
frequency or duration of required services, increases the number of persons eligible for
services, or transfers to local government complete or partial financial responsibility for
a program for which the State previously had complete orpartialfinancial responsibility.
(c) If during the fiscal year in which a claim for reimbursement is filed for a subvention
of funds, the Legislature does not appropriate a subvention of funds that provides full
reimbursement as required by subdivision (a), or does not appropriate a subvention of
funds that provides full reimbursement as part of the state budget act in the fiscal year
immediately following the filing of that claim for reimbursement, then a local government
may elect one of the following options:
(1) Continue to perform the mandate. The local government shall receive
reimbursement for its costs to perform the mandate through a subsequent appropriation
and subvention of funds; or
(2) Suspend performance of the mandate during all or a portion of the fiscal year
in which the election permitted by this subdivision is made. The local government
may continue to suspend performance of the mandate during all or a portion of
subsequent fiscal years until the fiscal year in which the Legislature appropriates
the subvention of funds to provide full reimbursement as required by subdivision
(a). A local government shall receive reimbursement for its costs for that portion
of the fiscal year during which it performed the mandate through a subsequent
appropriation and subvention of funds.
The terms of this subdivision do not apply, and a local government may not make the
election provided for in this subdivision, for a mandate in effect on January 1, 2004 that
either requires safe working conditions for local government employees or establishes
procedural rights arising from and directly relating to local government employment.
(d) For purposes of this section, "mandate" means a statute, or action or order of any
state agency, which has been determined by the Legislature, any court, or the
Commission on State Mandates or its designated successor, to require reimbursement
pursuant to this section.
SECTION FIVE. Construction.
(a) This measure shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes, including
providing adequate funds to Local Government to fund local services such as police, fire,
emergency and trauma care, public health, libraries, criminal justice, and road and street
maintenance.
(b) This measure shall not be construed either to alter the apportionment of the ad
valorem tax on real property pursuant to Section 1 of Article XIIIA by any statute in
effect prior to January 1, 2003 or to prevent the Legislature from altering that
apportionment in compliance with the terms of this measure.
(c) Except as provided in Section 3 of Article XIIIE added by Section Three of this Act,
the provisions of Section 1 of Article XIIIE added by Section Three of this Act apply to
all statutes adopted on or at~er the effective date of this Act.
SECTION SIX. If any part of this measure or its application to any person or
circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jUrisdiction, the invalidity shall not
affect other provisions or applications that reasonably can be given effect without the
invalid provision or application.
6
2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act
Q&A
What would this measure do?
The 2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act would increase local control over
our local tax dollars. This measure would let the voters have the final say on proposed actions
by the State Legislature that would further reduce local govemment funding. It would protect the
vital local services that Califomia residents rely on each and every day - such as public safety
and emergency care, roads, libraries, parks and transportation - by requiring voter approval
before the State could reduce funding for local services or shift more costs for state programs to
local governments.
Why is your measure needed?
For more than a decade, the Califomia State Legislature has been taking away increasing
amounts of local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services like police
and fire protection, emergency and public health care, roads, parks, libraries and water delivery.
In fact, through good times and bad, the State has been taking away billions in local tax dollars
each year -- forcing local governments to either raise local fees or taxes to maintain services, or
cut back on critically needed services.
The system is broken. Voters must act now to protect local services by protecting local
revenues from being taken by the State.
When do you plan to put this on the ballot? How many signatures do you need to
qualify?
Officially, we need 598,105 valid signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2004
ballot. We plan to collect a far greater number of signatures to ensure it qualifies and that the
voters are given the opportunity to protect their local tax dollars and protect funding for local
public safety, health and other essential local services.
Who supports this measure?
The principal sponsors of the 2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act are the
League of California Cities, Califomia State Association of Counties and the California Special
Districts Association. Now that we have filed the initiative, we expect to grow a broad and
diverse coalition of public safety and health advocates, taxpayer and business groups, seniors,
community leaders and others who all have an interest in supporting the voters' right to protect
their local tax dollars and their local services.
Will this measure prevent state fiscal reform efforts?
No. In fact, a key element of State fiscal reform is drawing a clear line in the sand that prevents
the State Legislature from using local revenues to solve its problems or as a means of
increasing state spending at the expense of local services.
Will this measure raise taxes?
No. In fact, this measure will help decrease pressures for local fees and taxes by protecting
local revenue sources from state legislative raids.
Does this measure increase revenues to local governments?
No. It simply prevents the State Legislature from further taking local govemment revenues
without a vote of the people.
How will the new Governor respond to this? Don't you think you should first give him a
chance to correct the fiscal problems of the state?
First, we would like to thank the Govemor-elect for his positive statements in the media and
during his campaign and his pledge to protect local services. We look forward to working with
Governor Schwarzenegger to achieve his stated goal of protecting local govemments and
allowing local govemments to provide the services that CA residents rely on every day.
The fact is, however, the voters deserve to have the final say on state actions that will erode
their local tax dollars and local services- no matter who is the govemor and what the
composition of the legislature.
Why didn't you attempt to recollect lost ERAF property tax dollars?
This measure was intentionally drafted to draw a line in the sand and prevent future state
legislative raids of local government funding. While local govemments and services are still
suffering from the continual state raid of property taxes, given the state of California's fiscal
health, we believe a more responsible approach at this time is to "stop the bleeding" at current
levels.
Will this measure erode funding for education?
No. This measure does not reduce state funding to schools and does not reduce funding that
schools receive from local property taxes.
What about other state programs? Will your measure reduce funding for State programs
like roads and prisons?
Again, our initiative simply prevents the State from taking LOCAL revenues without a vote of the
people. The state still has flexibility over its own revenues.
Will this measure tie legislature's hands in passing a budget?
No. Our initiative does not tell the state how to spend its own revenues. It simply prevents the
State from taking funds that are designated for local govemments and local services~ or
shifting/imposing costs to locals-- unless first approved by a vote of the people.
Aren't we just adding to the state's fiscal woes by initiating further "ballot-box-
budgeting" that puts restrictions on how they can spend their revenues?
No. The initiative does not tell the state how to spend the state's own revenues (as some
propositions have done). What it does do is prevent the state from taking local revenues for
state purposes without a vote of the people. It essentially confirms that local tax revenues are
for local govemment services unless the voters decide otherwise.
Does this measure prevent the new Governor or Legislature from rolling back the car
tax?
No. It simply ensures that local governments will be kept '~vhole" through a backfill or some
other means. If the legislature and/or Governor want to roll back the car tax without providing
backfill to local governments, they are free to do so but must get the approval of the electorate.
L ]~2~G U' F~ 1400 K Street, Suite 400. Sacramento, California 95814
OF CA LIFOI~IIA Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
C I T I E S www.cacities.org
October 30, 2003
Dear City Colleague:
Last month at our Annual Conference the League General Assembly voted unanimousl.y to
sponsor a statewide initiative to protect local revenues and services from raids and reductions by
state government. We are very pleased to share with you that today we joined the California State
Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association in filing the 'Local
Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection ~lct" with the Attorney General's office for the
November 2004 ballot. A copy is enclosed.
We are confident this initiative meets three important criteria: First, it protects the revenues and
services of local governments of every size, scope, region and fiscal condition. Second, it meets
the criteria of viability with the electorate by giving the voters - our residents - the ultimate say
on whether their local tax funds should be spent for local or state services. Third, it is simple and
straightforward.
After many months of drafting and literally years of research, we are proud of the work we have
submitted today. We deeply appreciate the help of the many city attorneys and county counsel in
developing this important ballot measure, and we look forward to moving into the next stage of
this important venture.
We want to be very clear that the real work has just begun. We will build an even broader
coalition in the next few months. In 45 - 60 days we will receive a title and summary for the
initiative from the Attorney General's office, and we will determine if it meets our goals. Finally,
all of us must help raise substantial private funds to nm a successful campaign.
We know we can count on you in the months ahead to help with this cause. If you have any
questions, want to make a contribution, want to help raise private funds for the campaign, or want
to volunteer to help in some other way, we invite you to contact Mike Madrid, Public Affairs
Director for the League, at 916-658-8272 or at Mmadrid~cacities.org. You also can get
information about contributions or fundraising at www.citipae.org and about the initiative at
www.caeities.org
Thank you for your support, your patience and your dedication to this historic grassroots
campaign to save local democracy. We look forward to seeing you in the months ahead as we
move forward with this important effort.
Sincerely,
Ron Loveridge, PreSident and Chris McKenzie, Executive Director
Mayor, City of Riverside
Click here for additional information on the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act.
1 [., F~ AG 'U F~ 1400 K Street, Suite 400. Sacramento, California 95814
OF CALIFORNIA Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240
C I T I E S www.cacities.org
LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY PROTECTION ACT--AN OVERVIEW
November 2004 Election
State-Local Fiscal System Broken. There is widespread agreement that the state -local fiscal relationship is broken. One
of the reasons is because state leaders no longer respect the difference between state and local tax revenues. In recent
years, the state legislature and governor have approved laws that divert, use or delay the payment of local tax revenues
to local govemments that finance public safety, public health, park, library, street maintenance and other vital community
services. This has caused pressure for higher local fees that can increase the cost of housing.
Local Funds Drained for Higher State Spending. Since 1991 more than $30 billion of local property taxes have been
drained from cities, counties and special districts-costing cities alone $800 million in FY 2003-04 and $6.9 billion the last
12 years. Even in years of state budget surpluses, the state has used these funds to finance its constitutional funding
obligation to public education, allowing it to increase state general fund spending for other state programs. This has come
at the expense of vital local public safety and other services.
State Shifts Costs to Local Governments. In recent years the state also has shifted costs for state-sponsored
programs and delayed constitutionally required reimbursements to local governments for state mandated programs and
services. In the last two fiscal years, the state has "deferred" over $1 billion in constitutionally required reimbursements to
local govemments for mandated services and programs. This cost burden is then paid with local taxes that should be
used for important local services
Constitutional Protection Needed Now. The League has joined forces with the California State Association of Counties
(CSAC) and the California Special Districts Association (CSDA) to sponsor a ballot initiative in November 2004, entitled
the Local Taxpayers and Public Safe~y Protection Act, to put the voters in charge of whether local tax dollars should be
used to fund state services. It will not raise taxes. It will not repeal laws the state has already passed. It will not require the
return of property taxes already taken nor affect funding of schools. It will not prevent structural reform-'~f the fiscal
system-simply require that structural changes be planned collaboratively by s~'~ and local leaders and approved by the
voters. The initiative will do two simple things:
· Public Vote Required. Require approval by a majority of the electorate before a proposed state law may
take effect that reduces the sales, property and VLF funds of cities, counties and ~pecial districts.
Flexibility is provided to reduce the VLF and replace it with substitute revenues (i.e., a "bacldill") without
voter approval; and
· Reimburse for Mandated Costs. Clarify the state's duty to reimburse in a timely way for a new
mandated prog ram or higher level of service, protecting local govemments from hidden cost shills.
Allows local govemments to opt-out of certain non-workplace safety and employee procedural fights
mandates if the state fails to pay in a timely way.
For More Information. Contact Chris UcKenzie, Executive Director (916-658-8275); Mike Madrid, Public Affairs Director
(916-658-8272); or Dwight Stenbakken, Deputy Executive Director (916-658-8213).
How to Make A Contribution. The League has established a political action committee (ClTIPAC-ID # 1254399) for
contributions to this initiative. For more information, contact 916-658-8273, email info~citipac.or.q or go to
.www.citipac o.n:l
Reeised October 30, 2003
C I T I P A C
www.citipac.org
LEAGUE
OF'CALIFORNIA
CITIES
BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW:
LEGAL ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH
CITY PARTICIPATION IN BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGNS
September 2003
This paper was prepared with the assistance o~'
Steven S. Lucas
Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP
slucas@NMGovLaw.com
and
Betsy Strauss
Special Counsel, League of California Cities
City Attorney, City of Rohnert Park
Munilaw@aol.com
INTRODUCTION
The electorate through the initiative and referendum process is increasingly making
important policydedsions affecting California cities.~ Whereas cities have specific
statutory authority to participate in the legislative process at the state and federal
levels? their authority to take part in the initiative and referendum process is more
limited.
What role may cities and city officials play in the initiative and referendum process?
The following sedes of questions and answers provide some general guidelines.
USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES TO SUPPORT A
BALLOT MF_.ASURE
May cities contribute public funds to a ballot measure campaign that
has qualified for the ballot?
No, the courts have made it dear that govemment cannot use public funds to
'lake sides" in a campaign.3 Doing so gives one side an unfair advantage that
may distort the electoral process. But this does not mean that cities cannot
prepare and disseminate a fair and impartial analysis of the measure.
Is there a difference between using public resources to develop a
measure for the ballot and to support the measure once it has
qualified?
Yes, public resources may be used to develop a measure for the ballot.4 And
local agendes have prepared ballot measures for years,s
May cities form a nonprofit corporation and use public funds to finance
its operation for the purpose of qualifying a statewide initiative
measure that relates to the day-to-day functions of every city in the
state?
No, the money for such an effort may not come from public funds. Because a city
cannot direcOy fund such an operation, it cannot do so indirectly. 6
Is there a difference between the generally accepted practice of using
public funds for legislative lobbying efforts and using such funds to
promote a ballot measure?
Yes, courts have drawn a dear distinclJon between the two activities? Various
statutes specifically authorize the use of public funds for lobbying activities, such
as traveling to Sacramento to testify at a legislative headng,s Them am no similar
provisions permitting lhe use of public funds in election campaigns?
PAGE 1/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
The legislative process contemplates public involvement to assist in explaining
the potential benefits or detriments of proposed legislation. Courts do not see
public agency lobbying as undermining or distorting this process.
However, the use of public funds to directly influence the electorate is seen as a
potential threat to the integrity of the electoral process. According to Califomia
courts, permitting a public agency to 'lake sides" in an election campaign may
give one side an unfair advantage? The importance of govemmenbl impartiality
in electoral matters cannot be overstated.'
What is the difference between "informational" and "express
advocacy" materials?
Purely informational materials present a fair and balanced presentation of the
relevantfacts? Materials of express advocacy are those that explicitly and by
their own terms urge the election or defeat of an idenl~ed candidate or the
passage ordefeat of an identified measure? Express terms of advocacy include
'¥ote for," "cast your ballot," and "defeat.''~4
May individual city officials use public resources to support a ballot
measure?
No, a city oflidal may not use public resoumes to support or oppose a ballot
measure or engage in campaign activity. 15 "Public resources" include any
property owned by the local agency, including buildings, facilities, funds,
equipment, telephones, supplies, computers, vehicles, and travel? The misuse
of public resources for campaign purposes may result in civil and criminal
penalties?
May cities use city staff, equipment, and supplies to generate
promotional materials on behalf of ballot measures that have already
qualified for the bellow
No, just like public funds, cities may not use public resources to support a ballot
measure. To do so raises the possibility that the electoral process may be
distorted by giving one side an unfair advantage in the campaign.
TAKING A POSITION ON A BALLOT MEASU
May a city council officially endorse or oppose a ballot measure?
Yes, the derision by a city coundl to go on record in support of or in opposition
to a ballot measure has been held to be a permissible use of public resources.
The council's decision should be made during a regular meeting that is open to
the public and to the expression of the public's views.~6 If the City Council
adopts a resolution endoming or opposing a ballot measure, the resolution should
include a statement that no PUblic funds shall be used in the campaign for or
against the measure.
PAGE 2/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE I.AW
May an elected official take a position on a ballot measure?
Yes, a public oflidal has a first amendment right to speak out on govemmental
matters upon being elected to office. 49 However, a public oflcial should not use
public resources to campaign for or against a ballot measure. City offidals
should not take part in ballot measure campaigns while on "city time" and should
be careful to separate their official work from their political and campaign work.
May a public employee support or oppose ballot measures?
Yes, a public employee does not give up his or her constitutional rights upon
joininga publicagency.2° With certain exceptions, no restrictons may be placed
on the political activities of public employees.2~
However, public employees must be careful not to use public resources to
advocate a position on a ballot measure.2= As a precautionary measure, many
cities prohibit or restrict their employees from engaging in political actvities during
work hours or while on city property. 23
May cities analyze the effect of ballot measures on cities and publicize
this information?
Yes, cities may use public resources to objectively evaluate a ballot measure's
impact on the city. 24 The resulls of a fair and impartial analysis may then be
made available to the newspapers, advocacy groups, and others who may make
use of the information if they choose.2s
Public funds must be used only for materials that are strictly informational and
not for those that expressly advocate a position.
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF A BALLOT MEASURE
May city officials respond to telephone calls, letters, and e-mails
about a ballot measure while on city time?
Yes, but only as long as their response is limited to (1) stating b'tat the city has
either endorsed or opposed the measure and (2) presenting fair and impartial
information about the measure? An offidal must be careful not use public
resources to'lake sides" on the measure. Inddental and minimal use of public
resources by a local officer is not subject to criminal prosecution?
May a public employee respond to a request for information on a
public agency's analysis of or position on a ballot measure?
Yes, as long as the employee provides a fair and impartial representation of the
facts? The response may include speaking to public or private organizations
interested in the city's position?
PAGE 3/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
May city officials add a link from the city's website to a ballot campaign
website?
No, this would be an inappropriate expenditure of Public resources.
May city officials hold a campaign rally in support of or in opposition
to a ballot measure on the steps of city hall or elsewhere on city
property?
Yes, as long as city offidals do not take part in the rally while on city time and the
public facility is open and available for the expression of all viewpoints on the
measure or for any other political activity. 3o It is a good practice for a city official
to inform the audience that he or she is appearing as a private party and not as
an official of the city.
May a public employee wear his or her uniform when engaged in
political activities after work hours?
No, a public employee is specifically prohibited from participating in any sort of
political activity while in uniform.3~
May a public employee make a presentation on a public agency's
position on a ballot measure at local organizations, such as the
Chamber of Commerce?
Yes, as long as the employee presents fair and impartial informa~on on the ballot
measure. It is good practice to use a prepared script that may be used each time
the presentation is made.
FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES IN SUPPORT OF A
BALLOT MEASURE
May city officials use city funds to attend a fundraiser in support of a
ballot measure?
No, it is a crime to use city funds to attend a political fundraiser.32
May elected officials solicit ballot measure campaign contributions
from city vendors?
Yes, because it is not a conflict of interest for an elected city offidal to solicit or
receive a campaign contribulJon from a vendor. 33 However, public resources
must not be used in making these solicitations. Elected offidals should not
engage in such fundraising activities while on city time. Any solicita~on should
admonish and advise vendors that they may not charge back the amount
contributed to the city either directly or indirectly.
PAGE 4/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
May a city official obtain a list of city vendors for fundraising
activities?
Yes, if such a list exists, it is a public record and therefore is available to
anyone asking for it. If no vendor list exists, it is not a misuse of public
resources if the city would create a list for anyone who asked for such a
list. If the city creates the list for the purpose of allowing fundraising from
the list, this would be a misuse of public resources.
May city officials solicit financial support from their colleagues
for a ballot measure?
No, dty offidals may not directly or indirectly solicit campaign contributions
from other local offidals or employees. The only exception is if the
solidtation is part of a general effort that inddentally includes local offidals
and employees.~4
May. a public employee ask his or her fellow public employees
for contributions to a ballot measure campaign?
No, local public employees may not solicit contributions from fellow
employees unless:
· The solidtaflon is made to a significant segment of the public in
which the fellow employees are included;35 or
· The funds are solicited to promote or defeat a ballot measure
affeddng the rate of pay, working hours, retirement, dvil service,
or other working conditions?
Such solicitations should not take place dudng city time or make use of
public resources.
In addition, an employee or officer of one city may solicit contributions
from oflidals and employees of a different city.
May an elected official contribute his or her own campaign
political action committee funds to qualify, support, or oppose
a measure for the ballot?
Yes, as long as the contribution is reasonably related to a political, legislative,
or governmental purpose of the committee? However, there may be
federal income tax implications for doing so. Candidate campaign funds
are tax-exempt under Intemal Revenue Code sec~on 527 only when used
pdmadly for"exempt funclions.''~ Such purposes are generally limited to
expenditures for a candidate to get elected or for officeholder purposes
once a candidate is elected?
How should such contributions from campaign funds be
reported?
PAGE 5/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
The Fair Political Practices Commission says the redpient of the funds should report the
receipt of funds as contributions received; the local offidars campaign committee should
report lhe contribution as an expenditure made and as a contribu'don made?
Am there any other restrictions in the Political Reform Act that might restrict a
local elected official's participation in ballot measure campaigns?
The Fair Political Practices Commission notes thata local elected offidal who also serves as
an appointed, voting member of another agency (e.g., a Local Agency Formation Commission,
spedal district board, joint powers authority or regional planning agency) may, under certain
drcumstances, be prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing contributions on behalf
of a ballot measure committee?
CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR MISUSE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES
Are there potential criminal consequences for misusing public resources?
Yes, improper use of public resources can be a criminal offense? Local offidals should be
careful to separate their offidal city work from their political and campaign work. One potential
consequence of a criminal conviction for misappropriation of public resources is disqualification
from holding any office in the state.43
Are there potential civil consequences for misusing public resources?
Yes, the individual involved may be required to reimburse the agency for the value of
the resources used? The person may also be responsible for the attorney fees of
the party challenging the use of resources.4s In addition, engaging in such activities
gives rise to reporting obligations for public agencies under the Political Reform
Act? Failure to comply with the requirements may subject an agency to additional
penalties.47
C0NCLUSl0N
Public offidals and employees have many ways to exercise their dght to promote or oppose
ballot measures. The key is not to use the public's t/me, money, or other resources to
do so. Public resources may be used, however, to provide objective analysis and information
about a ballot measure.
Charges that a city official or employee has misused and misappropriated public resources
are extremely serious. When the propriety of any activity is in doubt, it is the League's view
to err on the side of caution.
PAGE 6/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
ENDNOTES
Through the initiative process, groups originate and seek to pass laws and constitutional amendments without
resort to the Legislature. No subject is exempt from the process and the only constitutional restrictions are that an
initiative proposal must deal with only one main subject and must not constitute a "revision" (as opposed to a mere
"amendment") of the state Constitution. See Cal. Const. art. II, § 8.
Up through the 1998 election, over 560 initiatives have appeared on California ballots, with about one-fourth of
them being approved. The average cost to qualify an initiative for the ballot was approximately $700,000. (It is believed
that average cost to qualify an initiative for the ballot in 2003 would be over $1 million.)
Bernard L. Hyink & David H. Provost, Polities and Government in California 98-103 (15m ed. 2001).
Government Code section 50023 provides:
The legislative body ora local agency, directly or through a representative, may attend the Legislature
and Congress, and any committees thereof, and present information to aid the passage of legislation that the
legislative body deems beneficial to the local agency or to prevent the passage of legislation that the legislative
body deems detrimental to the local agency. The legislative body of a local agency, either directly or through a
representative, may meet with representatives of executive or administrative agencies of the state, federal, or
local government to present information requesting action that the legislative body deems beneficial to, or
opposing action deemed detrimental to, such local agency. The cost and expense incident thereto are proper
charges against the local agency.
Cal. Gov't Code § 50023.
See Stanson, 17 Cal.3d at 217. See also Schroeder v. Irvine City Council, 97 Cai.App.4~ 174, 118 Cal.Rplx.2d
330 (4m Dist. 2002) (governmental agency cannot spend public funds for a partisan campaign advocating the passage or
defeat of a ballot measure).
n See League of Women Voters v. Countrywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, 203 Cal.App.3d 529,
250 Cal.Rptr. 161 (2"a Dist. 1988).
s See Cal. Elco. Code § 9222.
See California Legislative Counsel Op. No. 154 (September 18, 1980).
7 See Stanson v. Mott, 17 Cal.3d 206, 130 Cal. Rptr. 697 (1976) (holding that California Department of Parks and
Recreation could not spend public money to prepare promotional material and pay for speakers expenses to support a
1974 park bond measure).
See Cal. Govt. Code §§ 50023, 53060.5, 82039, and 86300.
9 See Stanson, 17 Cal.3d at 218.
See id. at 217.
n See id. m 218-219.
See Stanson, 17 Cal.3d at 220 (discussing with approval Citizens to Protect Public Funds v. Board of Education,
13 N.J. 172, 179-180, 98 A.2d 673, 676 (1953), which recognized the broad legislative and fiscal authority possessed by
locally autonomous schools boards to make reasonable expenditures to give voters relevant facts to aid them in making an
informed judgment when voting).
See Governor Gray Davis Committee v. American Taxpayers Alliance, 102 Cai.App.4~ 449, 125 Cal.Rptr.2 534
(pt Dist. 2002).
PAGE 7/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 18225(b)(2).
California Government Code section 8314 provides:
It shall be unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, em-
ployee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resoumes for a campaign activity, or personal or other
purposes that are not authorized by law.
Cal. Gov't Code § 8314(a). See also Cal. Gov't Code § 54964.
See Cal. Gov't Code 8314(b)(3).
California Government Code section 8314 provides for civil penalties including fines of up to one thousand
dollars for each day a violation occurs, plus three times the value of the unlawful use of public resources. California
Penal Code section 424 provides for criminal penalties of up to four years in state prison. Furthermore, a conviction
disqualifies the party from holding any office in the state. See also People v. Battin, 77 Cal.App.3d 635 (1978) (county
supervisor prosecuted for misusing public funds for improper political purposes); People v. Sperl, 54 Cal.App.3d 640,
126 Cal.Rptr. 970 (2nd Dist. 1976) (county marshal convicted of Penal Code section 424 for having deputies make
telephone calls in connection with testimonial dinner for political candidate).
See League of Women I~oters, 203 Cal.App.3d at 560. See also Choice-in-Education League v. Los ~tngeles
Unified School District, 17 Cai.App.4th 415, 21 CaI.Rptr.2d 303 (2nd Dist. 1993) (schools district's expenditure of funds
to broadcast a public meeting where the school board adopted a resolution opposing an initiative was permissible and
serves purposes unrelated to advocating a partisan position on an initiative.)
See City of Fairfield v. Superior Court of Solano County, 14 Cal.3d 768, 780-82, 122 Cal.Rptr. 543, 550-51
(1975) (city councilman has not only a right but an obligation to discuss issues of vital concern with his constituents).
2o See Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital District, 65 Cal2d 499, 55 Cal.Rplx. 401 (1966) (hospital district's
prohibition of employees from participating in any ballot measures pertaining to the district was unconstitutionally
overbroad); Rosenfield v. Malcolm, 65 Cal.2d 559, 55 Cal. Rptr. 505 (1967) (holding that county cannot dismiss a county
employee on the grounds that it disagrees with the employee's activities).
21 See Cal. Gov't Code § 3207.
California Government Code section 54964(a) provides:
An officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency may not expend or authorize the expenditure of
any of the funds of the local agency to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a ballot measure or the
election or defeat ora candidate, by the voters.
Cal. Gov't Code § 54964.
23 See Fair Political Practices Commission v. Suitt, 90 Cal.App.3d 125, 153 Cal. Rptr. 311 (3ra Dist. 1979) (state
employees may not participate in campaign activities during work hours or use public resources for campaign activities).
See Stanson, 17 Cal.3d at 221. See also Cal. Elee. Code § 9212 (permitting local agency to prepare a report
analyzing the effects a proposed local initiative measure may have on the city).
See id. at fn.6 (The need for the dissemination of a fair and impartial analysis of a ballot measure by a local
agency is somewhat diminished by the preparation of pro and con ballot arguments and an impartial analysis of the ballot
measure by the Legislative Analysis. But nothing "suggests that other public agencies are foreclosed from providing
objective information on a proposed ballot measure").
California Government Code section 8314(d) provides:
PAGE 8/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of public resources for providing information to the public
about the possible effects of any bond issue or other ballot measure on state activities, operations, or policies,
provided that (1) the information activities are otherwise authorized by the constitution or laws of this state, and
(2) the information provided constitutes a fair and impartial presentation of relevant facts to aid the electorate in
reaching an informed judgment regarding the bond issue or ballot measure.
Cal. Gov't Code § 8314(d).
California Government Code section 8314(e) provides:
The incidental and minimal use of public resources by an elected state or local officer, including any
state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, pursuant to this section shall not be subject to prosecution
under Section 424 of the Penal Code.
Cal. Gov't Code § 8314(e).
See Stanson, 17 Cal.3d at 221, 130 Cal. Rptr. at 707-08.
Id.
3o See Cal. Gov't Code § 3207 (allowing local agencies to prohibit or restrict officers and employees from engag-
ing in prohibited activity during work hours and on the local agency's premises).
See Cal. Gov't Code § 3206.
32 California Penal Code section 72.5(b) provides:
Every person who, knowing a claim seeks public funds for reimbursement of costs incurred to gain
admittance to a political function expressly organized to support or oppose any ballot measure, presents such a
claim for allowance or for payment to any state board or officer, or to any county, city, or district board or officer
authorized to allow or pay such claims is punishable either by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not
more than one years, by a fine of not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both such imprisonment
and fine, or by imprisonment in the state prison, by a fine of not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by
both such imprisonment and fine.
Cal. Penal Code § 72.5.
See Cal. Gov't Code § 82030. See also Breakzone Billiards v. City of Torrance, 81 Cai.App.4~ 1205 (2000) (an
elected official does not have a financial interest in a contract between a vendor and the city).
California Government Code section 3205(a) provides:
An officer or employee ora local agency shall not, directly or indirectly, solicit a political contribution
from an officer or employee of that agency, or from a person on an employment list of that'agency, with knowl-
edge that the person from whom the contribution is solicited is an officer or employee of that agency.
Cal. Gov't Code § 3205(a).
35 See Cal. Gov't Code § 3205
California Government Code section 3209 provides:
Nothing in this chapter prevents an officer or employee of a state or local agency from soliciting or
receiving political funds or contributions to promote the passage or defeat of a ballot measure which would
PAGE g/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
affect the rate of pay, hours of work, retirement, civil service, or other working condition of officers or employ-
ecs of such state or local agency, except that a state or local agency may prohibit or limit such activities by its '
employees during working hours and may prohibit or limit entry into governmental offices for such purposes
during working hours.
Cal. Gov't Code § 3209.
37 See Cal. Gov't Code § 89512.5.
38 See 26 U.S.C. § 527(e).
See 26 U.S.C. § 527(e)(2) (definition of"exempt function").
no See California Fair Political Practices Commission, Response to League of California Cities' Request for
Informal Assistance No. 1-92-567, September 11, 1992, at 2-4.
See California Fair Political Practices Commission, Response to League of California Cities' Request for
Informal Assistance No. 1-89-669, February 7, 1990, at 5-6. See also Cal. Gov't Code § 84302.
42 See Cal. Penal Code §§ 72.5(b) (use of public funds to attend a political function to support or oppose a ballot
measure); 424 (misappropriation of public funds); 484-87 (theft).
n3 See Cal. Penal Code § 424(a)(7).
n4 See Cal. Gov't Code § 8314.
See generally Tenwolde v. County of San Diego, 14 Cai.App.4~ 1083, 17 Cal. Rptr.2d 789 (4th Dist. 1993), rev.
denied June 10, 1993.
See Cal. Gov't Code § 84203.5.
47 See Cal. Gov't Code § 83116 (sanctions include cease and desist orders, the filing of required reports, state-
ments, or other documents, and monetary penalties of up to five thousand dollars for each violation).
PAGE lO/BALLOT MEASURE ADVOCACY AND THE LAW
WORKING ON A
A RULE OF THUMB: BALLOT MEASURE CAMPAIGN:
SOME RULES FOR
A ci.ty q~;cia/should C I T Y 0 F F I C I A L S
with &e city's attorney
concerni~ the propriety
of any given course
qf conduct.
~eed more information~ 1o team more
about the League's battot measure, and
roles for city offida[s, please visit the
keague'~ web,ire at w~.cacities.org.
l_LEAGUE
OF C^LIFOKNIA
CITIES
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone 916/658-8200 ® Fax 916/658-8240
www. cacitics.org
The League thanks Steven £ucas qf the law j~rm Nielsen, Not printed with ?ublic fands.
Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor, LLP, fbr his
contributions to this publication. {~ Printed on recycled paper
DO'S AND DON'TS
FOR CITY OFFICIALS AND CITY EMPLOYEES emp.~e, es)~hou/d
t° get?involved~in
THE DON'TS: City officials THE DO'S: City officials : ~
and city employees may NOT: and city employees MAY:
measure to s~.~. gthen constituqlqna
DON'T · Distribute campaign literature through · Work on the campaign during their :.= ', :~:;/: 5,~: ::~ .' %'~;';i:.-d :;;..':L:
the city's internal mail system, personal time, including lunch hours, Pr°Fe~°ns~;ilO'cM/v;nu$~
coffee breaks, vacations, etc.
DON'T · Place campaign literature on
employee bulletin boards, on the · Make a campaign contribution to a ballot '!;.:;.:'h' .... i', '.'.~ <:~., ,,~: :::. . -
city's web page, or elsewhere on city measure campaign committee using D O N..~, U $ E..: P.UB L I C i~'U'N
government premises, personal funds, and/or attend a campaign Alt::Ea'ht: iitiahg iiS':th '
fundraiser during personal time. Of ydar'i~Jm~':'a~nd:.~i0urces
DON'T· Make public appearances speaking in
favor of the ballot measure duriug · Make pnblic appearances during personal 'wiih :'nbfi-~fibiie: fU:hds:i~:Thii
compensated work hours, time advocating the ballot measure, facilities.or equipment {phones, cpmputers,
emai(accounlS,.velflctes, copy rnaci~in~'
DON'T · Make telephone calls about the * Have the city council adopt a resolution any ~the~Se~ii~iPme~ij ma~ be'
campaign during compensated that omcially endorses the ballot measure P~:om0te'batt0t m~aSure actiVities,qr~Ct6din
work hours, and confirms the prohibition on using
DON'T · Walk precincts, draft campaign ads, government funds for political purposes at fundraising:.5'No public funds, may. be
or perform other campaign tasks a public meeting, support. , :Of.= your campaign~ activities.
during compensated work hours, or
assign subordinates to do same. ' :;C:i~M'i~'~:ii~:'i~: ON Y;'OU"
DON'T- Add a link from the city website to a "C i t y o f fi c J a l s i n t e r e s t e d :" :/:' K6ePs~°'od tecarld~i Track y°UrtimeanCf~!!.-
campaign website.
in working for the League -' :
DON'T · Send or receive campaign-related b a l [ o t m e a s u r e, i n c l u d i n g :' :'; 'mea~reii~ti~tiel,':i° you are. abte'ii~
emails on city computers. : d6cument'tha['no pllbUc, funds
participating in CITIPAC ...... ;,::~(~i!~;17!.;.:...:_... , ~- .',:ii.'5 ........
DON'To Urge other city employees to vote for fundraising, should start by . ::~,¢itY'0ffidals?interestedinWorkinfffOr??ii~:::
the measure during compensated '~'/' ~:'";..~hb:'7~b~h:ilge 'melsb ei:inc(
workhours, contacting their League 'bgtt6t
R e g i o n a l R e p r e s e n t a ti v e ." ;..:.;i:, ."'i:P~i~i~siting.li, cITIPAC
DON'T · Use city copy machines, telephones, L..: i'.? ~' st!~: I~y:'contacting-tlieik: League
etc. for campaign purposes. ~-5.:: .~ ;,',:,:;;~,5ii~"-,: ;g::.: ~ :.--; ~. ;':,.. --,5. ?':. :.?-'? . '..:
~:"51:.-::' p:5?:~>~<ys~'.. '. '.;-',~':..,' .'..',%:~-, '.'..~-
:..: -. ,.': i .'5.~.~; 5. ';" L < ." ,1~5 · ", C~'' ".: '= ~L,.' ~ · ,! 7:: ~¢'
; :,.. -: ~ ::~,,5:~.,,-=.-.c~ .e . . L~..~ :;% .?
RECEIVED
JAI 2
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
/./u,,~ January 23, 2004
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Donna Kunz, Economic Development Director
SUBJECT: Economic and Community Development Department Activity Report
This memo will serve as an update for Fiscal Year 2003-04, 2nd quarter (Sept. 1 to Jan. 1)
on-going housing, economic and community development projects.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
1. Acquisition and Demolition Pro.qram
Funds in the amount of $210,350 (FY 03-04) are available for the acquisition and
demolition of deteriorated industrial, commercial and residential properties in
economically distressed areas for economic development projects. These funds
are planned for sites that are under negotiation and required for the Baker Street
Mixed-Use Project.
2. Automated Chemical Controllers at Three Swimmin.q Pools
Funds in the amount of $46,500 (FY 02-03) are budgeted to install automated
chemical controllers at three swimming pools. The controllers are scheduled to be
installed and should be completed by December 31, 2004.
3. Baker St. Streetscape Project (Phase I)(EDI GrantJ
The project is streetscape construction along four blocks of Baker Street between
Niles and Jackson. Federal funding in the amount of $490,000 came through
HUD's Special Economic Development Initiative (EDI) program. The money was
used to revitalize the district by installing trees, decorative light poles with banners,
and pedestrian furniture. The City Council awarded the construction contract of
$400,390 on April 30, 2003. Construction was completed last October.
S:~VZ\Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
1
~' 4. Baker Street Streetscape Improvement Project (Phase II)
Funds in the amount of $250,000 (FY 03-04) were budgeted to design and install
streetscape improvements from the railroad tracks on Baker Street south to Truxtun
Avenue. Design should be completed by May 2004. This is about ½ of the
estimated amount needed to complete construction of this project. Staff will be
reconciling all CDBG projects for year end to locate additional funds for the project
from cost savings and program income. Construction is scheduled to start by July
2004 with completion by fall 2004 if adequate funding can be located.
5. Brundage Lane Streetscape
Funds in the amount of $325,000 of Section 108 funds were budgeted to install
median streetscape, sidewalk and lighting improvements from Chester Avenue to
Union Avenue. The Section 108 loan funds became available last August and
HUD's deadline for City expenditure of these funds is by December 31, 2004.
Public Works is re-evaluating this project in light of the insufficient 80' right-of-way.
Brundage Lane is classified as a major arterial and therefore should be expanded to
a 110' right-of-way. If Brundage Lane is widened to 110' then the scope of work
and the construction costs will increase. A design and construction schedule will be
established once the right-of-way question is resolved by Public Works.
6. California Avenue Streetscape Project
Funds in the amount of $413,500 of Section 108 funds were budgeted for median
streetscape, sidewalk and lighting improvements in the public right-of-way of
California Avenue from Chester Avenue to the railroad tracks east of Washington
Avenue. The HUD deadline for City expenditure of these funds is by December 31,
2004. Based on preliminary engineering estimates, there is not enough money for
the project as planned. Public Works has applied for an Environmental
Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Grant for $144,000 and if successful, these
funds will augment the HUD funds for this budget. Phase I is the construction of
new median islands from Union Avenue to King Street. The City should receive
notice by the end of April 2004 if their EEM grant application has been approved.
Design is scheduled to be completed by May 2004. If the EEM grant is approved,
construction should take place after July 1,2004 when the funds are received.
7. Chester Avenue Streetscape (Phase III)
Funds in the amount of $345,834 (FY 02-03) were budgeted for design and
installation of streetscape improvements on Chester Avenue from 34th Street to
West Columbus Street. Bids were opened on June 6, 2003 and found to be in
excess of the engineer's estimate. The City Council rejected all bids on July 30,
2003. Construction costs were reduced though project redesign. A construction
contract of $345,834 was awarded on November 19, 2003. Construction is
scheduled to start late January and is scheduled to be completed by March 2004.
S:\VZ~Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
2
~ 8. ~4th Street Aquatic Center Project
About $3,680,000 (FY's 01-02, 02-03 and 03-04) in HUD funds have been budgeted
for construction of a 8,000+/- sq. ft. swimming pool with zero depth entry area, water
slide, and lap lanes on a 2.3 acre site bounded by 14th, "P", and "Q" streets
($3,300,000 is coming from Section 108 funds). HUD's deadline for City
expenditure of the Section 108 funds is by January 31,2005. Construction started
last August and is scheduled to be completed by May 2004. The construction
contract was $6,050,000 to SC Anderson, Inc. The remaining HUD project fund
balance for this activity is about 60%.
9. Jefferson Park Basketball Court Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $31,000 (FY 01-02) were budgeted to create two additional
basketball courts from existing tennis courts at Jefferson Park. Bids were rejected
on June 11,2003, because of the need to change construction specifications. The
construction contract of $15,255 was approved on November 5, 2003. The
basketball goalposts have been recently installed by City forces. Court resurfacing
will be started by the contractor as soon as temperatures are in excess of 50.
10. Jefferson Park Playground Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $143,000 (FY 02-03) were budgeted to remove old
playground equipment and to replace it with handicap accessible equipment. These
project funds were reprogrammed to the Jefferson Park Swimming Pool
Rehabilitation Project on December 10, 2003 due to increased pool construction
costs.
I I. Jefferson Park Swimming Pool Rehabilitation
Funds in the amount of $500,000 (FY 01-02) were budgeted for rehabilitation of the
swimming pool at 801 Bernard Street. Funding will be from Section 108 and CDBG
entitlement funds. HUD's deadline for City expenditure of the Section 108 funds is
January 31,2005. Construction bids were rejected on December 10, 2003 for being
too high. The project will go out to bid again after July 1,2004 when more funds will
become available.
12. Lowell Park Community Center Improvement
Funds in the amount of $126,000 (FY 02-03) were budgeted to install two modular
units on a foundation in Lowell Park for a community center. Specifications to
purchase the modular units are being reviewed by Public Works. The Recreation
and Parks Department is exploring a plan to use the mobile recreation program
trailer in place of these units. The mobile units would also be placed at Wayside.
13. Martin Luther King Jr. Breezeway and Restroom Roof Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $28,000 (FY 03-04) were budgeted to replace the
breezeway roof (1,440 sq. ft.) and the restroom roof (960 sq. ft.) at the MLK Jr. Park
Community Center. General Services is waiting for specification to be prepared for
the bid package. Bid opening will be scheduled soon after the specifications are
received. Roof installation should take place at the beginning of March 2004.
S:\VZ\Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
3
14. Martin Luther King .Ir. Swimminq Pool Rehabilitation Project
Funds in the amount of about $730,000 (FY's 01-02, 02-03 and 03-04) were
budgeted for the rehabilitation of the swimming pool at 1000 South Owens Street.
$300,000 will be from Section 108 funds. The construction contract in the amount
of $730,000 was awarded on December 10, 2003. Construction has started and is
scheduled to be completed by May 2004.
15. Metropolitan Recreation Center Playground Construction Project
Funds in the amount of $80,000 (FY 03-04) were budgeted for the construction of a
new playground at the County owned Stramler Park. The project is estimated to
cost $152,300. On October 7, 2003 the County Recreation and Parks informed the
City that they would not contribute to the project. There are also concerns about
public access to the playground as the gate is locked much of the time. The County
proposed instead that the City spend the budgeted $80,000 on a downsized project
at the park. Staff recommends these funds be reprogrammed to the Baker Street
Streetscape project to assist with the shortfall of funding for Phase II.
16. 19th Street and Eye Street Streetscape Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $312,000 (FY 03-04) were budgeted for streetscape
improvements on 19th Street from "H" to Eye streets and on Eye Street between 18th
and 19th streets. Construction was delayed because some of the available funds
were rebudgeted for the construction of the aquatic center. The revised budget for
the streetscape project is $210,500. Design should start in April and be completed
in June 2004. Construction to take place in FY 04-05 when replacement funds can
be budgeted for the activity.
17. Pacheco #10 Area Sewer Installation Project (Phase II - Construction)
Funds in the amount of $356,000 (FY 01-02 and 02-03) were budgeted for
installation of sewer line in an area bordered by Pacheco Road on the north, one
block east of Elysium Street on the east, Faith Avenue on the south and one block
west of Centaur Street on the west. Additional funds ($500,500) budgeted from FY
03-04 became available in July 2003. The City Council awarded the project
construction bid of $856,500 on July 30, 2003. Construction started on August 25,
2003 and is scheduled to be completed by May 2004. About 29% of the
construction budget remains for expenditure.
18. Stockdale/Kern River Park Improvement Project
Staff received approval notice of their application to the California Department of
Housing and Community Development for $314,822 in grant funds. Grant funds
were available through the Jobs-Housing Balance Incentive Grant Program.
Funding was considered based on the increase of home building permits during
2001. The grant requires the funds go towards the construction of the children's
playground for Rio Vista Park. The park is located at the southeast corner of the
intersection of Stockdale Highway and the Kern River. The contract between the
State and the City was approved by the City on June 25, 2003 (the funds must be
expended by June 25, 2006). Design is scheduled to be completed by February 1,
with construction expected to start by March and be completed by August 2004.
S:\VZ~Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
4
19. Southeast Bakersfield Street Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $257,000 (FY 02-03) were budgeted to install curb and
gutter and to rehabilitate sidewalks in an area bordered by California Avenue on the
north, Pershing Street on the east,8thStreet on the south and "Q" Street on the
west. Construction is scheduled to start by April and to be completed by September
2004.
20. Southeast Bakersfield Street Li.qht Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $43,500 (FY 01-02) were budgeted to upgrade street
lighting in two areas in southeast Bakersfield. Area #1 is bordered by California
Avenue on the north, City limits and Washington Street on the east, Brundage Lane
on the south, and Union Avenue on the west. Area #2 is bordered by Casa Loma
Drive on the north, Cottonwood Road and Hale Street on the east, White Lane on
the south, and Union Avenue on the west. Construction design is underway.
Project is scheduled to start in March and be completed by May 2004.
21. Southwest Corner of Chester A ve. and Brunda.qe Ln. St. Improvement Proiect
Funds in the amount of $92,000 (FY 01-02) were budgeted for curb, gutter and
sidewalk reconstruction. The project's development plans are underway by the
adjoining property owner. The property owner intends to develop a McDonald's
Restaurant. Once the plans are completed by the owner PW staff will review for
approval.
22. Union Avenue Area Street Project (3~d to 4th streets)
Funds in the amount of $100,000 were budgeted (FY 02-03) to provide street
improvements in an area bounded by 4t' Street on the north, Union Avenue on the
east, 3rd Street on the south and "V" Street on the west. The street improvements
on "V" Street were completed in June 2003. PG&E recently moved four power
poles on 3rd Street so that 3rd Street improvements can be installed. Installation
should be completed by the end of January 2004. About 76% of the construction
funds remain for expenditure.
23. Union Avenue Street Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $61,500 of Section 108 funds were budgeted for installation
of median streetscape, sidewalk, and lighting improvements on Union Avenue from
California Avenue to Belle Terrace. Deadline for City expenditure of the Section
108 funds is by December 31, 2004. The available funds will only allow for the
installation of street lighting from Terrace Way to Fourth Street (Phase I). Phase II
will be constructed should more funds become available. Design for Phase I is
scheduled to be completed in May 2004. Construction expected to start by July and
be completed by September 2004.
S:~V~Quarterly~.ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
5
24. Union Avenue Area Street Light Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $17,500 (FY 01-02) were budgeted for installation of 15 new
street lights and the upgrading of 11 existing street lights in an area bordered by
California Avenue on the north, Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard on the east,
Brundage Lane on the south, and Union Avenue on the west. Construction design
is underway. Installation is scheduled to start in January with completion by March
2004.
25. Wayside Park Playground Improvement Project
Funds in the amount of $223,000 were budgeted (FY 03-04) to replace old
playground equipment with handicapped accessible equipment. Design is
scheduled to be completed by end of January 2004. Installation is expected to start
April with completion by May 2004.
NON-PROFIT/PUBLIC FACILITY PROJECTS
Economic and Community Development staff is assisting the following various non-profit
organizations to acquire or improve their public facilities.
1. Construction of Facility to House Career/Training Center
Funds in the amount of $200,000 Section 108 funds were budgeted for construction
of a career counseling/training center. HUD's deadline for City expenditure of these
funds is by January 31,2005. The Housing Authority of the County of Kern (HACK)
owns a 2.5 acre parcel of commercial property, adjacent to their Oro Vista housing
complex. HACK proposes to build a 32,000 square foot commercial development,
with 10,000 square feet of office space, a small restaurant (3,500 sq. ft.), a 10,000
square foot computer training facility, and a 7,500 square foot child care center.
HACK has recently hired a developer/consultant to assist them in feasibility planning
for the commercial portion of the project and is preparing a project timeline.
2. The Bakersfield Police Activities League (BPAL)
About $108,000 (FY02-03) funds were made available to BPAL April of last year in
order to install modular building units at 301 E. 4t' Street. They are to be used as
classroom and office space for an after school tutorial program. This project is
another phase in BPAL's development of the youth center. The total construction
cost is estimated to be $155,000. BPAL will receive approximately $13,000 from
the County of Kern CDBG program and make up the rest with private funds. BPAL
put the project out to bid last November only JTS Construction responded to the bid,
JTS's bid was $254,056, about $100,000 more than the project estimate. JTS' bid
was rejected and BPAL redesigned the project. BPAL will re-bid the project in
January, 2004. Project agreement date for activity completion is end of January
2004.
S:\VZ\Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
6
3. Bakersfield Police Department Southeast Satellite Office
The Bakersfield Police Department is using $85,000 (FY 03-04) CDBG funds to
lease and staff a satellite office in southeast Bakersfield. The site is located on
Lakeview in the Oro Vista public housing complex. A full time officer, a crime
prevention specialist and a technician are assigned to the office. Public services
are on-going.
4. Bakersfield Senior Center
The Bakersfield Senior Center located at 530 4th Street will use $50,000 (FY 03-04)
to continue its current level of services to seniors. The current services provided
include: noon time meals, recreational activities, physical fitness activities, senior
advocacy, human services referrals, and transportation for clients. The senior
center will also add noon-time meals and periodical access to a nurse on their
premises, this year. The agreement expires on October '19, 2004. To date, 50% of
the project funds remain in the project balance. Public services to the Senior Center
are ongoing.
5. Bakersfield Rescue Mission
The Bakersfield Rescue Mission, (BRM), located at 830 Beale Avenue proposes to
use $260,000 (FY03-04) to expand their food services operations to accommodate
700 meals per day, served to homeless and Iow income families and individuals in
Bakersfield. BRM intends to purchase the nearby Salvation Army building. BZA
granted a conditional use permit for the anticipated usage of the Salvation Army
facility last December. Staff is drafting a project agreement for Council
consideration next month.
6. Employment Reports
Staff continues to review annual (performance) employment reports for businesses
that received CDBG funds.
Emergency Shelter Grant Funded
1. Bakersfield Homeless Center
An agreement between the City and Bethany Services (Bakersfield Homeless
Center) requesting approval for ESG funds (FY03-04 - $51,000) was approved by
the City Council last November. Funds will be used for operation and maintenance.
Public services for the Bakersfield Homeless Center are on-going.
2. Bakersfield Rescue Mission
An agreement between the City and the Bakersfield Rescue Mission requesting
approval for ESG funding (FY 03-04 - $51,000) was approved by the City Council
last November. Funds will be used for operation and maintenance. Public services
for the Bakersfield Rescue Mission are on-going.
S:\VZ\Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003.04 final.doc
7
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PROJECTS
Economic and Community Development staff is assisting the following private and non-
profit organizations to acquire or improve their housing projects and
neighborhood/commercial facilities.
1. Community Action Partnership of Kern (CAP of Kern)
CAP of Kern received a grant in the amount of $100,000 of Community Housing
Development C)rganization (CHDC)) funds to be used for their housing acquisition
and rehabilitation program. C)f the $100,000, CAP of Kern will utilize $7'5,000 as a
revolving loan fund from which homes would be purchased, rehabbed or
constructed, and sold to qualified first time home buyers. The remaining $25,000
would be used by CAP of Kern for operating expenses associated with operating
their housing program. The agreement was executed by Council last December
and the CHDC)'s deadline for completing this program is no later than December
2006.
2. Habitat for Humanity
Habitat for Humanity recently closed out an agreement for $85,000 in CHDO funds
to assist in the purchase of in-fill housing properties and the construction of single-
family homes. Under this agreement, Habitat completed the acquisition and
construction of four single family affordable homes in the Southeast area of
Bakersfield.
A dra.ft agreement is currently being reviewed that will allow Habitat to utilize
$50,000 in CHDO funds to build three additional affordable single family homes.
These homes will be sold to families whose income is between 30% and 50% of the
area's median income. The selected Habitat family and volunteers provide the
needed sweat equity labor to construct the homes. In addition to assisting with
acquisition costs, the loan to Habitat will assist in paying for such construction costs
as school fees, building permits, appraisal fees and construction supervision.
3. Tax Defaulted Properties
The County of Kern compiled a list of real properties for which property taxes have
not been paid for a minimum of five years. Pursuant to the County selling these
properties at auction, the City objected to the sale and offered to buy five of the
properties for the cost of back taxes, any liens and expenses associated with the
auction. EDCD staff was successful in gaining the right to purchase two of the five
properties located at 19 Milham and 301 South Owens. The Purchase Agreements
have been forwarded to the County for their review and approval. Once the County
has approved the agreements, they are sent to the State of California for approval
and then the purchase agreements are forwarded to the City.
Staff previously objected to the sale of the properties located at 227 Augusta, 339
Brown and 124 Hayes. The purchase of at least two properties has been finalized
and the recorded deeds have been received. Staff is currently identifying possible
affordable housing agencies that will utilize the properties for the construction of
affordable single-family homes.
S:\VZ\Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
8
· 4. The Parkview Cottages Housin~ Proiect
The City was awarded a $1.4 million HELP grant that is targeted for the Parkview
Cottages housing project near Central Park. The HELP funds were used to acquire
a portion of the old foundry site. The project will consist of 74 single-family housing
units, ranging from 1350 to 1750 square feet a unit. Each unit will be two stories
and have a two car garage. On January 5, 2004 the property was transferred to
Parkview Cottages LLC. Grading has begun. Staff has revised the recapture
language to include an equity sharing provision which will eliminate the possibility of
any undue enrichment. The estimated total project cost is $ 9.4 million. The
developers expect to have two models and three units for purchase completed by
mid April 2004. The anticipated completion date for all units is January 2006.
5. Southeast Bakersfield Infill 'Housin~ Proiect
The City was awarded a $500,000 CalHFA loan to build affordable housing on
scattered lots in southeast Bakersfield. Seven homes have been constructed to
date. The RDA assumed all rights and obligations of the CaIHFA HELP Loan on
February 26, 2003. Round two of the infill housing project has commenced.
Currently, D and D Development; T and T Construction, and D.O.D Development,
are building homes in the area. Four new homes are currently under construction.
Each developer is obligated to complete at least four homes within the two-year
period which expires July 2005.
6. Maranatha Corporation Housing Project
At the February 6, 2002, City Council meeting, Maranatha Corporation received City
Council approval to use $100,000 in HOME funds to purchase property in the
Southeast Infill Project area and build up to 14 affordable homes for Iow income
households. The HOME funds were from project savings from various years.
Maranatha received $126,000 from the Bank of America and the Federal Home
Loan Bank of San Francisco to subsidize the mortgages and make the homes
affordable. Maranatha will use factory built wall panels to assemble attractive
affordable housing in half the time it takes for conventional construction.
To date, Maranatha has signed purchase options on seven properties in the project
area.. Maranatha reported delays in property purchases as the reason they have
not moved forward with the project. Last November the Council extended the
Maranatha agreement expiration date to June 30, 2004. Maranatha is working to
open escrow on seven properties for purchase, and forwarding that purchase
information to EDCD for funding. Maranatha is also expected to complete its
housing panel assembly plant by the end of January, 2004.
7. Single-family Rehabilitation (SFR) Program
During this quarter, housing rehabilitation staff completed three single family
rehabilitation projects. Seven rehabilitation projects are in various stages of
construction and four applications are under review for approval. Seven SFR
rehabilitation applications were received during the quarter.
S:\VZ\Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
9
~ 8. Home Accessibility (HA) Program
The new annual HA contract with Muxlow Construction was approved November
2003 in the amount of $55,000. The release of funds from HUD was complete on
December 16, 2003 and staff began work on the existing applications of which 3
have been completed. Staff is currently working on another10 pending applications.
9. Housing Rehabilitation Marketing
Staff received approximately 63 inquiries about our various programs and mailed
information for assistance to potential clients. Staff gave out another 50
applications at various marketing events. Staff continues to distribute housing
brochures to potential clients by mail, walk-ins, neighborhood marketing and
through various community events and fairs. Staff also enhances marketing by
installing Home Improvement Program marketing signs in front of all current
construction projects. Staff has also used weekend radio shows to market the
housing programs.
10. Fair Housinq
Quarterly statistics compiled from reporting data collected from October through
December indicate approximately 390 calls on the fair housing hotline. There were
42 substantial service calls that dealt with fair housing issues. There were eight
formal complaints filed this quarter. One complaint was referred to DFEH for
enforcement; three were resolved by staff; and four are still active and under review.
The fair housing discrimination complaints and inquires to the Fair Housing Hotline
breakdown as follows: Race - 62% and Familial Status - 38%.
Fair housing staff attended the Senior Resource Fair in November, providing both a
presentation as well as an informational booth on Fair Housing Rights and
Community Development services in the City. Fair housing staff gave a
presentation to the Kern County Lead Coalition in November, offering information
and providing brochures on various fair housing issues.
11. BusineSs Assistance Program
Approximately $743,000 in CDBG funds for assistance to private for-profits was
originally budgeted. The funds were earmarked to assist commercial, retail,
industrial businesses in the southeast community. Staff sent a Statement of Interest
letter Fall of 2002 to property owners, businesses and developers within the major
southeast commercial corridors offering potential financial assistance in the form of
gap financing loans using CDBG funds. To date, staff has received 10 written
requests for financial assistance. Upon providing loan applications and CDBG
requirements for funding, all applicants were unable to provide required information
or additional project financing needed beyond the City gap financing. New
applications will be evaluated by staff in FY 2003-04 as they are received.
HACK has requested, and staff is considering, additional assistance for their East
California Avenue Career Training Facility in the form of a $300,000 loan from this
Loan Fund. Fund balance for this Business Assistance Program is about $377,000.
EDCD is the lead agency for the business loan fund.
S:\VZ\Quarterly~.ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
10
12. California Avenue Senior Housin.q (CVE) Project
Capital Vision Equities (CVE) is in the process of developing a 180 senior housing
unit (one-bedroom) project in the southeast Bakersfield redevelopment project area.
The CVE project consists of property acquisition, clearance, relocation, and new
construction. CVE's total cost for the project is estimated to be over $12 million.
They are receiving City loan assistance of about $2.7 million ($1.7 million HOME
and $1 million in tax increment financing) in the form of a loan - 3% simple interest
over a 40 year period. The remainder of funds for the senior housing project will
come from tax credit and developer equity/fee sources. Construction is underway
and the deadline for project completion is the end of 2004.
13. Kozee Apartment Complex Project
The Kozee project consists of the construction of 38 housing units. In addition to
the 40,000 square foot apartment complex, Mr. Lee will construct 30,000 square
feet of commercial/retail buildings adjacent to the apartment complex. The
Agreement was a forgivable loan for clearance of existing structures in the amount
of $183,000 in Redevelopment Agency tax increment funds. The City funds have
been expended and construction has begun on both the commercial and residential
portions of the project. Construction began last year and it is anticipated to be
completed by no later than the end of this year.
14. Bakersfield Senior Center Housin.q Project
The Bakersfield Senior Center (BSC) was awarded $932,000 in CHDO HOME
funds to assist in the development of 80 housing units for very Iow income seniors
at "R" and 5th streets. The project is a joint venture between the Bakersfield Senior
Center and the Retirement Housing Foundation which was federally approved with a
HUD 202 funding reservation of about $6.7 million. Project implementation and
responsibilities was transferred by assignment last year to Bakersfield Senior
Housing, Inc. The framing and the scratch/color coating have been completed and
the project completion date is anticipated by spring 2004.
15. Restoration Community Project INC., Youth Buildin.q Bakersfield (YBB)
An agreement has been approved that will allow RCPI to receive $195,000 in CHDO
HOME funds for the purchase and rehabilitation of deteriorated housing in the
Lakeview Avenue area. RCPI will employ at-risk youth from 16-24 years of age to
do the rehabilitation work. YBB will have a training component for the youth, an
educational component to secure a GED, and other counseling and referral
services. The program will last for three years after which, graduates will receive a
monetary bonus and referral to apprenticeship programs or higher education. The
rehabilitated homes will be sold to Iow income families and the sales proceeds will
be used to purchase and rehabilitate other properties in the target area.
RCPI closed escrow on its first project property in August 2003, located at 1306
Potomac, and interviews for students and an office assistant have been completed.
A general contractor agreement has been executed and RCPI staff is currently
waiting for contractor's insurance documentation in order to initiate their
construction training program. The fund balance for this activity is about $124,549
and the project agreement expiration deadline is September 2005.
S:\VZ\Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
11
16. Baker Street Revitalization Project (Old Town Kern Mixed Use Project)
The proposed project is the development of a mixed-use project that includes
30,000 _+ square feet of new commercial space, and the construction of 150 + units
of affordable housing. Total cost of the project is projected to be about $19 million.
Last year the Council approved the $1 million Section 108 Loan and $250,000 in
Brownsfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI) funds to assist in land
acquisition and relocation of existing businesses, and transferred these funds by
way of a subrecipient agreement to the RDA which will be responsible for complying
with HUD requirements for this project. HUD's deadline for City expenditure of the
Section108 loan funds is December 1,2004, and for the BEDI December 1, 2005.
A Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with the developer is pending for
Spring 2004. Urban Innovations, LLC is anticipating applying for federal Low
Income Tax Credits (LITC) in March of this year for the150 + units in conjunction
with a LITC housing developer.
The Community Services Office (CSO) building on Baker Street has been
purchased by the City with CDBG funds for the affordable housing component. At a
later date, this property will be transferred to the RDA by way of a two party
subrecipient project agreement. The CSO tenant relocation is ongoing. Also, the
demolition of three homes previously acquired has been completed, and relocations
for two tenants have been completed. Acquisitions and/or condemnation are under
way on multiple other project properties.
17. Park Place Senior Housin.q Project - Phase II
The Housing Authority of the County of Kern is proposing to develop an additional
50 units of affordable senior housing at 24th and "R" streets. The proposal is for
acquisition and construction of the vacant property. The total cost for the project is
approximately $5.1 million and will be built adjacent to Phase I of the Park Place
Senior Housing Project, 80 units of senior housing. A request has been made to
the City for assistance in the amount of $50,000 (HOME funds) in the form of a loan
- 3% simple interest (residual receipts loan rate) over a 55 year period which will be
used to fund an operating deficit reserve at the time of rent up. A federal (NEPA)
environmental review has been completed and an agreement has been drafted and
submitted to HACK for review and comments.
'18. Baker Street Corridor Economic Development Strate_clv
State funds were secured to develop an ED strategy for the Baker Street area. The
strategy will enable the community to create a community vision integrating urban
design concepts with economic development components into an action plan for the
revitalization of Baker Street. To develop the plan a week-end community design
charrette was held in May to identify a vision for the area. As a follow-up, city staff
and consultants focused on strategies to improve specific sites along Baker Street.
These refined designs were discussed during a second community forum June 26.
Based on community feedback, the strategies were further refined and synthesized
into an Economic Development Strategy. Community members had the opportunity
to provide feedback on the recommendations during a third forum last July. The
final strategy is under review by staff.
S:~VZ\Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
12
19. 24th and "M" Street Development (The Villaqe at Towne Centre)
Staff, through the Redevelopment Agency, worked with a local developer to acquire
a vacant Caltrans parcel at 24th and M street. Staff received Caltrans approval to
purchase their parcel, which the Agency has in turn transferred to the developer for
the same purchase price. The developer is currently constructing an upscale mixed
use project at the long vacant (formerly Sangera Buick/Volvo) auto sales site across
the street. The acquired Caltrans parcel will allow adequate parking for the future
tenants. The project will contain over 40,000 square feet of commercial space at an
estimated cost of $6 Million.
20. Union Avenue Improvements
Union Avenue continues to improve. Construction was recently completed on a
new 7,500 sq. ft. commercial/retail building at 600 Union Avenue. Staff assisted the
project with the off-site improvements (see Capital Improvements #21 on page 5).
Another potential business, a restaurant/music hall, is being proposed at 802 Union
Avenue with renovation of the building currently underway.
21. Mill Creek Walkway
Two workshops were held to gather public input on deficiencies in existing
recreation and park facilities, amenities, and programs, and ideas for meeting those
deficiencies. Representatives from six departments met regularly to finalize the
scope, design, and costs of the canal improvements. The grant application has
been finalized and submitted to the California Department of Parks and Recreation
in an amount of $3 million.
22. EPA Brownfields Grant
Work continues on the paperwork associated with the $1 million Brownfields grant
from U.S. EPA. One of the requirements was a very detailed work plan outlining the
goals and objectives of the City's program as well as a detailed budget. Based
upon the draft work plan and budget submitted to EPA, the City has been told they
have been recommended for conditional approval, contingent upon the receipt and
approval of a final work plan within 30 days after notice of award funding. The
award is expected subsequent to the beginning of the 2004 federal fiscal year. The
City Council has approved a $50,000 grant to the Assistance League from the
program to assist in the cost of removing asbestos from the property they will be
exchanging located on Q Street.
S:\VZ~Quarterly~2ndQuarter2003-04 final.doc
13
-RECEIVED I ......
JAN 2 9 ,
2~TY MANAGE~'?"
BAKERSFIELD ..........
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
Janua~ 29,2004
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Donna L. Kunz, Economic Development Director
FROM: George Gonzales,~munity Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Intra City Proposals Received for FY 2004/05 CDBG Assistance
The deadline for submission of proposals for FY 2004/05 was October 31, 2003. We
received 19 proposals totaling about $7.1 million. Below are project descriptions, location,
and cost estimates. Projects are listed in order of priority as determined by submitting
department.
Project Description I Departmentward I EligibilitYRanking
FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Fire Station #5- New Construction Project - Phase II Fire Priority 1
Acquisition, design, construction of a fire station located at Ward 1 Yes
Union Avenue and White Lane. Phase I preliminary acquisition
and design is funded in FY 03/04. Estimated total cost is $2.5
million. Estimated cost for Phase II is $820,000.
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
CDBG Funded Pavement Rehabilitation Pro.qram Public Works Priority 1
The reconstruction & rehabilitation of streets within CDBG Ward 1 $1,020,000 Yes
eligible target areas. Wards 1, 2, & 7. Estimated cost Ward 2 $960,000
$2,411,000. Ward 7 $430,000
"P" Street Sewer Improvement Project Public Works Priority 2
Install sewer main & laterals for residential properties on "P" Ward 1 Yes
Street between 1st and 3rd streets. Estimated cost $211,000.
Chester Avenue Median Improvement Project Public Works Priority 3
Install median improvements on Chester Avenue between Ward 1 Yes
Brundage Lane and California Avenue; including landscaping,
lighting, and other improvements. Estimated cost $798,800.
19th and Eye Street Streetscape Project EDCD Priority 1
Install street improvements, landscaping, street furniture on 19th Ward 2 Yes
Street from "H" and Eye streets and Eye Street from 18th to 19th
streets. Design completed FY 03/04 for $135,000. Estimated
cost $135,000.
S:\GEORGE\CIP funding request 0405.doc
Department Eligibility
Project Description Ward Ranking
Baker Street Streetscape Improvements - Phase III EDCD Priority 2
Install street improvements, landscape, and street furniture on Ward 2 Yes
Baker Street between railroad right-of-way and East Truxtun
Avenue. Phase I completed FY 03/04. Phase II design
completed FY 03/04. Estimated cost $250,000.
Martin Luther Kin.q, Jr. Boulevard Streetscape Improvement EDCD Priority 3
- Phase II Ward 1 Yes
Install street improvements, landscaping and street furniture on
MLK Blvd. between Virginia Avenue and Texas Street. Phase I
completed FY 02/03. Estimated cost $95,000.
Mill Creek Improvement Project EDCD Priority 4
Install hardscape & landscape improvements along the Kern Ward 2 Yes
Island canal between California & Golden State avenues. Total
cost of multi-phase project is $10 million. $3 million application
submitted to State. Estimated CDBG request $250,000.
RECREATION AND PARKS
Jefferson Park Pool Rehabilitation Project Phase II Ward 2 Priority 1
Rehabilitation of neighborhood pool at 801 Bernard Street. Yes
Phase I total funded $1,136,285. Estimated Phase II cost
$62O,OOO.
Jefferson Park Playground Retro-fit Improvements Ward 2 Priority 1
Remove and replace existing playground equipment and ADA Yes
rubberized surfacing at neighborhood park located at 801
Bernard Street. Estimated cost is $202,000.
Jefferson Park Wet Play Area Project Ward 2 Priority 2
Construction of an interactive wet play area at a neighborhood Yes
park located at 801 Bernard Street. Estimated cost is $300,000.
Dr. Martin Luther Kin.q, Jr. Park Wet Play Area Project Ward 1 Priority 3
Construction of an interactive wet play area at a neighborhood Yes
park located at 1000 South Owens Street. Estimated cost is
$197,000.
Wayside Park Wet Play Area Project Ward 1 Priority 4
Construction of an interactive wet play area at a neighborhood Yes
park located at El Toro Street and Ming Avenue. Estimated
Cost is $258,000.
Pool Improvements - Beale, Planz, and Wayside Parks Wards 1, 2, & 3 Priority 5
Rehabilitation of neighborhood park pools including plumbing, Yes
decking, automated chemical systems to bring pools to current
health and safety standards. Estimated cost is $186,000.
Park Restroom Reconstruction - Lowell, Dr. Martin Luther Ward 1 Priority 6
Kin.q, Jr., and Wayside Parks. Rehabilitation of existing park Yes
restrooms for ADA accessibility, and to meet health and safety
standards. Estimated cost is $162,000.
Park Basketball Court Resurfacin.q Project- Wayside, Planz Wards 1, 2, & 7 Priority 7
and Jefferson Parks Yes
Basketball court resurfacing. Estimated cost is $48,000.
Park Basketball Court Resurfacin.q Project- Lowell and Dr. Ward 1 Priority 8
Martin Luther, Kin.q, Jr. Parks Basketball court resurfacing. Yes
Estimated cost is $31,800.
S:\GEORGE~ClP funding request 0405.doc
Project Description Department Eligibility
Ward Rankin~l
Picnic Site Improvements - Lowell and Dr. Martin Luther Ward 1 Priority 9
Kin.q, Jr. Parks Yes
New construction of permanent picnic site structures and
improvements. Estimated cost is $31,800.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Graffiti Removal City-wide Priority 1
Removal of graffiti within various Iow-income areas including Public Works Yes
education and outreach. Estimated cost is $172,300.
S:\GEORGE\CIP funding request 0405.doc
RECEIVED
D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
January23,2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~
SUBJECT: CIP REPORT
Attached please find our monthly report reflecting the status of Public Works ClP
projects.
If you have any questions, please call me at 326-3596.
G:\GROUPDAT\Dani\CIP\FY 03-04~nemo Jan 04.doc
Cit of Ba (ersfiel5 PuDlic Wor s CaDiI I Im 'oveme.t Sc eau/e isca/Year oo -zoo4
upaalea Janua~ z l, zo~ a~naam(
PROJ PROJECT TITLE WARD COMMENTS DESIGN PHASE CONSTRUCTION PHASE
NUM NUM BEGIN (est.) END (e~.) BEGIN (est.) END (est.)
design of project is complete. Construction ~st~ned due to General Fund Not Yet Not Yet
P2C109 120 SUMNER WATER SERVICE 2 budget issues. Oct-03 Jan-04 Scheduled Scheduled
T4K139 AIRPORT' PAVEMENT REHAB I in design Jul-03 Feb-04 Mar-04 Apr-04
Not Yet Not Yet Not Yet Not Yet
T3K047 AKERS ROAD CONSTRUCTION 6 awaiting approval for railroad crossing Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled
Not Yet Not Yet Not Yet Not Yet
T3K014- AKERS ROAD RR XING~RIDGE 6,7 awaiting Public Utilities Commission approval Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION - HAGEMAN Not Yet Not Yet
TOK012 FLYOVER ~ SR99 2 PSR approval anticipated in March 2004 Jul-01 May-03 Scheduled Scheduled
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
T4K142 ALLEN ROAD ~ KERN RIVER 4 ~ 03-04 funding is only for environmen~l ~u~. Draft EIR due April 2004 Sep-03 Sep-04 Jun-05 Jun-05
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION Not Yet Not Yet
T3K041 SR 99 ~ HOSKING AVENUE 6, 7 on-going; this current project is for prelimina~ design only. May-03 Dec-03 Scheduled Scheduled.
BRIDGE WIDENING
TSK002 WHITE ~NE ~ SR 99 7 ~nder construction done done Aug-03 Aug-04
T3L103 BRUNDAGE LANE STRE~SCAPE 1 re~heduled ~r revi~d project assignments Nov-03 Mar-04 May-04 Jul-04
Not Yet Not Yet
T4K121 ~ENTENNIALCORRIDOR 2, 5 Nov-03 Nov-06 Scheduled Scheduled
D~INAGE IMPROVEMENTS
E4K106 DOWNTOWN 2 ~ 03-04 funding is only for pro~r~ acquisition for storm drain facilities, done done Not Applicable Not Applicable
D~INAGE IMPROVEMENTS
E3K011 ~EVIS ~NCH 5 a~erti~ project in Janua~ '04 Aug-03 Dec-03 May-04 Jul-04
Not Yet Not Yet
' T4K113 ~ST BEL~AY ADVANCED P~NNING 3 This is project is for a ~u~ only. Oct-03 Jun-04 Scheduled Scheduled
G~DE SEPA~TION Not Yet Not Yet
T4K120 24TH ~ OAK 2 Nov~3 Nov-05 Scheduled Scheduled
Not Yet Not Yet Not Yet Not Yet
T3K133 HWY 58 ENTRY MONUMENT 1 on hold Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled
G:\GROUPDAT~Dani\CIP\FY 03-04\CIP FY 03-04 JAN.xls I of 4
Cit;~ o[ Ba~ersfie[5 l~[ic wor~s Im Se~ea.[e ~isca[ Year ~oo~-~oo4
PROJ PROJECT TITLE WARD COMMENTS DESIGN PHASE CONSTRUCTION PHASE
NUM NUM BEGIN (est.) END (est.) BEGIN (est.) END (est.)
INTERCHANGE 3roject re~rt submi~ed to Caltrans. consul~nt has ~gun
~K021 SR 178 ~ FAIRF~ 3 final design Jul-99 Dec-03 Jun-04 Nov-05
P3C081 ~cBURTREY AQUATIC CENTER 2 under construction done done Aug-03 May-04
T4K107 NORTH ~ST BIKE PATH II 3 in design Dec-03 Mar-04 May-04 Jul-04
T4K~ 18 WHITE ~NE 8 in design Aug-03 ~8n-04 ~r-04 ~un-04
~AINING WALL
T4~ 10 COLLEGE AVENUE 3 ~8r-04 ~un-04 Aug-04 O0~-04
~ T8K083
T8K084 ~EIS~IC R~ROFIT OF 4 CI~ BRIDGES 2,3 under con.ruction done done Feb-03 Jan-04
SEISMIC R~ROFIT OF ~ANOR BRIDGE waiang on environmental clearance, design complete. S~te funding Not Yet Not Yet
T8K083 LE~ AND RIGHT 3 witharawn. J~n-98 Sep-02 Scheduled Scheduled
SEWER CONSTRUCTION
E2K012 MCDONALD WAY 5 in deign Jan-04 Apr-04 Jun~4 Sep-~
G:\GROUPDAllDani\CIP\FY 03-04\CIP FY 03-04 dAN.xis 2 of 4
Updated Janua~ 21, 20~ ~S~ ~ ~t~ ~:s, ~':~;~
PROJ PROJECT TITLE WARD COMMENTS DESIGN PHASE CONSTRUCTION PHASE
NUM NUM BEGIN (est.) END (est.) BEGIN (est.) END (e~.)
SEWER IMPROVEMENT
E4K104 ALLEN ROAD 4 in design (Meyer Civil Engineers) Aug-03 Apr-04 Jun-04 Nov-04
SEWER IMPROVEMENT
ELK003 PACHECO ~10 7 in con.ruction done done Aug-03 Apr-04
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - P STRE~
E4K110 AND 2N D STRE~ 1 construction ~art subject to funding ~urce verification Aug-03 Mar-04 TBD TBD
SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
E4K109 STOCKDALE HWY 4 in design (Quad-Knopf) Aug-03 Jul-04 Oct-04 Feb-05
SEWER REHAB MAIN - P~NZ ROAD,
E7K005 CHESTER TO WWTP~2 1 NTP issued to design consultant Decem~r 11, 2003 Dec-03 Apr-04 Jun-04 Oct-04
SEWER STUDY Not Yet Not Yet
E4K102 SW - INTERCEPTOR 4, 5, 6 Project funded only for ~u~ - no con.ruction. Oct-03 Jun-04 Scheduled Scheduled
SIGNAL NEW in design, 6~% complete; project on hold ~nding m~lution of right-of-way Not Y~t Not Yet Not Y~t
T3K055 HAGEMAN ~ JEWEl IA 4 and funding issues Mar-03 Schedule~ Scheduled Scheduled
SIGNAL NEW
T4K134 PANAMA ~ MONITOR 7 bids due on 1~17; antici~te award 1/14 done done Feb-04 Apr-04
SIGNAL NEW ~ot ~et ~ot Yet Not Yet Not Yet
T2K043 STOCKDALE ~ MCDONALD 2,5 design complete; KernCOG is repr~ramming for funding Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled
Not Yet Not Yet
T4K112 SR 178 ADVANCED P~NNING 3 This is project is for a stu~ only. Oct-03 Jun-04 Scheduled Scheduled
STORM D~IN IMPROVEMENTS
E4K108 CHESTER ~ 32ND 2 in design (Quad-~nopf) Nov-03 Mar-04 Jun-04 Jul-04
STORM D~I~ IMPROVEMENTS
E4K~03 TR 5130 4 in design Jan-04 Mar-04 May-04 Jul-04
STRED IMPROVEMENTS
T4K123 COFFEE ~ DOWNING 4 '~n design. S~rted right-of-way condemna~on pr~eedings ag~n~ PG&E Jun-03 Apr-04 Jun-04 Aug-04
STRE~ IMPROVEMENTS Cable & C~ke designed an~ is n~ con~ructing the~ improvements which
T4K140 JEW~A AVENUE 4 .ill faciliate future conduction of We~side Par~ay done done Jul-03 Dec-03
~TRE~ IMPROVEMENTS Cable & C~ke ~esigned an~ is n~ con~ructing Se~ improvements which
T4K119 JEWBA AVENUE 4 are adjacent to the Ciys future ~cer ~rk. done done Jul-03 Dec-03
G:\GROUPDAT%Dani~IP\FY 03-04\CIP FY 03-04 JAN.)ds 3 of 4
danuar ,20~
PROJEGTTITLE WARD COMMENTS DESIGN PHASE CONSTRUCTION PHASE
NUN NUM BEGIN (est.) END (est.) BEGIN (e~.) END (est.)
STRE~ IMPROVEMENTS design is complete. Waiting for Southern Cai Gas to rel~ate their main line in Not Yet Not Yet
TOK013 OLIVE DRIVE W OF CALLOWAY 4 order to ~hedule street improvement construction. Jan-04 Feb-04 Scheduled Scheduled
STRE~ IMPROVEMENTS Not Yet Not Yet Not Yet Not Yet
T1K027 RR CROSSINGS 3 in design, awaiting Public Utilities Commission approval Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled Scheduled
STRE~ RESURFAClNG CALLOWAY
T3K017 DRIVE, ROSEDALE TO M~CHAM 4 in prelimina~ design. Project includes construction of cured median islands. Jan-04 Mar-04 May-04 Jul-04
STRE~ WIDENING ROSEDALE HIGHWAY
T4K106 - CALLOWAY TO THE ~ST 4 This is a multi-year project - design ~03-04; construct ~ 04-05 & 05-06. Nov-03 Oct-04 Sep-05 Nov-05
STRE~ WIDENING ROSEDALE HIGHWAY
TOK006 GIBSON TOSR99 2 in design Aug-01 Nov-03 Jan-04 Apr-04
STRE~ WIDENING
T1K028 COLLEGE ~ FAIRF~ 3 Final design ~nding due to shift of construction funds May-01 TBD TBD TBD
STRE~SCAPE ~ 03-04 con.ruction funds were pulled from this project and will ~
T4K105 19TH ~ ~E 2 rein~ted for ~ 04-05.Final design subject to fundin~orkload Jan-04 Apr-04 Jul-04 Aug-04
TRAFFIC SIGNAL BRIMHALL &
T4K147 WINDSONG ~in design Nov-03 Apr-04 Jul-04 Aug-04
T3L102 UNION AVENUE STRE~ LIGHTS 1 Jan-04 May-04 Jul-04 Sep-04
WEST BEL~AY Not Yet Not Yet
T4K114 ADVANCED P~NNING 4, 5 This is project is for a ~ only. Sep-03 Jun-04 Scheduled Scheduled
T2K046 WESTSIDE PARKWAY 2, 4 on-going Jun-02 Jun-05 Jun-05 Jun-09
E3K004 WWTP ~2 EFFLUENT STOOGE I project ~ll ~ re-bid in Decem~r. An~ci~te contract award in Feb 04. done done Mar-04 Aug-04
E7K012 W~P~3 H~DWORKS 4 under con.ruction done done Dec~3
G:\GROUPDAT~Dani\CIP~:Y 03-04\CIP FY 03-04 JAN.xls 4 of 4
From: Jack Leonard
To: Jack Hardisty
Date: 1/27/2004 10:01:20 AM
Subject: URM's
We are continuing the process of updating the City's URM list. Of the 205 URM buildings with-in the City,
164 meet the City's ordinance. We are investigating the remaining 41 where our records indicate 14
property owners have obtained retro-fit permits, and 27 owners have no mitigation measures pending.
The 14 owners who have obtained building permits have either decided not to follow through with the
retro-fit, or simply failed to contact us to make the final inspection.
We are speaking with all owners to verify the current use and to determine if they intend to strengthen
their buildings.
The buildings confirmed to be "non-conforming URM's" will be required by state law to post a 5"x7" sign at
the entrance of the business stating "This is an un-reinforced masonry building. Un-reinforced masonry
buildings may be unsafe in the event of a major earthquake." The owner's of these buildings are being
notified accordingly.
I will keep you posted as we update our numbers and continue to meet with the owners...
Date: January 26, 2004
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Honorable Mayor and Council Members
From: Eric VV. Matlock, Chief of Police ~
Subject: Red Light Enforcement Update
I have attached a copy of December statistics for the Red Light Photo Enforcement
system.
Please call me if you have any questions.
/vrf
Attachment: Memorandum, "Red Liqht Update" by Lt. Tim Taylor 1/14/04
Janua~ 14,2004
TO: W. Rector, Assistant Police Chief
FROM: T. Taylor, Lieutenant, Traffic Section
SUBJECT: Red Light Update
The following represents the monthly Red Light Photo Enforced Citation totals for the
month of December:
357 violations / 175 printed notices
We are still moving forward with construction of additional camera systems at the
intersection of Ming Avenue and SR 99 at Valley Plaza which will include all eastbound
and eastbound to northbound left turn lanes. The plans for Ming Avenue and New Stine
Road have been abandoned in favor of Ming Avenue and South Real Road which will
include all westbound and westbound to southbound left turn lanes. Traffic accident
data supports photo enforcement at that location.
We have surveyed numerous other intersections which do not support installation of the
system and we have requested that Redflex re-examine the intersection of Columbus
Street and Mt. Vernon Avenue.
Karen Finley, Vice President, at Redflex Traffic Systems assures me the remaining
intersections in our contract will be installed soon and that she has told her construction
manager to continue to make Bakersfield a priority.
For calendar year 2003, photo enforced violations all three intersections totaled
5,8,59 resulting in 2,851 printed citations.
P:\Redlight Update December & YE.doc
Customer Management Report (Bakersfield) Redlight Incidents
1-Dec-2003 to 31-Dec--2003
Total Violations 68 51 87 151 357
Less_U~rnll~a hl~. Factors
Obstruction Driver Obstruction/Duc .......... 3_ ...... _0_ ...... _5 .... 1 ..... 9
Plate Obstruction ...... 4_ ...... _0_ ....... 1_ ........ 4_ ....... _9
Vehicle Obstruction ....... 2_ ...... _1 ....... 2 ..... q ...... _.5
Policy/Weather Extended Vehicle ....... O~ ........ 1 ...... _0 ....... O_ ......
Sun Glare ....... 2_ ...... _0_ ...... 0~ ..... 8 _ _ _ "1_0
Registration Paper Plates ....... 1_ ...... _2_ ...... 3_ ...... 4 .... _1.0
Issues Wrong or No DMV ....... 1_ ...... _2_ ....... _3 ....... 5_ _ _ _ 1.1_
Total 13 6 14 22 55
Sub Total Violations 55 45 73 129 302
Less In Progress O 0 -2 -2 -4
Available for Prosecution 55 45 75 131 306
cA~erA' DatabarUnreadable/I 0 000% 0 000% 2 003% 0 000% 2 001%
Malfunction Face Camera Flash l 11 020% 0 000% 1 001% 11 009% 23 008%
Face Camera Focus B 5 009% 1 002% 2 003% 8 006% 16 005%
Face Camera No Flas 12 022% 0 000% 0 000% 0 000% 12 004%
Face Not in Frame 3 005% ,2 004% 3 004% 1 001% 9 003%
Misc Camera Issue .... _0_ _0~0_°~ _ _ _0_ _ _000_%_ _ _ _0_
Plate Burn Out 0 000% 1 002% 0 000% 0 000% 1 000%
Plate Not in Frame 0 000% 6 013% 4 005% 1 001% 11 004%
Rear Plate Camera BI '1 002% 2 004% 4 005% 0 000% 7 002%
Rear Plate Flash Inapp _ _ _ _0._ _000% _ __ 0_ 000_%_ _
Rear Plate No Flash 0 000% 0 000% 0 000% 1 001% 1 000%
Scene lmageFlashln 1 002% 0 000% 3 004% 0 000% 4 001%
Scene Image No Flash _ _ _ _1 . _O077 _ _ _q _0~0_%_ _ _ _0_ .0{~0_ ~_/o .... _0_0_0~_~/.o_ _ _1_ _. _0~)..°/.o.
Police Rejects Invalid Offence .... _1__O0_2°/_o ....0_ _000%_ + _ _0_ _000%_ _ _ _1 _ _00!°~ __ _ 2_ 001%
Safe Right Turn On R _ _ _ _0_ _O00~ _ _ _ 0_ _ _0{~0~_ _ _ _0_ _0~0_ °_/~_ _ _ _3_ _O0_20~ _ _ _ 3_ _0(~_ 1_%_
Process Issues Too Old _ _ _ 2_~_00~_~_ _ _5_ p-11~_/~_ _ _ 1_4_ _017_/o_ _ _1_6_ 0_1~ __ ~37~ _0_1~/~_
.......................................
Total 37 067% 17 038% 34 047% 43 033% 131 043%
NO-.~e~i~ :" :' '.: :,': '' ?'' ':: ''~' :'~:::' ~ :i~.i::~'!::':'i ~. '0e~ :':'
Printed on 14-Jan-2004 Page I of I
Customer Management Report (Bakersfield) Redlight Incidents
1-Jan-2003 to 31-Dec--2003
Total Violations 1,286 651 996 2.926 5.859
Less [~QlJable. J?act~3rs
Obstruction Driver Obstruction/Duc ...... _29_ ...... 29~ ..... 5_4 ..... 8_6_ .... 1_9_8
Motor Cycle Helmet ....... O_ ...... _2_ ..... 0 ........ 1 ...... 3
Plate Obstruction ...... .83__ ........3-1 ...... _3_9 ...... 12_5 ..... 2_7_8
Vehicle Obstruction ..... _24_ ...... 1~0_ ..... _3_9 ....... .4_1 ...... 1_14
Policy/Weather Extended Vehicle ~- ~- ~ _- _- -_ _- ~ ~ _- -_ _- ~ - _-8_- '_' '_- ~ ~- ~i ~ ~- ~ - -_ _~- 1-1- ~ _- _- '_- _- _-2~5
Sun Glare ..... _1_23 ....... 4~ ...... _8! ...... 387_ ..... 6_4_0
Weather/Nature ........ ~6 ..... _0_ .... 0
Yellow with Red Light ....... O_ ....... _0_ ..... 1 ...... O_ ........ _1
Registration Can Not Identify State
Issues Out of Country Plate ........ 0 ...... _0. ........ 0 ........ 3 ........ _3
Paper Plates ........ _43_ ...... 20_ ..... 3~8 ..... 81 ..... 1_8_2
Wrong or No DMV ....... _57 ........ 2_1 ....... _33 ...... 93 ..... 2_0_4
..........................................
Total 371 170 287 842 1,670
Sub Total Violations 915 481 709 2,084 4,189
Less In Progress -2 -1 -2 -5 -10
Available for Prosecution 917 482 711 2,089 4,199
Camera DatabarUnreadable/I 0 000% 3 001% 2 000% 0 000% 5 000%
Malfunction Digital Distortion - _- _- ~ ~.'.°~ ~- ~0_- _-0~07/~ ~ _~ _0- ~ ~_-/o_- ~ ~ _~ ~ _00~o/_-o _ ~- ;~ ~0~/;
Face Camera Flash l 42 005% 5 001% 27 004% 95 005% 169 004%
Face Camera Focus B ~ -'~-~/_'; ~ _- ~9_- ~°/~_ - ~ i~ ~00~3~o~
Face CameraNoFlas 25 003% 0 000% 0 000% 3 000% 28 001%
Image Missing 0 000% 2 000% 1 000% 4 000% 7 000%
........................................
MiscCameralssce 7 001% 4 001% 21 003% 77 004% 109 003%
......................................
Plate Bum Out _ _ _ 3_ _007~ _ __ ~ ~0~ !~_ _ _ 1_ _OOp_ ~/~_ __ _3_0(~°~ ~ _ _12 _..00~_?~
Plate NotinFrame 16 002% 120 025% 38 005% 12 001% 186 004%
........................................
Rear Plate Camera BI 7 001% 21 004% 14 002% 1 000% 43 001%
.........................................
Rear Plate Flash Inapp _ _ _ _0 _~_0°~_ _ _ O_ _000. %- _ _ 1_5_ _00_27~_ _ _ _0_ _00{~_ °~ _ _
Rear Plate No Flash 2 000% 2 000% 13 002% 1 000% 18 000%
.......................................
Scene Image Flash In _ _ _ 1 _ _007~ _ _ _ O_ _ ~0{)0_%_ _ _ ~3_ ~000~_/=_ _ _ O_ .00~)_°/° _ _ 4_
Scene Image No Flash __ _ ~ _ _00~_°~ _ _ _3? Po_8~_/~_ _ _ _0. po_O~/o_ __ 2_ _000o~ __ _4q _00_1~_/~
........................................
Police Rejects DriverUnidentifiable _ _ _ _3_ ~OOq_°~_ _0_ _ _0~0%_ _ _ _0 _0_00~/o .... _5__00?/_o _ _ _8~ ~0_%
Expired Time 2 000% 1 000% 0 000% 2 000% 5 000%
Incorrect Details - - - ~- (~0~ - -- (~ -0~0-~/~ - - -0- ~X)%- - - ~3- 000°~-- - .~ -0~0~/;
....................................
Invalid Offence 2 000% 1 000% 0 000% 6 000% 9 000%
No Video - - -~}-{~)~o~ - - -{~ -0~0~/~ - - -0- ~30~)~/o- - - §-~)0%- - -:~ -0~0~/;
Total 251 027% 248 052% 216 030% 633 030%1,348 032%
Printed on 14-Jan-2004 Page 2 of 2
RECEIVED
MANAGER'S
JAN ?_ 9
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
January 23, 2004
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~_/~__~
SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO REFERRAL # 621 (1018/03 COUNCIL MEETING)
For your information, please find attached, a letter from Caltrans regarding the road
conditions at the railroad crossing of Morning Drive and Edison Highway.
G:\GROUPDATWlemo~2004\folIow up ref 621 .doc
~T~ OF CALIFORNIAIBUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION'AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~
1352 WEST OLIVE AVENUE
P.O. BOX 12616
FRESNO, CA 93778-2616
PHONE (559) 488-4144 Flex your power!
FAX (559) 488-4299 Be energy efficient!
TTY (559) 488-4066
January l3,2004
Jacques R. LaRochelle
Assistant Public Works Director
City of Bakersfield
Public Works Department
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Jacques:
This letter is in response to your request for assistance from Caltrans regarding the road
conditions at the railroad crossing of Morning Drive and Edison Highway.
According to our Caltrans Maintenance Area Superintendent, research indicates that in
early spring of 2003 Union Pacific Railroad made permanent repairs to one of the two
tracks crossing the highway and this fall made temporary repairs to the other with the
assistance of Caltrans. Since repairs were made we have experience a significant
reduction in complaints .pertaining to this issue. Union Pacific Railroad has informed
Caltrans that permanent repairs to the second track are scheduled for next spring.
Additionally, Caltrans has agreed to assist Union Pacific Railroad, in regards to traffic
control, if any additional temporary repairs are required by Union Pacific Railroad until
the permanent fix is complete.
Thank you for contacting Caltrans regarding this issue, if you have any questions or need
additional information, please feel free to contact me at (559) 488-4144.
Sincerely,
MALCOLM X. DOUGHERTY
Deputy District Director
Maintenance and Operations
District 6
"Caltrans improves mobiliS, across CaliJbrnia"
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
October 10, 2003
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: REPAIRS TO RAILROAD CROSSINGS
Council Referral #621
Councilmember Sullivan requested Public Works staff contact Craig Pope at the
County for assistance regarding conditions of the roadway at the railroad crossing
at Morning Drive and Edison Highway.
The section of Morning Drive at Edison Highway over the railroad tracks is actually part
of State Route 184 which is under Caltrans' jurisdiction, Staff prepared the attached
letter to Caltrans and forwarded a copy to Craig Pope since this area is also in the
unincorporated area of metropolitan Bakersfield.
G:~GROUPDAT~Referrals~(X)3~CC Mtg 10-08~621 - Jack.doe
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WOUlC~ DEPARTMENT
1501 TIUXTUN AV~IUB
BAK~Sim~, CALiI~ 93301
(661)
October 10, 2003
Mike Leonardo - Director
Caltrans District 6
PO Box 12616
Fresno CA 93778-2616
Subject; SR 184 - conditions of roadway at the railroad crossing at Morning Drive and
Edison Highway
Dear Mr. Leonardo:
City Councilmembers have requested we contact you for assistance regarding conditions of the
Roadway at the railroad crossing at Morning Ddve and Edison Highway. Since this area is also
part of the unincorporated area of metropolitan Bakersfield, we are also forwarding a copy of
this letter to Craig Pope at the Kern County Roads Department seeking assistance.
Very truly yours,
RAUL M. ROJAS
Public Works Director
.?
By:
/~/J,e~:!' Ues R. LaR~ejle
////// Assistant Public Works Director
cc: Jacquie Sullivan, City of Bakersfield Councilmember - Ward 6
Craig Pope, Kern County Roads Department
G:~,GROUPDAT~RoferraI~X)3\CC Mtg 10-06~621 - letter.doG
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ERIC W. MATLOCK, CHIEF OF POLIC~
DATE: January 26, 2004
SUBJECT: 1400 Block of Clipperhills Drive
Council Referral No. 662 (Ward 7)
I "C°uncil Member Salvaggi° requested p°lice department increase their patr°l °n the 11400 block of Clipperhills Drive."
Operations Division staff were assigned to provide extra patrol in the 1400 block of
Clipperhills Drive. During a patrol check on January 22, 2004, officers cited one vehicle
for a parking violation and marked one abandoned vehicle for impound. Staff will
continue with extra patrol.
EWM/vrf
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: ERIC W. MATLOCK, CHIEF OF POLICE/~''~'
DATE: January 27, 2004
SUBJECT: 1800 Mallard Court
Council Referral No. 664 (Ward 7)
Council Member Salvaggio requested the police department look into the concerns
addressed in the attached correspondence from "Residents of Mallard Court," and
Code Enforcement Division to respond to concerns regarding rats, weeds, trash and
tires on the property.
In response to Council Member Salvaggio's request, staff was assigned from both the
Investigations and Operations Divisions. Members of our special narcotics unit, CAL-
MMET, were apprised of the neighborhood concerns and staff has been inside the
residence. In addition, officers talked with neighbors regarding our continued
enforcement efforts. No drug activity was observed, however, surveillance will
continue.
Operations Division staff was assigned to provide extra patrol in an effort to curtail the
reported traffic safety violations. Officers will continue to patrol the area.
EWM/vrf