Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/30/04 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM July 30, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Alan Tandy, City Managerf~y~u~ FROM: SUBJECT: General Information 1. The State Assembly and Senate have approved State budget legislation and have sent it to the Governor for his signature which is anticipated this weekend. Legislative leaders finally came to agreement on a plan regarding funding for local governments among other budget issues. Monies for cities, counties and special districts will be cut by $2.6 billion in each of the next two years, in exchange for a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit the Legislature from dipping into property taxes to help pay the state's own obligations and would guarantee that local cities and counties receive the vehicle- license fees they do now. Also, it would not tamper with the mix of property and sales taxes received by local governments. To take local revenue again in the future, two-thirds of the Legislature would have to approve and the State would be required to pay back what it takes, with interest, before doing it again. The State would be limited to taking 8 percent of property taxes for cities and counties, which is currently about $1.3 billion a year, and could do it only twice in 10 years. The constitutional amendment will appear on the Nov. 2nd ballot if lawmakers approve it. Detailed information on the budget legislation is not yet available, but preliminary figures provided by the League show the impact to Bakersfield to be about $3.2 million each year for FY 04-05 and FY 05-06. Staff will be reviewing State budget information as it becomes available (it may take a while since the specific details often are included in follow-up trailer legislation) along with updated city financial data to determine what changes may be required to our budget. Attached are several newspaper articles and information from the League on the State budget. Honorable Mayor and City Council General Information July 30, 2004 Page 2 2. The Board of Supervisors will consider our proposed Sphere of Influence expansion at their August 3rd meeting at 2:00 p.m. Attached is a copy of the report and recommendation of Ted James, the County Planning Director. He is recommending that the County and City of Bakersfield enter into an agreement which supports including our Sphere of Influence requests which are within the current Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan boundaries. This would exclude some areas involving Shafter and the Pulte project from consideration until such time as specific planning is done. State law specifies, that LAFCO shall give "great weight" to considering a County-City agreement in LAFCO's final determination of a Sphere of Influence amendment. The agreement with the County would be considered by the Council at the August 18th meeting. The LAFCO hearing regarding the Sphere of Influence amendment is scheduled for August 24, 2004. 3. Earlier this week, there was an article in the local newspaper regarding increases to property tax revenues forecasted by the County for FY 2004-05. As clarified in the attached memo, the article mentions that the County is forecasting an approximate 8% increase county-wide. Staff has projected an approximate 4% growth rate in property taxes for the City. The estimates in the newspaper article were done by the author of the article, not City staff. 4. Attached is a water notice that is being sent out to residents in the Riverlakes Ranch neighborhood of the City water system regarding morning Iow pressure periods and requesting residents to adjust their water usage patterns while construction of new water facilities is being completed. 5. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: Councilmember Hanson · Staff report on evaluation of new technology to reduce water use and water run-off in medians and streetscapes Councilmember Sullivan · Scheduled alley repair behind Reeder Street AT:rs cc: Department Heads Para McCarthy, City Clerk Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst LEAGUE 1400 K Str~t, Suit~ ~00 · Sacramento, Galifomia 9§B14 Phon~: 916.6§B.~200 Fax: 916.6§B.82~0 · O F CALI F ORN IA wWW.cacities.or~ · CITIES TO: Mayors, Council Members and City Managers FROM: Megan Taylor, DireCtor of Communications DATE: July 27, 2004 SUBJECT: Local Government Agreement- Revised Side-by-Side Comparison Attached is an updated copy of the comparison of the Compromise Agreement that we sent out about earlier this afternoon with a memo from League Executive .Director Chris McKenzie. We realized that we had erroneously stated that VLF rates in current law, Prop. 65 and the Compromise were .capped at 2% in the constitution, instead of statutorily. The correct statement is now included in this comparison. Our apologies for the error, and thanks for understanding. Attachment RECEIVED: 7/27/04 8:54PM; ->CTTY OF BAKERsFTELI~ /~'8i1~.~ PAgE 2 PROPOSED LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT COMPROMISE Current Law . Prop 65 Aqreement VLF Rate Currently at 2% ~!Currently at 2% Reduced to 0.65% statutorily and property tax backfill provided between 0.65% and 2% Backfill if VLF None Backfill provided ifBackfill provided if rate reduced Reduced rate reduced, below 0.65% Increases.in VLF Set at 2% in statute.No change from Capped at 2% statutorily.' Rate Can only be.used for current law. Constitutionally guarantees city or county 0.65% for cities and counties. pu~;pOses. VLF Gap Loan .~ StatutorJly required in 8tatutorily requiredStatutorilyrequJred Jn 2006-07. Repayment 2006-07. in 2006-07 unless No future property tax . voters'change, loan/suspension if unpaid ~:~:~...:~::.~...:i~i;~:~:.~.~:~..?:~:.z*..z.:~.:~5~.:.~:~5:~:~::f~:5~5~:i;.~5~5~:5~:~T~:~:~.55.~.¥;~:~"~:~::~.r~-~-:T~:~:~: ~. . Agencies' None. Legislature Cities, counties, city, county, special district. No protected may reallocate at will special districts and further protections for RDA to ERAF and among RDAs beyond existing provisions of agencies. Art. 16, Sec. 16 of state. constitution. Reallocation Legislature can With voter Local share (non-school/ERAF) Among Local reallocate by simple approval, may be reallocated by 2/3 vote Agencies majority vote, to other local govts. In a county. including to ERAF or Legislature may not reallocate to other state fund. increase school or ERAF share. Reallocation of property tax may not be done to support state- mandated programs. Suspension None. May take None Beginning in 2008-09, if Trigger permanently at will. Governor proclaims "significant state fiscal hardship." Suspension'Vote SimPle majority to Voter approval 2/3rds vote - separate bill Needed take.permanently-- providing for repayment. no repayment. Suspension None. May take None. --No more than 2 times in 10 Limits permanently at will. years. --No loan until VLF Gap loan and previous suspension loan paid. --Cap of 8% of local share of property taxes ($1.3billion today). Current Law Prop 65 Agreement terms repayment, to fully repay loan with interest RECE,,TVED: 7/27/04 8:54PM; ->CITY OF' BAKERSFIELD; #E!18; PAGE 3 Jul'Z7 2BB4~Z3:54:13 I/ia Fax .-> 324185B l~lan B. Tandy Page 803 0£ 883 · (as provided by law) within three Protection -* None, Legislature Yes, uniess-v°ters Protects the rate and method of may reduce rate or .change. distribution of the local Bradley- change method of Burns sales tax and Transactions distribution. Prop. 57. and Use Tax. Guarantees triple flip % cent payment of proper~ tax backfill sales tax not for Prop, 57 sales tax % cent protected, suspension. Aisc guarantees return of %'cent Bradley Burns 8ales tax When Prop 57 bond8 retired. Reallocation May:be·alloWed. Law If-Voters approve. None. unclear. Scope-- -None Suspended at Statute imposing mandate Consequence of discretion of Jocal suspended if no state funding Nc,payment agency except :for specified employee rights and benefits. Applies-Only to ci~, count, special district mandates. ~ Mandate State.may shift Clarifies mandate definition to Definition costs to local include cost shifts ,from the state governments to locals. without triggering reimbursement requirement. None. Legielature may approve a statuto~ framework for v01unta~ exchanges ofproper~ tax and sale8 tax. [Revised 7/27/2004 8:47 PM] ¢' -L~pgg, ',e qf California Cities Page 1 of 2 2004-07-28 2004-05 California State Budget & Constitutional Measures On July 27 the League's board of directors voted unanimously to support the local government protection agreement that the League and its LOCAL coalition partners negotiated with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders. (See "__L_.o_c._g! ~9~erome~t ~g[~e~ent Proposal Comparison Witl~ Curreot Lg~.'i. Also Ta~;.~..~;~i99; ContactYqu.r.[,egi~.!~o.rs to "The agreement provides a breakthrough in terms of protecting local services," said League President Ron Loveridge, Mayor of the City of Riverside. "It means that we will'work together with the governor and legislative leaders to secure voter approval in November for a ballot measure that will significantly s!rengthen constitutional protections for local revenues." The agreement calls for cities, counti.es, special districts and redevelopment agencies to endure two years of painful revenue losses, as $1.3 billion in local funds are shifted to the state each year. The cities' share of this loss will be $350 million for each of the two years. The a~reement will retain the existing funding shift from local governments to school districts (ERAF), currently about $5 billion annually, but would amend the constitution to prevent the legislature from increasing the amount of these shifts in future. While the two years of local government revenue losses will be implemented through the state budget bill, the constitutional protection for local governments would be presented to voters through a measure that the legislature will place on the November 2004 ballot. Details of Constitutional Measure. The constitutional measure would allow the legislature to borrow property tax, but only if prior loans were repaid to local governments and other criteria were met. Property taxes could be reallocated by the legislature, but not to pay for state programs. The current rate and method of distribution of sales tax would be protected, and state mandated programs would be suspended if the state failed to reimburse local governments. (Click here for more details.) "The cuts will be very difficult for many cities," said Novato Mayor Pat Eklund, First Vice President of the League. "But we're willing to endure this short-term pain because this ballot measure protects our future revenues. For the first time in more than a decade, we'll be able to provide police, fire and other essential services knowing that the state can't just reach down and take our funds." League Thanks Mayors, Other Local Leaders. "This agreement would not have been possible were it not for the outstanding leadership of Governor Schwarzenegger, and the energy and dedication of our members," said League Executive Director Chris McKenzie. "Our members and our coalition partners were able to collect more than 1.1 million signatures to put Prop. 65 on the ballot, and that helped give us a place at the table. But it was Governor Schwarzenegger's leadership and commitment that brought us together with legislators. He fulfilled his commitment to California voters to unite us all towards a common purpose." McKenzie added, "1 also want to express our great appreciation to Mayor Jim Hahn (Los Angeles) and Mayor Alan Autry (Fresno) for the incredible leadership they have provided to the cities of the state in this process. The League officers -- Mayor Ron Loveridge, Mayor Pat Eklund, Los Angeles Council President Alex Padilla and Oakland City Attorney John Russo untold hours of guidance and leadership. We deeply appreciate all their efforts." "We still have much work ahead of us," said Loveridge. "We must work to educate voters about why this constitutional measure is important to their communities. "We look forward to working with the governor and with legislators to ensure that we pass this measure in the fall and restore the accountability to state and local budgets that voters Want and expect." Once these issues are resolved, the language will be amended into SCA 9 (Torlakson), and this will become the local government protection measure on the November 2004 ballot. Background Budget Resources: LocalGoverr~men_t .A_g[ee.~.~..n_.~...!~.[999~.~,[.~.9.~pa. risgD With C~rren_t_!=aw_. Need More Background on the State/Local Fiscal Relationship? Click Here! Proposition 65 Qualified for November Ballot. Proposition 65 Related Resources In~ormat!on ~bout The Local Taxpayers.and Public Safety F'rotecti~3..~c~ initiative Text .~..w_.....w._.,.p.!~.9~[9..c_.~'.!9~.~!~_9.!;_v_.i.q.9.~,.~.9.~. - The LOCAL Campaign Website www.citipac.org The League's political action committee http://www.cacities.org/story_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub sec=... 7/28/2004 L,e~agu~ O.,f California Cities Page 2 of 2 ; ._C.j~yr!~yr~.i.tyjmpacts of $2.6 billion "coP;tributi0ns" tO Stgte - PDF; ~LFrforr!~rope._.rt_yr~[g_.x_._~_.w__...ap...~_~limgt_e._.s., 5.27,04 -PDF; May 12 Press Release - Word While budget discussions continue, local officials are gratified that their intiative to give voters the final say over taking local revenues has qualified for the November 2004 ballot. (See also the Resources Box on the lower right corner of this page.) last updated: 7/27/2004 http://www.cacities.org/story_display.j sp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub_sec=.,. 7/28/2004 GRADING THE DEAL Page 1 of 2, Posted on Wed, Jul. 28, 2004 GRADING THE DEAL Here's who won, lost and had middling success in Monday's budget deal: WINNERS · Prison guards. The governor vowed to extract $300 million from the powerful union, but settled for $108 million over two years -- and gave them new .perks. · Five Indian tribes. They were first to sign on to gambling deals with the governor. The deals reap the state $1 billion upfront. The tribes probably get to k. eep their monopoly on Nevada-style gambling and can add as many new slot machines as they want. · Commuters. After years of raiding transit funds to balance the state's books, lawmakers plan to repay some of that debt with gambling proceeds -- presumably meaning better roads in the long run. · Timber industry. The governor initially proposed hikes in some timber fees. But Republicans persuaded Schwarzenegger to back down from what some in the GOP viewed as tax hikes. · Democrats. It's not the budget they would have proposed, but they fended off some cuts to highe~ education and social services. LOSERS · Future taxpayers. They'll be strapped with the bill for billions in borrowing, with no sign that the state has addressed the underlying mismatch between what the state takes in and what it spends. · Yacht owners. They can currently escape paying state sales tax by storing their vessels out of state for 90 days after purchase. Not anymore. The agreement closes the loophole for at least two years. · Teachers. They lose a tax credit for buying supplies for two years. A LITTLE OF BOTH / · Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He delivers on a promise not to raise taxes. BUt his Capitol and public cachet took a dip after a blown budget deadline, an unexpected insurgency from his own party and comparisons of his budget to those of ousted predecessor Gray Davis. · Public schools, They forfeit $2 billion for the sake of the budget, but bypass potentially deeper cuts and get more cash to ' 'equalize" spending among districts. · College students. Undergrad fees rise 14 percent; grad student fees rise by up to 25 percent. But Democrats extract money to protect 7,000 eligible students from community college diversion.' · Welfare recipients. They'll wait a while for cost-of-living increases, but avoid deeper cuts. · Republicans. They avoid new taxes and rebuff some fee hikes. But they're still restive because Democrats persuaded the governor to back off deep cuts and add new spending. · California Chamber of Commerce. Members are thrilled about changes to the law about employees' rights to sue http://www.mercurynews~c~m/m~d/mercuryn~ws/n~ws/p~itics/926~8~9~htm?temp~ate=c~.~ 7/28/2004 GRADING THE DEAL Page 2 of 2 over workplace violations, which they contended led to frivolous lawsuits. But they must wait to tackle a bill involving schools' ability to hire outside firms for services such as busing. · Cities and counties. They give up $2.6 billion over two years to help ease the deficit. They get future protection against state tax grabs. -- Kate Folmar, Mercury News 2004 McrcuryNews,com and wlire service som'ces. All Rights Reserx, ed. http://www.mercurynews.c~m/m~d/mercurynews/news/p~~itics/926~8~9.htm?temp~ate=c~... 7/28/2004 How key budget sticking points were resolved Page 1 of 2 Posted on Wed, Jul. 28, 2004 How key budget sticking points were resolved Higher education Democrats fought the governor's plan to cut financial aid, limit enrollment and increase student fees for 2004-05 in the California State University and University of California systems. Instead of trimming the proposed $1 billion from higher education, the budget will cut it by $920 million. As a result, the 7,000 qualified students who were to be shut out of the system may now enroll this fall. Local governments The governor pushed an agreement he reached with local government leaders to protect cities and counties from future state tax raids in exchange for accepting $2.6 billion in cuts over the next two years. Democrats objected to part of the plan that would lock in vehicle-licenses fees at their current level and keep in place local governments' heavy reliance on sales taxes, which critics say encourages the building of stores instead of housing. The compromise, a constitutional amendment to be voted upon in November, would guarantee that local cities and counties receive the vehicle-license fees they do now. Also, it would not tamper with the mix of property and sales taxes received by local governments. To take local revenue again in the future, two-thirds of the Legislature would have to approve and the state would be required to pay back what it takes, with interest, before doing it again. The state would be limited to taking 8 percent of property taxes for cities and counties, which is currently about $1.3 billion a year, and could do it only twice in 10 years. Social Services Democrats opposed the governor's recommendation to eliminate cost-of-living increases for welfare recipients and reduce to minimum wage the pay for in-home healthcare workers. Instead, the increased payments will be delayed by three months and the in-home health care workers will .not see a salary cut, State employees The governor sought to trim $464 million from employee salaries. From prison guards, he negotiated $108 million in concessions, coming up short of the $300 million he sought. For other state workers, he granted pay increases as part of a deal to limit pension payments and borrow $929 million in pension obligation bonds. Democrats fought the governor's proposal to boost employee contributions to pensions and create a less generous plan for new employees. That idea was dropped in favor of delaying new employees' entry into the pension fund for two years. Two bills As talks dragged on in July, Republicans demanded changes to two laws signed by former Gov. Gray Davis. One forbids school districts from contracting out for services such as busing or cafeteria workers. Republicans dropped immediate plans to rework that law. Another permits private attorneys to sue employers for violating labor rules. The final deal includes changes to that law, giving violators a chance to correct alleged infractions and deal with state regulators before facing lawsuits. -- Andrew LaMar, Mercury News Sacramento Bureau http://www~mercurynews.c~rn/m~d/mercurynews/news/p~~itics/926~8~5.htm?temp~ate=c~... 7/28/2004 How key budget sticking points were resolved Page 2 of 2 2004 Mercn~'News,com m~d wire service sources. All Righls Reserved, http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/9260805.htm?template=co... 7/28/2004 Los Angeles Times: State Senate Sends $105-Billion Budget to Governor Page 1 of 2 http ://www.latimes. com/news/local/la-072904budget_wr, 1,4519647. story? coil=la-home-headlines State Senate Sends $105-Billion Budget to Governor From Associated press 2:24 PM PDT,' JUly 29, 2004 SACRAMENTO -- The California Legislature gave.final approval to a $105 billion state budget Thursday after a nearly one-month deadlock during which Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger insulted his opponents as "girlie men." The Senate passed the spending plan on a 28-11 vote, a day after the package cleared the Assembly 69-11. Schwarzenegger is expected to sign it into law Saturday. Although both Democrats and Republicans found much to complain about in the spending plan, they largely agreed in the end that the budget represented a good compromise. The budget closes' a deficit estimated in January at $17 billion without raising taXes. Instead,' it uses a combination of borrowing, one-time solutions and spending .cuts. "It's a budget for us to like and our children to hate. This is a budget of delays 'and deferrals, gimmicks and big fat IOUs," Democratic Sen. Jackie Speier complained. Others, however, said it was the best everyone could do given the state's problems." "It took us five years to get into this financial mess and it's going to take us http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-O72904budget_wr, 1,4322135,print.story?coil=la-ho... 7/29/2004 laos Angeles Times: Sta~e Senate Sends $105-Billion Budget to Governor Page 2 of 2 years to get out of it," said Republican Sen. Bruce McPherson. The budget for the fiscal year that began July 1 was nearly a month overdue, and the squabbling strained relations between the Republican governor and the Democratic-Controlled Legislature. Schwarzenegger had made an on-time budget a:priority, and' had hoped to show that he could break though the usual gridlock at the Capitol and muscle a spending plan through the Legislature. But when the Democrats stood in the way, he called them "girlie men" for giving into unions and other special interests. If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.conVarchives. ~i~lSRepdnts Article licensing and reprint options Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.corrdnews/local/la-O72904budget_wr, 1,4322135,print. story?coil=la-ho... 7/29/2004 · The Sacramento Bee -- sacbee.com -- Senate approves state budget Page 1 of 2 This story is taken from Politics at sacbee.com. Senate approves state budget - (Published July 29 . 2004) ,. Closing out a stormy two-month budget season, a bipartisan majority of state senators approved Thursday a $105 billion spending plan for next year. The approval by a 28-11 vote moves the'budget, which the Assembly approved Wednesday, to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, who is expected to sign the plan into law Saturday. Although both Democrats and Republicans found much to complain about in the spending plan, they agreed in the end the budget represents a good compromise between party goals. The budget addresses a deficit estimated in January at $17 billion without raising taxes by using a combination of borrowing, one-time solutions and spending cuts. Sen. Jackie Speier, D-Daly City, criticized the bUdget because it again.put off the question of. whether to raise taxes or cut spending to solve the spending imbalance. "It's a budget for us to like and our children to hate. This is a b'udget of delays and deferrals, gimmicks and big fat IOUs.' Others, however, said it was the best everyone could do given the state's problems. "It took us five years to get into this financial mess and it's going to take us year to get out of it," said Sen. Bruce McPherson, R-Santa CRUZ. Adoption of the plan comes after an arduous negotiation process between GOP lawmakers Schwarzenegger and the Legislature's Democratic majority and wmll leave the mark of strained relations on both sides. After releasing his proposed budget in May -- which included a number of funding agreements with key interest groups such as schools and local government -- talks stalled as the fiscal year ran out. A frustrated SChwarzenegger, who had made an on-time budget a priority, went into campaign mode, angering Democrats, especially after the governor called them "girlie men" for giving into unions and other special interests. The governor's standing inside his own party has also been tarnished by the bruising budget process. ~Republican lawmakers made their own demands on the governor during the last weeks, forcing Schwarzenegger into concessions he did not originally want to make. The final vote in the Assembly, for instance, wasn't completed late Wednesday night until Republicans were satisfied with provisions on several issues on which the governor had previously agreed. The Legislative Analyst's office said the budget is supported by nearly $7 billion in borrowing, including $2.7 billion from the sale of Proposition 57 bonds approved by Voters in March. The agreement also calls for the diversion of another $1 billion from transportation money as a one- http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/v-print/story/10172505p-11093121 C.html 7/29/2004 ...... ,,The Sacramento Bee ,: sacbee.com -- Senate approves state budget 'Page 2 of 2 time loan and another $1 billion from the sale of bonds to pay the state's pension obligation. The budget restores money to state universities to lift an enrollment cap on incoming freshmen. Ther. e are also new protections of city and county tax money from the Legislature. -- Associated Press Go to · ~cbee / ~.~.._c.k__t.(L~tory Contact Bee Customer Service Advertise Onl!ne I Pd.y.~cy..l~o.!j(;y I Te~m.s of use I Help I SiteMap News I ~Pg~ I B.u.5.!.n.~5~ I .l~p!j.~!~;s I ~pj._.n.j~).!3. I Classifieds I Homes I C;a[~ I Jobs I Shopping G.U.~.D.E..TQ.?H.E BEE:. I S.ub.scd.b.e I (;;.o.r~.tacts I Ady.e. Et!s.e I .Bee....E.v.e!Jts [ Sacramento Bee Web sites ] Sacbee.com I SacTicket.com I Sacramento.com Contact sacbee.com This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use. The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852 Phone: (916) 321-:1000 Copyright © The Sacramento Bee http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics?v-print/story/10172505p- 11093121 c.html 7/29/2004 The. Sacramento Bee -- sacbee. Com --All sides see victories in budget deal Page 1 of 3 This story is taken from Politics at sacbee.com. Ali sides see victo:ries in budget dea.I: But 'some Republicans say the governor gave away too much. By Alexa H. Bluth and blargaeet Talev -- Bee Capitol Bureau - (Published July 28t 2004) A day after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders struck a late-night budget deal to,end a contentious monthlong impasse, those involved in the talks said they were satisfied. The governor boasted of delivering a fair and bipartisan budget, and shrugged off questions about the 'late date despite his repeated promises of an on-time .budget. Democrats emerged from negotiations with a laundry list-of requests fulfilled, including more money-than planned for higher education and social services. Republican leaders, dealing for the first time in five years with a governor from their own party, claimed victory in a budget with no major new tax increases even though key item~ from their wish list-went unfulfilled. And cities and countieS won safeguards for their treasuries that 'they have sought for years. But lawmakers from the governor's own party were hardly gushing over $chwarzenegger's first budget deal. Some, who said they plan to vote against it when the Legislature takes it up today and Thursday, said they were disappointed with a budget that boosts spending over the governor's earlier budget proposals and relies heavily on borrowing. " ".I'm concerned that the budget is not balanced, that it continues with a significant deficit in future years," said Assemblyman Keith Richman, R-Northridge. Even the leaders who negotiated the final $105 billion budget deal acknowledge that it will not repair the fundamental imbalance between the cost of services and tax revenues. "Our work's not done," said Assembly Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield. "We are headed in the right direction. We had to stop digging ourselves in thehole, (and) we stopped that process." http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/v-print/story/10161012p-! 1081770c.html 7/28/2004 The Sacramento Bee -- sacbee.com All sides see victories in budget deal Page 2 of 3 Administration officials also acknowledged it will take time to climb out of that hole and that more cuts must be made next fiscal year. Leaders reached the agreement late Monday after a 26-day impasse. The final agreement · largely reflected the main components in the governor's May budget, including cuts and borrowing to help wipe out billions in red ink. But it also reflected deals that Schwarzenegger worked out with the legislative leaders of both parties, including eliminating some of his-proposed cuts for Democrats and scrapping some proposed fees for Republicans. Some Republicans complained that the governor handed too many victories to the Democrats, who 'hold majorities in both houses' of the Legislature. "Tm.disappointed. I think we could have .done better," said Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R- Moorpark. "But I certai~ly~understand where Arnold Schwarzenegger is coming from because he still has to deal with an overwhelming majority of Democrats in the Legislature." But-Republicans - some of whom worried early in Schwarzenegger's administ-ration about his · allegiance to the party's philosophies - also scored some political points during the impasse. After months of calling Democrats and-RepUblican lawmakers his partners in budget talks, Schwarzenegger-went on the attack against Democrats during a series of public appearances. "One thing the gOvernor made very clear is that he's a Republican governor and that the allegiance to the .party is very strong," Assembly Speaker Fabian Nfifiez said. "He's going to have to decide whether he's going to be the governor that continues to draw on the positive elements of What brings people together or whether we are going to lead by divisiveness. People elected him tO 'be the bipartisan governor," he said. Schwarzenegger communications director Rob Stutzman said the administration and Republican lawmakers got significant concessions from Democrats in the end. He suggested that the turning point in the stalemate came after the governor went on the road targeting vulnerable Democratic legislative districts and calling lawmakers "girlie men." "Legislators cooled off for a day, and it took six days to work through the final resolution," Stutzman said. The key piece of the deal fell into place last weekend as cities and counties, and legislative leaders, finally came to agreement on a plan to protect funding for local governments. Cities, counties and 'special districts agreed to accept $2.-6 billion in cuts over the next two years, in exchange for a proposed constitutional amendment that would prohibit the Legislature from dipping into property taxes to help pay the state's own obligations. The amendment, which will appear on. the Nov. 2 ballot if lawmakers approve it this week, would limit the Legislature to borrowing from cities and counties only twice in each 10-year period and would require that the fund be paid back .with interest. "We are miles fUrther than we were before we started,", said Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn, who learned of the deal as he attended the Democratic National Convention in Boston. "We, re willing to sacrifice for a couple more years to get that type of protection." http://www.sacbee.6onVcontent/politics/v-print/story/10161012p- 11081770c.html 7/28/2004 The Sacramento Bee -- sacbee.com -- All sides see victories in budget deal Page 3 of 3 Democrats ultimately agreed to support a plan that could lock into the state constitution a tax formula favored by many cities and Republican lawmakers, but one that some fiscal experts say encourages counties to embrace suburban big-box stores while shunning affordable housing. Assembly Budget Chairman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, who opposed that move, said it had nothing to do with the "girlie man" accusations and everything to do' with pragmatism. "We're .20rsome-odd days late, we'd Secured our highest priorities, which were the higher ed and the health and human services, and there was very little choice here," he said. "In the end, you can only hold out on so many issues. Once the governor made his flawed deal with local government, it was going to be very hard to unwind." About the Writer The Bee's Alexa H. Bluth can be-reached at (916) 326-5542 or .a_blp_th@_s.a(;be_e.com: Bee Deputy Capitol Bureau Chief Dan Smith contributed to this report. Go to: Sa.~Lb..f~e / !~...c_.!~....t0_..~tQFY (;~ntac_t Bee .~u.sto.~r_Service Advertise Online I Privacy Policy I Terms.of Use I Help I Site Map News I Sp0~ts I Business I politics I opinioD I Entertainment I Lifestyle I Travel I ~o,~en Classifieds I .H.omes I Cars I Jobs I Shopping GUIDE TO THE BEE: I Su_bscrib_e I Cont_a_cts_. I Advertise I Bee Events I Community Involvement [ Sacramento Bee Web sites ] Sacbee.c°m I SacTicket.com I Sacramento.com Contact sacbee.com This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use. The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852 Phone: (916) 321-1000 The Sacramento Bee http://www. Sacbee.com/content/politics/v-print/story/10161012p- 11081770c.html 7/28/2004 K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM July 29, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager Virginia Gennaro, City Attorney Alan Christensen, Recreation/Parks Director Florn Core, Water Resources Director Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Stanley Grady, Planning Director ~. Jacques LaRochelle, Assistant Public Workspi~ ~ FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Dir(e/ctor .~ SUBJECT: Sphere of Influence Agreement with Kern~ty Attached is Ted James's recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. It will be presented on August 3, 2004 at the afternoon session (begins at 2:00 p.m.). It might help if we were there in support of the agreement and to be available to respond to any questions or concerns .Supervisors might have. I have reassured the LAFCO Commissioners that our meeting with the county representatives was very positive, that the Board of Supervisors would consider an agreement on August 3, 2004, the City Council will consider it on August 18, 2004 and we look forward to LAFCO's hearing on August 24, 2004. JH:djl Attachment CC: Rhonda Smiley, Office Administrator/Public Relations " P. Nvlisc\SOI agreement with KC.doc PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESouRCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY TED JAMES, AICP, Director DAVID PRICE III, RMA DIRECTOR Community & Economic Development Department 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 100 Engineering & Survey Services Department BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2323 Environmental Health Sewices Department Phone: (661) 862-8600 Planning Department FAX: (661)862-8601 T~' Relay t.~00-735-2929 Roads Department E-MaiE planningQco.kem~ca.us . Web Address: www.co.kern.ca.uslplanning August 3, ·2004 , Board of Supervisors Kem County AdministratiVe Office 1115 Tmxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 · RE:. CoUnty Administrative Office and Planning Department Report on Proposed Expansion of the Sphere of Influence (SOl) for the Cities of Bakersfield and Shafter · and a PrOposed Agreement with the City of Bakersfield Involving SOI Boundaries,. Development .Standards and Zoning Requirements · Dear Members of the Board of Supervisors: The Cities of Bakersfield and ShaRer are both proposing revisions to their SOI boundaries in order to allow for the eventual annexation of unincorporated areas to their respective jurisdictions..Both cities have requested the County's review of their respective SO1 expansion proposals to comply.with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFco) law. On July 6, 2004, the Board approved a process to be used to implement State Government Code Section 56425 which requires' cities who propose an amendment to their SOI to meet and confer with · County officials, prior.t° submitting an application to LAFCO. This referral process is intended to provide an opportunity to coordinate and reach agreement on SOI boundaries, development standards and zoning requirements as .needed to promote logical and' orderly development. If a County-City agreement is reached, it is.to be forwarded to LAFco for consideration. State law specifies that LAFCO shall give "great weight"~to considering a County-city agreement in LAFCO's final determination of an SO1 amendment.' If no agreement is'reached within 30 days, then the city's.SOI application Can be submitted to LAFCO for processing Consistent with the. Commission's procedures and policiesOr the.meet and confer Process can'be mutually extended - · by another 30 days. The Cortese/Kn°x/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act (CKI-I ACt) of 2000 intends the.adoption of a .SOI as the probable future physical boundary and service area of a municipality. The SOI represents an area adjacent to a city where development might reasonably be expected to address future_growth needs, and wherein annexation to a city coUld be approved.' The CKH Act requires a Municipal Service Review (MSR) which analyzes the ability of the city to provide municipal services to existing and future residents. County staff has reviewed the MSR and other documentation prepared bythe cities in evaluating Bakersfield and Shaftefs SO1 .proposals. August 3, 2004· . Page 2 . City of Shafter Proposed SOI ExPansion .County and Shafier officials met twice since July 6,' 2004, to discuss the SOI expansion proposal. The City of Shafier is proposing to add 11,665 acres to the 7,625 acres already designated as. SO1 area for the Cormnunity.. Shafier's existing incorporated boundaries total ! 1,401 acres which include the existing community, adjacent vacant and agricultural lands, the .International Trade and TransportatiOn Center (ITTC) on. the north:side of Seventh Standard Road and Shafter-. Minter Field adjacent.to State Route 99. Shaf~er's proposed SOI expansionto the.north and West of~the existing community are intended to provide for future growth of the existing community' and. represent a logical expansion .from the'historic' town center~ The City's triangular expansion of the SOI east of State Route 99 appears premature. Shafter's southeasterly expansion of the proposed SOI to'include agricultural ~areas West of State Route 99 and north of Seventh Standard Road apPear 'excessive given .their historic growth rate, : and would conflict With the City of B akersfie!d'S existing S Oi Which eXtends one-half mile north of Seventh Standard Road between Zerker Road and State Route 99. This Bakersfield City SOI area north of Seventh Standard Road is already within the jointly adopted City of Bakersfield- Kern 'County Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Area. Shafter officials indicated that the presence of the 700 acre ITTC industrial park and the Seventh Standard Road widening project by Shafter and Kern County to improve Seventh Standard Road to four lanes from State Route 99 to Santa Fe Way are some of the'reasons that Wan-ant the inclusion of this area within Shafter's SOl; The City of Bakersfield officials disagree with Shafier's propoSal because the subject area has been within Bakersfield's sphere since 1969 and is already within the adopted City-County Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan: County staff agrees that it is inappropriate for Shafter's SOI to extend into the area akeady included within'the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan and which has been within ' Bakersfield's'SOI for over thirty years. Another reason for acknowledging the present Bakersfield SOI-Boundary extending one-half mile 'north of Seventh Standard Road is the planned future westerly extension of State Route 58 (Alternative 15)' which is intended to be a futUre east-west freeway ronte in the vicinity of Seventh Standard Road.' By jointly adopting the · Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, the County has a pre-existing "land use planning agreement''. with the City of Bakersfield which acknowledges Bakersfield's future expansion within the 408 square mile metropolitan plan area. Although County staff disagrees with Shafter's east of State Route 99 and southwest extension SO1 proposals, County staff does not view othe,r aspects of Shafter's proposed SOI expansion to the north and west of the historic town center as being contrary to a logical and orderly future development pattern. ~ After reviewing.Shafter's SOI proposal and conferring with ShaRer officials, County staff does ' not see the need for a specific agreement with ShaRer relative to Government Code 56425 since the Count,rs existing zoning and development standards will be adequate to regulate apprOpriate land'uses until such time that the City annexes unincorporated areas within the LAFCO adopted SOL August 3, 2004 Page 3 .~. City of Bal/ersfield Proposed SOI Expansion COunty. and Bakersfield ·officials met once in June, 2004 and one time since ·July 6, 2004, to discuss the SOI expansion proposal. Bakersfield is proposing to add eight.separate areas to the SOI which Will add 14,579 acres or 22.7 square miles to Bakersfield's'current SOL This amounts to a 12 percent increase in the City's SOI area. In reviewing Bakersfield's SOI proposals (see attached map titled "City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence StUdy Map"), portions of SOI Amendment Areas 1, 2 and 3 include property outside'of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan area. The area 10eared north of Seventh Standard Road, east of the.existing southeasterly Shafter SOI boundary and west of State Route 99 is a contested area bY the cities of Shafte-r and Bakersfield.' Bakersfield has offered a proposed compromise which extends Bakersfield's SOI further to the north by approximately one-half mile (see Bakersfield's proposed Compromise.Map). As the Board considers'the sitUation of the contested SOI proposals· by the two cities, it is important to remind the Board that the Government Code Section 56425 review process is not a dispute resolution process. Disagreement over service areas by. competing cities is a function for LAFCO. to resolve: The County review process was established as a way for the County to interface with city applicants for SOI expansions so that orderly and logical development occurs in.areas that are planned and'zoned and served bY the County. The focus of this process ison assuring that affected residents/property owners within the unincorporated area subject to the SO1 expansion are protected by appropriate planning. County staff·is of the opinion that the proposed expansion of both Shafter and Bakersfield's SOI boundaries in the area north of Seventh Standard Road and west of State Route 99 are premature at this time. Neither jurisdiction has made a formal proposal relative to the future land uses of ' this area. This area isoutside the adopted general plans and SOIs of both jurisdictions and is' d~signated by the County General Plan as Exclusive Agriculture (Map Code 8.1). A formal 'proposal would include an amendment to the jurisdicfion's General Plan boundary and include" . land use designations for the area in question. Such a General Plan Amendment would require the development.of an appropriate CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA)'doCument Which would provide information important to assessing the appropriateness of changing tho metropolitan plan boundaries as well as providing an environmental analysis of the effects of - changing the planned land use .designations in the affected area from agricultural to more intensive-urban designations. It is appropriate, however,'for the County to enter into an agreement with the City °f Bakersfield to recognize the existing and City-approved Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan/SOI boundary which extends one-half mile north of Seventh Standard Road, It.is also appropriate to acknowledge other SOI Amendment proposals that are within the metropolitan planning boundary. Accordingly, the County staff have prepared a proposed. County-City of Bakersfield agreement.' August 3, 2004 Page 4' County staff is not opposed to the inclusion of SOI Amendment Areas 4 (Rosedale Ranch prOposal), 5, 6, 7 and 8 as they are generally contiguous with planned urban' designations and : within the adopted Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan boundary: County staff would note, however,' that the southwesterly boundary of SOI Amendment Area 7 is approximately one'mile north of the Borba Dairy developments.' .The southwest expansion 0furban development proximate to two large dairy projects could result in fly, odor and'other conflicts with existing approved land use Patterns... In' addition t° the eight SOI Amendment Area proposals, the Bakersfield Officials also infOrmed- County staff of a proposed 3,061 acre master planned Senior hOusing'deVeloPment that is referred to as the Pulte/Del Webb project. This project proposal is in a very preliminary stage of: revieTM by the City of Bakersfield. It is nOted that 991 acres of the proposal extends north Outside of:the.MetrOpolitan Bakersfield General Plan boundary and all of the project proposal is outside · ' of the City's S0I: Although a formal land use development application and environmental . document has not been sUbmitted for County revieW,~the logical expansion.0f urban development within,the Metropolitan Bakersfield Plan boundary would be appropriate providing that all land use, circulation and environmental issues are mitigated. Any expansion of.this pr. eliminary Project concept outside of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan boundary including any SOI proposal is premature to consider until a formal amendment to the Metropolitan Bakersfield planning boundary is processed by the City of Bakersfield with a development project proposal and. an environmental document. · After reviewing.Bakersfield's SOI proposal and conferring with Bakersfield officials, the County . ::.. :staff recommends theBoard approve the~ attached, agreement with the City. of Bakersfield which acknowledges.I) the existence of Bakersfield's existing LAFCO-approved SOI boundary which extends one-half mile north of Seventh Standard Road between ZerkerRoad and State ROute 99; -2). the existing County zoning and developmem standards are adequate to regulate development until such time that Bakersfield annexes unincorporated areas; and 3) the proposals which extend north of the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan boundary are premature until appropriate General Plan Amendment applications and environmental documents are prepared and Considered by the City of Bakersfield.. TherefOre, IT IS .RECOMMENDED that the Board Approve the Agreement and Authorize the · . Chairman to sign; and Receive and File the Report. .. Sincerely, TED-~AMI~, AICP, DirectOr pla Pa ent ' TJ:jb i:Xadm\j vb\board.ltr~SOI ltr Attachment cc County Administrative Office City of Bakersfie!d Loca! Agency Formation Commission County Counsel City of Shatter Resource Management Agency Grand Jury LEGEND Dresser Ave ~ PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE Jack Ave EXISTING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ..... ......... i~ EXISTING CITY LIMIT Mewed Ave PROPOSED ANNEXATION rdRd Shafter Sphere of Influence Proposal 0 5000 Ci~ of Shafler Municipal Semice Review r:lmh3301gisIPlanning~ea.apr (Planning Area 11x17) 031251~ ~ET . ............ 29'S130 E ...... 30'Silo E Logon of Bakersfield ~' *~. ' Sphere of Influence ' T~ta~= Tmct Sphere of Influence ffotal Area) City of Bakersfield & City of Shafter SOl Comparison Study Map w ~ Legend r , .,,,, ,: ,~,~:-~.~_::.::::~. :~ __==_. .... ~_....-sf_,_e!¢_ ~o r..u r-~ I~nnlfi~-AF~FBd~Yid, Sfy- ....... _. ," '. ' I ~.~i? i~::~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ' ' , x~N~ ~~/~-'---------' ___x~~~ ~~.-'" X 'l' __~- i'~ 'Bakersf'eldS'31/F ~ Iii ....... '~-'~'~'~7~~ Area Between Bakersfield i' , . = :)1 . , , I~1111111111 :. and Shafter Sphere :~' i /~ I~1 &L~ 1 ~.~ '~.~,~ I oflnfluence 4,178.3 Acres ~ ..... ~,~.~ ~j ~ r _~ ~- , ' ................... , -.~ ~- Remove noaheastern 302.3 acres from Bakersfield proposal, _ leaving 1,578.5 acres in proposed PLANNED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE , ,/ PULTE/DEL WEBB %~.--~;- ........ PROPOSAL ~<:::~::~) ~ ',~. ~ ..~'d ' " " I ~"I I , ~ ' ' / ---.~ ......... ' "' . .... i ......... t .... I.~*~.~_~ ........... ~ i"-- , [ i .... ~'-'~'~ ....... ~ .... ~ LEGEND " ~ ~ GENERAL P~N BOUNDARY I I I ' ~ CI~ LIMITS AS OF 4~/04 + " ~ 8~ 0 8000 ~0 Feet ! -29'S!30'E' 30S128'E" 30'S'~0 E Exhibit Lege, d City of Bakersfield ~" ..... .~. Sphere of Influence~ , .... ,= Study Map · i [2 ......... P~c~x~ S~ ~ ~e U~ Sphere of I~uence (To~l Area) ,-- ~ W E Sphere of Iffiuence (excludinfl Ci~ Limit) ,,.~ ..... "'~ ~oo o ~ooo I ~ ~.7 Sq. Mi. ~ ........ '~-~~u~:~ AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD INVOLVING SPHERE.OF INFLUENCE BOUNDAR~s, DEVELOPMENT. STANDARDS AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS (County of Kern - City of Bakersfield) -This AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ·day. of , 2004 by and between the City of Bakersfield, a California General law City, located at !501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301, herein referred to.as "City" and County of Kern, apoliticaI subdivision of the State of California, located at 1115 Truxtun AvenUe, Fifth Floor, Bakersfield, Califomia 93301, herein referred to as '"County." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, County has reached agreement with City for purposes of complying with Local Agency Formation CommissiOn (LAFCO) law related to the'County review of an amendment'to the City's i Sphere of Influence (SO1) boundaries; ad -WHEREAS, City desires to comply with State Government Code Section 56425 to 1) discuss proposed sphere of influence boundaries; 2) explore methods to reach agreement on sphere boundaries; and 3) concur in development standards and zoning requirements within the proposed sphere that promotes logical and orderly development. · NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between ·County and City as follows: · - 1. Bakersfield!s existing LAFco-approved SOI boundary which extends one-half mile north of Seventh Standard Road between Zerker Road and State Route 99 represents a logical planned area for the City's SOI.. '. - 2. The County's ·existing zoning and development standards protect residents and property owners by appropriate planning until such time as the .City may annex unincorporated areas; and 3. Those portions of SOI Amendment Area 1 and 3 and the Pulte/Del Webb project proposal that are within the Metropolitan Bakersfield .General. Plan Boundary as well as Areas 4 through 8 as depicted on the attached City of Bakersfield Sphere of Influence Study Map (Exhibit 1) represents logical planned areas for the City's SOI expansion. IN WrrN-ESS WI-I~REOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year herein above set forth. RECOMMENDED FOR .APPROVAL: CITY OF BAKERSFIELD- COUNTY OF KERN B~. By: .Mayor;-City of Bakersfield Chairman, Board of Supervisors APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of City. Attorney " Office of County Counsel By: By: TJ:jb (7/04) · i:\adm/j vb/agree/City SOI. agr ~ l:i ~ii 0 so%s s Exhibit Legend City of Bakersfield · -· ~,~-~ ...... Sphere oflnfluence, ~-~. Stud~ Map Sphere of Influence (To~l Area) ~s~ ~u~ W~ E Sphere of I~uence (excluding Ci~ Limit) ~ ......... 2000 o 2000 ~,~9 Acr~ ........... , ~.7 Sq. Mi. ~ ....... B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANANGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM July 26, 2004 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: JOHN W. STINSO~,IDA~'SISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Californian Article on Property Tax increases An article appeared in the July 26, 2004 Bakersfield Californian regarding increases to property tax revenues forecasted by the County for FY 04-05. The County is forecasting about an 8% increase in property taxes county-wide including oil producing properties. Staff has projected growth of about 4% in property taxes for the City for FY 04-05. We will not knoW the actual amount to be assessed by the County until sometime in October when the County provides us with that information. It would be speculative to assume an increase over what we have projected at this time, since we won't have reliable information on the actual levy until the County provides us the actual numbers. The property tax numbers used in the article showing the City increase in property tax were estimates done by the Californian writers not City staff. Kern to. see ju'mp in tax how much addi- : Lloyd money the state may take leaves that up in the Amount of additional property tax air. revenue county offiCials expect the . positions is $1.2 million state ~ only t° $g.2 million proper~ tax. rev- Boss of money ~o s~rapped sta~emeans enue than ii usually ^mount of additional pro~ert~ tax ~here!s no celebration, officials contend do~, Stm,n m~ ~e~e~e ~t~ o~,~s e~t t~ state The governor's to-take from Bakersfield thi~ revised May budget By SETH NIDEVER put the amount at Califomian staff writer $3.2 m~lion, lie sakL The nonstop construction of new homes and-businesses in almost certainly remain vacant and layoffs could be in the Kern CounL7 is contributing to a near-record spike in proper- works. ty taxes, but don't expect city or county services to expand %Ve're certainly going to fry to maintain the levelofservic- because of it. ' es we had last year," he said. Property tax revenue to focal govenunents in Kent County In the case of the county, the increase in property tax rev- ~ cities, schools and the'county ~ is expected to be up 8 per- enues is just enough to cover the addiUonal amount t.he state cent over the last year, or by $37 million, is expected to divert, officials said. But, officials say, that may just be enough to maintain cur- And the count7 was largely rent servicelevels. , . prepared rot that, according '~/e're certainly Partofthereasonisthatinflationandthecostofnewserv- to Jeff' FraPwell, county ices assodated with a spurt of housing growth will eat awaY director of budget and goingl~otl~Jto at the ~crease.. finance, maintain Ifle level of And, they said, the state is ~ to divert addi~onal "We're pretty much bal- anced right now," n-apweU senfices we had last funds this year to said. year." 'bandage its own wounded budget. [~Y ]'HE NUMBI:RS Butthe$Smillionmorethe state is projected to take this -- John Stlnson If property tax year is preventing the county Bakersfield assistant million duce a net gain in from filling more of the 300 city manager revenues to the city posiUons left vacant after last of BakemfieM, the year's ctlt8, FYapwell said. extra money will go Amount of property tax revenue i 8omeSOfull-timeposilionSwillpmbablybeaddedt°coun- to shore up public expected from the increase. ~. ty rolls, Prapwell said, but most of those are the result of newly available state and federal funds. safety and mad i' '~ewon'tseemajorchangesintheworkforce,"saidCoun- maintenance, $10 million ' according to Assis* { tyAclndnismdJveOfflcerScottJone~. t,~t City Manager John ~n. Amount expected to fall into Some 27 police, county coffers. fire, nmint~na~ce recreation posi- ,-$22 tions that were ° ' allowed to remain vacant through Amount expected to go to the city attdUon may be of Bakersfield. (The remain[ng reilistated~ SUnson revenue goes to schools and .said. special tax districts). i CALIF~C)RhlIA WA'rEP. SERVICE CGMPAIqY .BA~CimSF~E*.E) DiSTrICT 3725 SOUTH H STREET - B.~,KERSFIELD, CA 9330,4-6538 (661) 396-2400 · FAX {661j 396.2411 Dear Customer: Summer is here, bringing with it higher temperatures and increased water usage. In order to better manage the water supply, we are asking for your help. As you probably know, the demand for high quality water is growing. At the same time, we have lost some of our well water supply due to increasingly stringent water quality standards. We are currently developing a long-term solution to increase supply to this area. We expect construction to begin by early 2005. Due to the magnitude of the project, we anticipate that it will take nearly two years to fully resolve this water supply problem. In the meantime, we will do all we can to meet your needs. You might experience periods of Iow water pressure, particularly between the hours of 5 and 8 in the mornings and in the evenings, when water usage is at its peak. assure you that we take our responsibility for providing a reliable, high quality water supply ve~ seriously and we are committed to developing and executing the best plan for meeting your current and future water needs. If we can provide you with conservation materials or other information, please do not hesitate to call our Customer Center at (661)-396-2400, or the City Water Department at (661).326-3715. Sincerely, Florn Core Water Department Manager City of Bakersfield RECEIVED JUL 2 9 2004 CITY MANAGER'S OFF~CE DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS DATE: July 29, 2004 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM:' Alan Christensen, Director Recreation and Parks ~-'- SUBJECT: Irrigation for Medians and Streetscapes Ref000849 (WARD 5) Councilmember Hanson referred to staff correspondence from Crystal Flow regarding new technology for reducing water use and water run-off in medians and streetscapes. Staff met with the local Crystal Flow representative and discussed his water saving product. This product is released into the irrigation system water and then into the soil. It improves water penetration deep down into the soil structure allowing the turf grass root system to grow further down into the soil. The deeper water penetrates the soil the less water loss through runoff and evaporation. But more importantly the root system is going deep into the soil to get all the water it needs. We will' be testing this product in a turf area at Windsor Park. This will begin about the middle of August and run, forty-five (45) to sixty (60) days. At the end of this time staff will evaluate the effectiveness of Crystal Flow. S:\Counc'il~ Referrals 2004\Ref000849.doc July 29, 2004 (9:09AM) UL ~ O 2~]o4: ~,,, NAGER'$ O;: B A K E R S F I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM July 29, 2004 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR .,,~_ SUBJECT: ALLEY BEHIND REEDER STREET Council Referral #850 Councilmember Sullivan requested an update regarding the condition of the alley behind Reeder Street. The Streets Division has scheduled this alley to be repaired by July 31,2004. G:\GROUPDAT~Referrals~004\07-21~850 - Streets.doc