HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/00 BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
March 3, 2000
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER /::)7'-/_.~
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. The Urban Development Committee wanted me to alert you early to a proposal that
will be on the March 15th Council agenda. It is a request to use some Council
contingency money to help finance a charettes process for group planning that would
help visioning for the downtown area.
2. Attached is a copy of the County Financial Forecast and Budget Development
Guidelines and a summary memo with items of note. Due to significant increases in
property taxes, Proposition 172 revenues, and vehicle license revenues the County's
budget picture looks very good, not even taking into account the tobacco tax
settlement. The Kern County Association of Cities is preparing an effort to request
that the County provide a fair share of the tobacco settlement revenues to all residents
of the County, including those that reside in cities.
Also on the March 15th agenda will be a resolution to the County Board of Supervisors
advocating the "fair share" concept.
3. Enclosed is a draft of the "owner participation" letter that will soon go out to properties
involved in both the City Center and Dave Cross proposed redevelopment projects.
It is mostly statutory and will likely cover an area slightly larger than either of the two
specific proposals, as a precaution in case of future changes. Please call in case you
have concerns or questions.
4. An item regarding the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Audit was deferred at
the February 7th Budget and Finance Committee meeting. Councilmember Maggard
asked staff to obtain a copy of the auditor's management letter and any other
correspondence which was not included in the final TDA Audit Report. Staff contacted
the auditors and their response is noted in the attached memorandum from Public
Works. The item will be agendized at the next Budget and Finance Committee
meeting in April.
5. The final report on the public opinion poll taken regarding a transportation sales tax is
enclosed for your information.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
March 3, 2000
Page 2
6. A status report from EDCD on the closure of the URM Reimbursement Program is
enclosed.
7. Congratulations to Recreation and Parks for receiving a Silver National Aquatic Safety
Award for 1999 from Jeff Ellis and Associates, an international aquatic safety
consultant firm. The notification is attached.
8. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
Carson
· Red light enforcement at next joint City/County meeting;
· Information regarding Union Avenue hotel fire;
DeMond
· Possibility of parking fund for new building downtown;
Maggard
Utilization of computer software for tracking constituent concerns;
Couch
· Letter of support for AB 1303;
· Letter to Kern County Waste Management to request position on commercial
disposal fees;
Correspondence to citizen regarding traffic congestion concern;
· Clarification regarding universal collection and trash cans in Palm-Olive area if
residents vote to detach;
· Feasibility of joint Police/Fire facility in southwest;
Rowles.
· Repair of concrete gutter at Kroll Way and Camino Del Oeste;
· Possibility of turfing approximately 1 acre north of Lake Truxtun;
Sullivaq
· Installation of lights in all trees at Centennial Garden.
Salvaggio
· Idling Trains at Pacheco Road, between New Stine and Wible Road
AT: rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
February29,2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: John W. Stins~,~ss~istant City Manager
SUBJECT: FY 2000-01 Preliminary County Financial Forecast and Budget Development
Guidelines
Today the County.Administrative Officer, Scott Jones presented the FY 2000-01 Preliminary
County Financial Forecast and Budget Development Guidelines to the Board of Supervisors. I
have attached a copy for your information. Some items of note include the following:
· Assessed Valuation and Property Taxes - The Assessor will be using an anticipated
average oil price of $15.93 per barrel for the 2000 calendar year compared to a $9.50 per
barrel price for the current fiscal year. This equates to a 67.7% increase in the price per
barrel. The estimated positive impact on the General Fund and Fire Fund totals $11.88
million, an overall improvement of 11.05% from the'FY 1999-2000 budgeted amounts.
· Tobacco Litigation Settlement Funds - The County has received $4.8 million from the
State and anticipates $4.6 million in April 2000. They will receive payments in FY 2000-
01 totaling approximately $9.4 million. The use of these funds remains unrestricted. The
County Administrative Officer is recommending that the Tobacco Litigation Settlement
Funds,be used for non-recurring capital infrastructure needs and not for ongoing
operating costs. These funds have not been included in their analysis of available
revenues to meet departmental operating needs.
· Public Safety Sales Tax (Proposition 172) Revenues - The State's allocation of
Proposition 172 sales tax revenues is running ahead of the original budget estimate of
$30.81 million by approximately $1.55 million. Revenue projections for this funding
source include a 3.5% growth factor on the revi~ed estimated total for this fiscal year, for
a total estimated $33.5 million for FY 2000-01.
· Vehicle License Fees - Vehicle License Fee revenues are projected to increase $2.64
million, an increase of 8%.
SSJOHNXCounty Budget Guidelines 2000.wpd
· Fiscal Stability Reserve - Staff is recommending an additional $3 million be added to
the current $1 million in this reserve which would be available to soften the impact of
possible future drops in oil prices and property tax revenues.
· Budget Development Guidelines - It is recommended that departments submit their
budgets at a level not to exceed 5% above their FY 1999-2000 Adopted Net General
Fund Cost. The Administrative Office will present to the Board a comprehensive listing
of unmet capital and equipment needs as part of the Committee of the Whole meeting
scheduled for June 13, 2000. It is recommended that use of a portion of the Tobacco
Litigation Settlement revenues for capital improvements be discussed at that time.
S:~JOHNXCounty Budget Guidelines 2000.wpd
ills Truxmn Avenue, Ffth Floor- Bakersfield, CA93301-4639 County Adm~nni~"t~~ ~c~'
Telephone 66%868-3198 · FAX 661-668-3190 · TTY Relay 600-73S-2929
: February 29, 2000
Board of Supervisors
Kern County Administrative Center
111.5 Tmxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 9~301
FY 2000-01 PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL FORECAST
AND PROPOSED BUDGET DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINF, S
.Annually, the County develops a financial plan for the coming budget year by preparing a
preliminary financial forecast and budget development guidelines. On February I, 2000. the County
Administrative Office fried with your Board a mid-year budget status report for FY 1999-2000
which, in summary, confirmed that as a whole the County's projected revenues are on target with
budget estimates for the current fiscal year and that there are no material discrepancies in
departmental expenditures or revenues.
The schedule for the de~telopment of the FY 2000-01 Recommended Budget, as approved by your
Board, requires all County departments to submit their budget requests for next fiscal year by April
15, 2000. Departments must now begin the process of preparing their FY 2000-01 budget requests.
As with previous fiscal years, these requests must be developed with the following major
uncertainties still pending: 1) the final outcome of the current fiscal year's budget; 2) the impact of
FY 2000-01 State budget actions; and 3) final estimates of property tax revenues for FY 2000-01
based on the assessment roll to be fried on June 30, 2000. Therefore, the recommended budget
development guidelines for FY 2000-01 have again been structured to recognize a large measure of
pending fiscal uncertainty, and to provide a planning framework to accommodate a range of possible
outcomes regarding available budget resources.
PROJECTIONS FOR FY 2000.O1
There are four key elements which impact the forecast for the coming budget year and the
development of a f'mancial plan for that year. These elements include: 1) known State and federal
actions which will increase or decrease County costs or revenues; 2) the amount of increase in the
County's assessed valuation and property taxes; 3) the status of the current year's budget and year-
end fund balances carried forward to the next fiscal period; and 4) known, quantifiable changes in
local program costs and revenues. These elements must be evaluated and carefully monitored before
the County can establish a plan for developing next year's budget. Each of these major elements
impacting the development of the budget forecast is summarized below.
,02/28/2000 10:32 FAX 661 868 3636 CLERK OF TEE BOARD {~002
Board of SUpervisors
Financial Fo~'cast'
F~bmar7 29, 2000
Page 2
Potential Impact of FY 2000-01 State Budge~
As revenues from the State comprise m°re than a third of the County' s snnual revenue, State budget
actions c~ significantly impact the County's available budget resources. The Stain Legislative
Analyst projects a $9 billion bodget surplus for the Stat: in the coming fiscal year. However, the
Governor' s proposed State Budget released in January would return none of the property taxes that
have been shifted from counties to State us~ during thc past six. years. The total property tax shift
now exceeds $3.5 billion annually on a Statewide basis. Passage of AB 1661 last year calls for
enactment of a Constitutional amendment which guarantees revenue sources for local governments
and reforms the manner in which sales taxes are distributed in order to remove the incentive for local
governments to compete for sales tax-generating commercial projects at the expense of other land
uses. The outcome of these r~form.s .could event:~ally 'oting significant' changes in the County's
budgeted revenue sources, although none of the changes is expected to have an impact on the
County's FY 2000-01 budget.
· Roads: Under Governor Davis' proposed transportation budget, local governments which
have not obligated their current State highway funds by July 31, 2000, would be penalized
by State confiscation of the unobligated l~rtion, However, this provision is not expected to
affect any of the County's Wansportation revenues. The Roads Department has historically
spent its entire allocation of local subvention gasoline excise taxes and federal aid received
by the County from the State for local.highways, and the County will have obligated all of
its current highway fending before the July 31 deadline.
· Kern Medical Center: Kern Medical Center exl~cts to benefit by an undetermined amount
from the Governor's proposed $30 million reduction .in the fee which the State charges
hospitals for administering extra federal Medicaid payments under the Disproportionate
Share Hospitals (DSH) Program. The exact amount of added DSH payments resulting from
the fee reduction will depend on subsequent State legislation allocating the State's DSH
allotment among qualifying hospitals. KMC also expects to benefit by an undetermined
amount from thc Governor' s propos al.to extend the State's participation in nb-share-of-cost
Medi-Cal from families at 87 percent of the poverty level to those at I00 percent or lower.
This increase would supplement other revenues available to KMC to serve indigent families.
· Health: Although Proposition 99 tobacco tax revenues continue to decline because of
reduced tobacco consumption, revenues will be higher than expected, resulting in a State
Budget proposal to incre~e Children's Health Disability and Prevention (CIH)P) funding
for health screenings by $4.7 miUion. Thi~ proposal would increase CI-IDP funds available
to the Health Department by $104.000, if current formulas are used. That amount'could
increase to $300,000 if federal subvention of the County' s CTIDP program is obtained.
02/28/2000 10:32 F~ 661 868 3636 C].,ER.~.~F 'LB:E;. BO,~RD ~003
Board of Supervisors
Financial Forecast ..
February 29, 2000
Pase 3
Human 5ervices: The proposed budget calls for trailer bill language to revise downward
the amount of incentiv~ payments [=°vided to counties for moving clients from welfare to
work. A reductiun is also proposed for counties'.welfam-to-work.budgets. The County has
earned nearly $23 million in incentive payments for welfare grant eliminations and
reductions since the inception of the Cai-WORKs Progr2m The Department of Human
Services is using inceutive payments to help build the County' s wanspoxta~on and economic
infrastructure to apply further leverage to the challenge of matching people and jobs. A
reducfiou in these funds would hinder the County's efforts to focus on moving the most
difficult cases from welfare to work.
$ Sheriff and D~tl~t Attorney: The Governor's budget proposes to extend the Citizens'
Option for Public Safe~ (COPS) program through Fiscal Year 2004-2005 at the currant level
of $100 million, which provides the County with approximately $I million for use by the
Sheriff and District Attorney. The budget proposes to continue current distribution formulas
for these funds.
The Legislature is currently reviewing the Governor's proposed budget and movement toward
finalization of the FY 2000-01 State Budget is not expected to begin for several weeks. More
definitiv~ information on the fiscal content of the State Budget will be available with the release of
the "May Revise" version of thc Oovcrnor's Budget in mid-May.
Assessed Valuation and Property TaXes
The most significant factor which impacts each year' s budget resources is the market price of crude
oil, which is a major determinant of the assessed valuation of oil and gas producing properties. The
value of oil and gas properties currently comprises approximately 33% of Kern County's total
assessed valuation. Thc Assessor is in the process of f'malizing thc assessment roll for the comiug
year and, at this time, the forecast is very favorable. For the cun~nt fiscal year, Kern County's total
assessed valuation was based on an average local oil price of $9.50 per barrel for the period of
January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999. The Assessor has recently announced that he will be
using an anticipated average oil price of $15.93 per barrel for the 2000 calendar year to appraise oil
and gas producing properties. This pt'icc equates to approximately a 5'/.7% increase in the price per
barrel. At the current improved value of Kern River Crude oil, producers are likely to increase the
amount of oil they produce which will further compound the positive impacts on the total assessed
valuation of the Oil and Oas Roll.
The Assessor has provided preliminary estimates of next year's assessed valuation, whichis detailed
in' At~achrnent A. The prelh'ninary valuation for the Secured roll reflects modest growth,
approximately 4.77%. The preliminary estimates for the valuation of the Oil and Gas Roll reflects
an increase in value of approximately 9.35% above thc lay 1999-2000 assessed valuation filed by
02/28."2000 10:33 F.~X 661 868 3636 CLERK OF TRE BO.~RD ~004
Board of Supervisors
Financial Forecast
February 29, 2000
Page 4
the Assessor on July 1, 1999. It is important to note that these estimates are still e~xtremely
preliminary. The Assessor will nor file the finat assessed values until later this year. Therefore,
these estimates could, improve, worsen, or remain the same.
Summary of Property Tax Revenue Forecast
IVy 1999-2000 FY 2000-01 Preliminary %
~r~.~tt, r ur*t~ ~,u~eted ~ lVlilli~,,,~ Projections $ Millions Difference , Variance
Sec~ig6d $70.97 $78.70 , $7.73 10.89%
$~uppl~-n~.-n~ , , $0.65 . 50.65 $0.00 0.00%
Unsecured $3.05 $3.10 . $0.05 1.64%
Ho meowners Exemption $1.35 $1.38 $0.03 2.22%
Secured $29.32 $33.33 $4.01 , 13.68%
Supplemantal $0.2~ , · $0.25 $0.00 0.00%
Unsecur~ , $1.30 $1.34 , $0.0~
Homeo~'ncr$ E~¢mpllon $0.58 $0.60 $0.02 3,45%
In summary, due to the improved oil prices and the resulting preliminary projections for the Oil and
Gas Roll, the ~stirnated property tax revenues for FY 2000-01 will significantly increase. The
estimated positive impact on the General Fund is approximately $?.g I million, or about a 10.27%
increase, while the positive impact on the Fire Fund is estimated at $4.0'/million, which equates to
a 12.9a% increase. The estimated combined increase for both funds totals $11.88 million; an overall
improvement of 11.05% from the Fiscal Year 1999-2000 budgeted amounts.
[~rojected General Fund Carryover Balance
In the mid-year budget status report, the current year's budget, in the aggregate, was described as in
satisfactory condition. Our updated review leads this office to conclude that FY 1999-2000 budget
performance to date still falls within acceptable variance limits. The County Administrative Office
will continue to closely monitor both expenditure and revenue performance during the remainder of
the fiscal yea in Order to detect and attempt to correct any negative deviations from budgeted levels.
On~ of the principal contributors to the County's annual carryover is unspent appropriations within
the Appropriations for Contingencies budget, which is currently $~.3 million after deducting the
estimated impact of the proposed memoranda of understanding with employee unions (discussed
below).
02/28/2000 10:34 F~ 661 868 3636 CLERK OF THE BO,~D ~005
Board of Supervisors
Financial Forecast
February 29, 2000
Page 5
While it is difficult to accurately e~imate the year-end fund balance at this point in the fiscal year,
this office is projecting a year-end net carryover balance (after allowance for budget savings
incentive credits earned by depa~-toaents) for thc Creneral Fund of approximately $16 million.
Included in the current fiscal year's budget was a carryover from FY 1998-99 of $t5.9 million.
Tobacco l, itigat~on Settlement Funds
As part of the settlement of more than 40 lawsuits brought by stat~s against tho tobacco industry, the
Master Settlement Agreement between state and local governments and major U,$. tobacco
companies provides for a series of 25 annual payments totaling $206 billion. California's share of
the settlement is estimated to be $25 billion,
Thc County recently received an initial payment of $4.1/million from the Stat= of California under
the terms of this settlement. The Coun~ is scheduled to receive an additional payment of
approximately $4.6 million in April 2000. Under the settlement' s payment schedule, the County will
receive payments in Fiscal Year 2000-01 totaling approximately $9.4 million. It should be noted that
the terms of the settlement provide for payments to be adjusted proportionate to tobacco sales
volumes and inflation. National tobacco sales volumes have dropped 14 percent since the settlement
was reached, and inflation bumped Up prices slightly, so payment recipients such as the County will
need to budget these revenues accordingly.
Although there could potentially be either voter imposed or legislative restrictions placed on the use
of these revenues/n the future, their use is currently unrestricted. Due to the uncertainty surrounding
the possibility of future restrictions and the potential impact of a continued decline in tobacco
sales/use, it. would be prudent to use these settlement revenues for non-recurring capital
infrastructure needs and not for ongoing operational costs. Therefore, the County Administrative
Office reconunends that these funds be used to begin to meet the County's' extensive backlog of
capital, major maintenance, and replacement equipment needs. Thus, these funds hav~ not been
included in our analysis of available revenues to meet departmental operating needs.
Summary of Discretionary Use Revenues
ATtachment tt summarizes, by major category, the County's forecast of discretionary revenues for
FY 2000-01. The most significant positive impacts anticipated in discretionary revenues are the
increase in property tax revenues (as discussed above) and an increase in the vel{dele license fee
(VLF) revenues of $2.64 million, an increase of 8%. The most significant 'negative impacts to
discretionary revenue anticipated for next fiscal year will be the elimination of $1.45 million
included in the State's current budget as a one-time revenue to the County and the loss of
approximately $g15,000 in one-time reserves and designations used to fund the County's current
budget. Moderate net overall growth is anticipated in the remaining discretionary revenue
categories. Combin/ng all posifive and negative factors, our preliminary forecast of available General
02/26/2000 10:35 FAX 661 868 3636 CLERK OF THE'BOARD ~006
Boarci of Supervisors
Financial l~orecast
February 29, 2000
Page 6
Fund discretionary use funding for NY 2000-01 is $188.21 million, which represents an increase of
$8.90 million from the current year's budget.
Other Financing Sources
· Public Safety Sales Tax (Proposition 172) Revenue~: The State' s allocation of Proposition
172 sales tax revenues to the County is running ahead of the original budget e~timate through
January. ffthis source °f funding continues on this path during the remaining months of this
fiscal year, thc total Proposition 172 revenues received by thc County is projected to be
above the adopted estimate of $30.81 million by approximately $1.55 million. The results
of the Christmas season sales, a critical determinant of the revenue performance for thc
remainder of the fiscal year, improved the projected total revenues from this funding source.
Any positive year-end fund balance within the Public Safety Fund will be carried forward to
next fiscal year, whereby the departments ieceiving this funding source will have increased
resources to finance their budgets next year. Revenue projections for this funding source
include a 3.5% growth factor on the revised estimated total for this fiscal year, for an
estimated $33.50 rvilllon for FY 2000-01.
® Health & Social Services Program Realignment Revenues: Revenues ~llocated by the
State from a dedicated half-cent portion of the Statewidc sales tax and from a dedicated
portion of vehicle license fees are a major funding source for specified health, mental health,
and social services program~ operated by the County. A total of$48.51 million was included
in the FY 1999-:2000 adopted budget from these funding somces. Revenue collections from
these sources continue to be tracking well. Although official growth factors and revenue
estimates for FY 2000-01 have not been received from thc State at this time, based on
historical revenue patterns it is anticipated that the County can expect 'an increase of
approximately $3.7 million from these revenue sources.
Discussion of Knoivn Cost Impacts
· Salary Cost Increases: The County is currently in the process of finalizing new one-year
Memoranda of Unde~tanding with Kcm Law Enforcement Association (K!.F~A) and Kern
County Fire Fighters Union (KCFFU). The FY 1999-2000 cost impact of these' two
agreements is estimated to bc approximately $1.92 million, with a full year impact in FY
2000-01 of approximately $3.65 million.
In addition to the known cost impact of the two new agreements with KLEA and KCFFU,
the County has recently opened negotiations with Central California Association of Public
Employees (CCAPE) and is also scheduled to enter into negotiations with Kern Prosecutors
Association during this calendar year. Fuecher, the new agreements with ~ .~.A and KCFFU
will expi/e on Suly 31, 2000 and September 30, 2000, respectively, and successor agreements
will have to be negotiated which are expected to have an impact in FY 2000-O1. The cost
02/28/2000 10:36 F.~ 661 868 3636 CLER.K OF THE BOA_RD ~007
Board of Supervisors
Financial Forecast
Febmary 29, 2000
Page'/
impact of these negotiations are.unknown at this time and no funds have bccn set aside to
cover .their resulting cost impacts in this financial plan.
Retirement Contribution Rates: Retirement Administration is in the process of completing
an actuarial study to determine the employer retixement contribution rates for FY 2000-01.
At this time it is unknown whether or not the contribution rates will need to be adjusted. It
is proposed,that departments absorb any rate incmea~e within their budget target guideline.
Employee Health Benefits 'and Retiree Health Ben,fits Rates: The employee health
benefits and retiree health benefits rates for FY 2000-01 have been tentatively established.
Escalating medical care costs have resulted ia higher expenses within these internal services
funds than originally anticipated, which will necessitate an increase in the rates charged to
County departments next year. The tentative depa~,,~ental conlxibution rates are projected
to increase by approximately 5.0% for FY 2000-01 and it is proposed that deparUnents
absorb the rate increase within their budget target guideline.
General Liability, Workers Compensation, and Unemployment Insurance Rates: At the
time of preparation of this report, the rates for general liability, workers compensation, and
unemployment insurance have yet to be determined. It is anticipated that these insurance
rates will, in total, remain essentially fiat for FY 2000-01. As in past years, rates may need
to be held low to minimize thc impact on departmental budgets. This could impact reserves
in these funds. If rates must be increased to cover annual claims and costs, it is
recommended that departments absorb rate increases within their budget target guideline.
· Requirement to Replenish Tax Litigation Reserves: The FY 1999-2000 County budget set
aside $6.85 million ($3.75 million Oeneral Fund; $3.10 million Fire Fund) for Tax Liability
Reserves. This additional funding, combined with the $2.75 million balance in the Tax
Liability Reserve at the end of FY 1998-99, provided the County with a total of $9.60 million
to settle identified pending assessment appeal cases. The settlement of a key multi-year case
ibis fiscal year has resulted in the depletion of this reserve by $2.5 million. Therefore, it is
recommended to set aside at least $2,5 million in FY 2000-01 to replenish this reserve. The
County Administrative Office annually relies on thc advice of County Counsel in
establishing the.prudent level of this critical reserve and will r~fme this recommended
amount as additional information becomes available.
· Recommended Increase~ in Fiscal Stability Reserve: ]~ach year the County's fiscal
condition is determined, to a large degree, by economic and assessed valuation factors'
beyond the control of the County. During years of increasing property values and economic
prosperity, the County has the opportunity to address both service delivery and capital needs,
while conversely, during times of econoraic recession and/or depressed propert3, values, the
County struggles to maintain funding for even a core level of services. Extreme fluctuations
in discretionary-use revenue during good and bad years has made it difficult to effectively
02/28/2000 10:36 FAX 661.868 3636 CLEI~ OF T~ BOARD ~008
Board of Supervisors
Financial FOrecast
Fetnuary 29, 2000
Page $
plan for the delivery of County services and has forced the Board to make vet7 difficult
operational decisions during the most dim of times.
With thc increased assessed valuation proj .ected for FY 2000-0 l, and thc ~..sultiag additional
property tax revenues expected to be received by thc County, it would be prudent to set aside
au amount in the Fiscal Stability Reserve to be available tc~ soften the impact of possible
future drops in oil prices and property tax revenues. At this time, thc Fiscal Stability Reserve
has a balance of $1 million, and it is recommended that, if available resources permit, an
additional $3 million be placed into this reserve during FY 2000-01.
· Costs Related to the Replacement Public Health Facility: During the current fiscal year,
the Board approved the construction and financing for the replacement of the Public Health
Facility. As part of the approved financing package, the County secured a $10 million
Section 108 loan from the Federal Department of Honsing and Urban Development (HUD).
Under the HUD loan the County will begin to incur debt service payments, in the ~mount of
aPproximately $1.4 million, on the loan during FY 2000-01. Thc General Fund portion of
the debt service is approximately $900,000, with the remaining .amount being paid through
Community Development Block Grant funds. In addition, the County will need to purchase
furnishings for the new facility prior to occupancy, which is estimated to cost $700,000.
Operational Impact of Fire Department Helicopter Program: On October 26, 1999, the
Board approved the implementation of the .helicopter program within the Fire Department.
In order to refurbish one of the two helicopters received by the County through the federal
surplus program, thc Board approved the transfer of $780,000 from Appropriations for
Contingencies. The work to refurbish thc helicopter is on schedule and is estimated to be
completed by July 2000, According to the Fire Department, the cost to operate the helicopter
program in FY 2000-01 is estimated to be $530,000. The Fire Department has committed
to identify and pu~ue revenues to offset a portion of this cost.
Fiscal Impacts within the Probation Department: The budget adopted for the Probation
Department in FY 1999-2000, included both a one-time expenditure offset (use of $850,000
of the Department's budget savings incentive credits) and two one-time sources of revenue
(reimbursement of prior year juvenile dependency costs and the receipt of a rural crime fund
grant). The combined fiscal impact on the Department's FY 2000-01 budget as a result of
the loss of these revenue sources and expenditure offset is approximately $1.85 million.
· Debt Service Related to Replacement Microwave System: In November 1999, the County
issued certificates of participation, which in part, funded the acquisition and installation of
a replacement Countywide microwave system. The new system is scheduled to come online
during FY 2000-01 and the County will begin making debt service payments on the COP.
Thc FY 2000-01 cost impact for the debt service related to this project is estimated to be
$540,000. The estimated cost for Phase II!. of the overall project to replace and upgrade the
County's conunuaicadon system, includes the replacemem of the radio system has not been
02/28/2000 10:37 FA[ 661 868 3636 CLERK OF THE BOARD ~009
Board of Supervisors
Financial Fo~cast
February 29, 2000
Page 9
considered in this financial plan. The County Administxative Office intends to include this
phase of the project in the discussions during the Committee of the Whole meeting
(discussed below).
® Additional Staffing Costs within the 5herOT$ Deparlment: During the current fiscal year,
the Board approved the addition of eleven sworn positions within the Sheriff's Department
to create their Safe Schools program. The full year cost of this program for FY 2000-01 is
estimated to be $800,000. In addition, in February 2000, the Board also granted the Sheriff
conceptual approval for a five year phased-in program to increase the number of front line
Sheriff's Deputies to a ratio of one deputy per thousand population served. The FY 2000-01
estimated cost for the first phase of this program is also $800,000.
Elimination of Trial Court Realignment Credit: Effective January 1, 1998, AB 233
significantly shifted the responsibilities of providing funding for thc courts from thc counties
to thc State. As a reSult of the financial transactions related to the transition, the 5tare
granted the County a credit, to be split over two years, effectively lowering the County's
maintenance of effort requirement in support of the courts. Included in the County's FY
1999-2000 budget was the final $1.3 million credit from the State, therefore the County's
contribution to thc courts in the FY 2000-01 budget will need to be increased.by that amount.
SUMMARY OF PROJECTED FY 2000-01 BUDGET FORECAST
The table presented in Attachment C combines both the positive and negative factors expected to
impact next year's County budget. These projections are based on estimates developed to date and
assume that the County will not be significantly impacted, either positively or negatively by the FY
2000-01 State budget.
The level of discretionary-use funding available to be allocated to General Fund departments is
projected to increase by approximately $8.90 million above the level adopted for FY 1999-2000.
Although projections have been based on the most current information available, ~
emphasizes that thi, s.f~recast is extremely prelimio~, and can be impacted by a variety of factors
which are still uncertain at this time, such as:
· The final outcome of the FY 2000-01 State budget process, and the ensuing fiscal impacts
on the County. This forecast assumes a neutral impact on the County's general-purpose
revenues resulting from State budget actions.
· The actual asseSsed valuation as determined by the f'fling of the assessment roll in June. The
projections included in this report have been provided before all of the final parameters used
to assess oil producing properties have been sci by the Assessor.
· 02/28/2000 10:38 FAX 661 868 ~6~6 CLERK OF TI~ BOARD ~010
Bo~d of Superviso~
Financial Forecast
F~bruary 29, 2000
Page 10
The actual carryover balance remaining fi:om the FY 1999-2000 budget, which will depend
on dePa~u~,ents' fiscal performance for the remainder of the fiscal year, as well as the
continuing demands on the Appropriafion~ for Contingencies budget.
The FY 200001 budget forecast will be updated throughout the budget development process as
better information becomes available. This office will keep your Board apprised of significant
revisions.
PROPOSED BUDGET DEVELOPMENT (~UIDELINE$
The increase in available General Fund resources will pu~cait moderate increases in those
departments which rely on General Fund discretionary revenue for a portion of their operating
budget. It is recommendedthat departments submit their budget requests at a level not toexceed five
percent (5%) above their FY 1999-2000 Adopted Net General Fund Cost, as presented in
Attachment D. Departments will need to absorb all employee cost increases and potential cost
impacts from retirement conffibutioB rates, insurance rates, and other operating cost increases - but
may also benefit from any rate or operating cost decreases.
It is also important to note that using the "Net General Fund Cost" concept in the budget guidelines
considers depar~memal revenue collections (program-specific revenues) as well as expenditure
requirements. Some departments have the capability to generate additional program revenues, or
to increase cost applied charges to other departments where appropriate, in addition to their 5%
increase in their Net General Fund Cost targets. Therefore, absorbing potential cost increases does
not necessarily equate to a like reduction in appropriations, or spending authority.
Departments may also submit Budget Priority Plans (Step-Up Plans) identifying incremental funain ~
needs and relative priorities above the established Net General Fund Cost target. This will provide
the planning framework necessary to quickly identify options for making the budget changes if
additional discretionary revenue becomes available, .and to identify the specific service impacts
related to-those options. The Budget Priority Plans will be essential in evaluating the expected
service impacts and consequences at alternative funding levels in each depa~u~ent. This evaluation
is one of the determinants used in developing the budget recommendations that will be presented for
Board consideration in. the FY 2000-01 Recommended Budget.
The numerous departmental funding needs, such as equipment and automation, the vital Countywide
infrastructure funding needs, such as roads, and the many critically-needed capital improvement
projects cannot be fully addressed within the projected increase in discretionary revenue, The County
Administrative Office intends to compile, and present to your Board, a comprehensive listing of
these unmet needs as part of the Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for June 13, 2000. As
part of the discussion during the Committee of the Whole meeting,, it may be appropriate to discuss
the use of a portion of the County's Tobacco Litigation Settlement revenues to ad&ess the most
critical of these needs.
02/28/2000 10:39 FAX 661 86~ 3636 CLERK OF THE BOARD ~011
Board of Supervisors
Financial Forecast
February 29, 2000
Page 11
RECOMMENDATION
1T IS KECOMMI~NDED that your Board approve the proposed FY 2000-01. Budget Development
Ouidelincs and authorize thc County Administl'ativc Office to issu~ thc guidelines to all County
departments.
Sincerely,
Scoa ~.
County Adm~i~trative Officer .
SF.J :.lRF/bu dgO001/guidclin. O01
· Attachments
cc: All Department Heads
All F, mployee Unions
CLERI; OF TEE BOARD ~]012
02/28/2000 10:39 FAX 661 868 3636
ATTACHMENT A
COUN'r~ OF I~ERN
PRELIMINARY FORECAST OF
FY 2000-01 ASSESSED YALUATION
FY 1999-2000 FY 2000-01 Fo~cast~cl
Assessed Valuation Forecasted Incr. or (Decr,)
Used for Budget Assessed Valuation From FY 1999-2000 Perce~t
$ Billions $ Billions $ Billions C~a~e
Roll 1 - S~mured $24.34 $25.50 $1.16 4.770/0
Roll 2 - Oil & Gas $z2.93 $14.1¢ Sl.21 9.360/0
R0113 - Ufftlity $1.69 $1.70 $0.01 0.59%
Roll 4 - Un,secured $2.01 $2.00 (SO.OD -0.50%
Roll 6 - Mobilehomes $0,09 . $0.10 $0.01 11.11%
TOTAL $41.06 $4,3.44 $2.,38 5.80%
02/23/2000
AVFRCST.WK4
02/25/2000 1.0:39 F~ 661 868 3636 CLEI~ OF ~ BO,~RD ~013
· - ATTACHMENT B
FORECAST OF FY 2000-01 DISCRETIONARY REVENU~
Ado?zd ~ml~ l~c~{D~r.)
REV~ ~ SO.CE {$ Miili~) ($ ~lio~) ($
Curet Fro~ T~ $74.67 $82 ~ $7.68
Ve~cle Lic~ F~ $32.11 $~.75 $2.64
Will~m~n A~ ~n Space ~v~on $5~0 ~0 $0.00
F~c~sa F~ $3.73 _ $3.92
F~eral Paym~ ~ Deu of T~ $0.72 $0.75 $0.03
T~s~ ~t $5.56 ~.65 $0.09
Homeo~s' Pr~o~ T~ R~ef S~v~do~ $1.35 $1.38 $0,03
Rov~u~ Smb~on $~ ~d $2.00 $2.00 $0.~
~dir~t Cost Raimb~em~ $6.73 56.10 ($0.53)
Av~l. Tax ~ Rme~e F~ds (T~r PI~) $5.00 ~0 $0.00
5~m ~d - ~e-Time $1.45 ~.00
All O~e~ ~efion~-U~ R~num S3.61 $3.81
Ca r~over B~ce ~ Pdor-Y~ }15.91 ~16-00
TOTAL DIS~IO~ARY US~ REVENUE $179.31 S188~1
DRFRCST.WK4 02/2312000
02/28/2000 10:40 F~ 661 868 3636 ~ CLE~; OF ~ 90.~q/) ~014
ATTA~ C
FY 2000-01 BUDGET FOF~CAST
Net Fiscal lmpa~t
Cost Inere__~_~e~d(Decr~ases} $ M////on~
· Debt Se~riee and Furnish/rigs for New Publ/c Health Facility $1.60
· Implcmen~ati0n of Safe Schools and Deputy per 1,000 Population Ratio $1.60
4' Impact of proposed MOUs w/KLBA and KCPP'U $3.50
· Debt Service for Phase I1 of Communications Project $0.54
· Increased Costs in Probation Dept. preViously Covered w/BSI Credits $0.85
· Implementation of Fke Helicopter Program $0.53
· Reduction in the AmoUnt Set-Aside in Tax Liability Reserve ($0.25)
TOTAL NET COST INCItvEASF, $8.3'/ '
R~wnue Changes
· Loss of PY Juvenile Dependency Reimbursements and Rural Crime Funds ($1.00)
· Loss of One-Time State Aid ($1.45)
· Loss of Use of Reserves and Designations from FY 1999-2000 ($0.82)
· Loss of Trial Court Realignment Credit ($1.30)
· Estimated Increased Property Tax Revenue (General and.Fxre Funds) $12.30
· Estimated Increased Realignment Revenue for Health and Social Services $3.70
· Estimated Increase in Proposition 172 Funds $3.10
· Increases in Other Discretionary Revenue $2.80
TO TAL NET RF, VENUE INCREA SE $17.33
· PROJECTED NET ADDITIONAL FUNDING $8.96
02/28/2000 10:41 FAX 661 868 3636 CLERK OF .THE BOARD ~]015
ATTACHMENT D
FY 2000-01 NET COUNT COST GU1DEI NE AMOUNTS
FY 1999-2000 FY 2000-01
Approved Net County Cost
Budget U~t and Deparlxnent Net .Count7 C. ost Gul~teline Amount
1011 Board of Supervisors - District 1 $362,282 $380,396
1012 Boarc[ of Supervisors - District 2 $363,264 $381,427
1013 Board of Supervisors - District ~ $330,242 $346,754
1014 Board of Supervisors - District 4 $525201 $341,461
1015 . Board of Supervisors - District 5 $329,965 $346,463
1020 Adminlstrative Office $1,345,661 $1,412,944
1030 Clerk of the Board $764,947 $803,194
1040 Special Services $2,050,705 $2,153,240
1110 Attdltor-Con~:oller-County Clerk $1,950,171 $2,047,680
1115 Travel Agent l~xpense $0 $0
1120 Treasurer/Tax Collector $745,6~0 $782,912
1130 Assessor $5229726 To Be Determined
1140 Assessor - Prop. Tax Administration Program $0 $0
1150 Purchasing (Division of General Services) $325,358 $341,626
1151 Mail Services (Division of General Sea'vices) $211,486 $222,060
1153 Reprographics (Division of General Services) $0 $0
l 160 Information Technology Services $2,328,059 $2,444,462
1210 County Counsel $817,937 $858,834
1310 Personnel $1,487,973 $1,562,372
1420 County Clerk- Elections $1,337,165 $1,404,023
1510 Communications (Division of General Services) $1,190,789 $1,187,328
1610 General Services $5,207,792 $5,468,182,
1615 Utility Payments (Division of General Services) $2,818,166 $2,959,074
1620 Property Management (Div. of General Services) $104,688 $109,922
1625 ADA Compliance $45,000 'J $47,250
1640 Construction Services (Div. of General Services) $137,238 $144,100
1812 Board of Trade $482,341 $506,458
I900 Engineering & Survey Services $1,037,444 $1,089,316
1910 Risk Management $451,630 $474,212
2110 Conlxibution to Tria] Courts $4,100,000 $5,400,000
2160 Grand Jury $154,178 $140,887
2170 Indigent Defense Ser~ces $2,148,700 $2.256,135
2180 District Attorney $5,345,404 $5,612,674
2183 District Attorney-Family Support $0 $0
2190 Public Defender $4,618,477, $4,849,401
2200 District Attorney-Forensic Sdences $1,317,710 $1,383,596
2210 Sheriff .$45,778,387 $45,967,306
2340 Probation $8,472,097 $8,895,702
2415 Fire $13,538,874 TO Be Determined
2610 ,, A~Ftcultur~l Com. m~ioner $924,465 $97,.0,,688
NCGGUID2.WK4 02~23/2000
10:41 F~I 661 865 3636 C~RK OF Tile BO,~U) ~016
FY 2000-01 NET COUNTY COST GUIDEliNE AMOUNTS
· FY 1999-2000 FY 2000-01
Approved Net County Cost
B,,d.ee.t Unit and Defrayment Net Cotmty Cost ~uideli~e Amount
2620 Code Compliance $325,471 $341,74~
2625 Building Inspection $0
2630 Weights & Measures $442~09! $464,949
270.5 Recorder ($725,723' ($689,437
2730 Resource Management Agency $0
2740 Wildlife Resources $0 50
2?50 Planning $1,346,133 $1,413,440
2760 Animal Control $390,407 $409,927
2?70 LAFCO $214,300 $225,015
11780 Range Improvement-Sec. 15 $0 $0
2781 Range Improvement-sec. 3 S0
2850 Emergency Services (Div. o~ General Services) $82,729 $86,865
3000 Roads $5.429,500 To Be Determined
4110 Public Health $0 50
4112 Air Quality Control $0 50
t113 Rnvironmental Health $185,820 $195,111
4120 Mental Health $771,123 $771,123
4123 Mental Health-Substance Abuse $78,4~8 $~8,t~8
4200 Eraergency Medical Services $97,180
4201 F-mergency Medical Payrrtents 50
4202 Kern Medical Center-County ConttibuQon $4,750,000
4203 Ambulance Service Paymems $506,485 $531,809
4300 California ChikLrens Service $105,967 $111~65
4400 Waste Management $0 S0
5120 Human Services-Administration $2,000,000 To Be Determined
5220 Human Services-Direct Aid $13,727,285 To Be Delermlnecl
5510 Veterans Services $364,576 $382~05
5610 Aging & Adult Services $,t,901,553 $5~146,631
5923 Employers Training Resource-Admi~stratlon $0 $0
59t0 Community Development Program-Admlnlstratic $0 S0
6210 Library $5,227,191 $5,488,551
6310 Farm & Home Advisor $441,855 $t63~941~
6320 Experimental Farm $0 S0
7100 Parks & Recreation $7,2t5,79~ $7,608,083
81,,20 Debt Service-General Fund $tr4.20~099 $4.6i1,104
ID2.WK4 02/23/2000
,2000 {
Owner
Address
CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
RE: REQUEST FOR STATEMENTS OF INTEREST
SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMENT 'PROJECT AREA
Dear Property Owner and/or Business Tenant:
As a result of recent media attention, you may be aware that the California Avenue corridor between "L" and
"S" streets is being considered by more than one party as a possible location for a retail/entertainment oriented
project. You may also be aware that the Bakersfield City Council and the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
recently approved the formation of the Southeast Bakersfield Project Area. The project area became effective
' July 30, 1999.
One of the purposes of redevelopment is to encourage and potentially assist in the commercial development
within the project areas. During the formation of the Southeast Bakersfield Project Area, residents of the area
expressed the need for better commercial shopping and entertainment opportunities. The residents indicated
their desire to see new commercial developments such as; a major grocery store/supermarket, full service
banking, movie theaters, restaurants (fast food and fine dining), video stores, major gas service stations, home
improvement stores, office/schOol supply stores and other entertainment/shopping amenities. The Bakersfield
Redevelopment Agency (Agency) would like to identify and possibly assist property owners, tenants or
developers that have plans or the potential to address any if these commercial opportunities within the
Southeast Bakersfield Project Area. The Agency believes the commercial corridor along California Avenue may
have the best initial potential for land or building sites that could accommodate these types of commercial
shopping and entedainment developments.
Under lhe "Rules Governing Participation a nd Preferences for Owners, Operators or Business Tenants" adopted
by the Agency in the formation of the project area, the Agency is required to give property owners or businesses
within the project area an oppodunity padicipate in the redevelopment of the area. This participation can take
the form of your own development proposal for the commercial project(s) contemplated, or participation with
another' properly owner or business tenant in the Project area to address the commercial shopping or'
entertainment needs. Under the above stated "Rules", information required by the Agency to evaluate
proposals is outlined. (The "Rules" document Is available for review or purchase at the Economic Development
Department office.) We have attached a Statement of Interest form that outlines the required information
needs of the Agency to determine any interest in the commercial opportunities and evaluate projects presented.
Statement of Interest Letter
,2000
Page 2
Please submit the Statement of Interest form and requested information, no later than 30 days from the receipl
of this letter or by ,2000 to:
City of Bakersfield Economic Development Department
Atten: Charles Webb, Southeast Bakersfield Project Area
515 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Upon receipt of Statement of Interest and review by the Agency, each applicant will be sent a letter stating the
Agency's interest or non-interest in the proposal, or a request for further clarification of information or documents
included in the applicant's proposal.
The Agency will evaluate all Statements of Interest based upon a number of considerations including; but not
limited to the following:
a. Changes or elimination in land uses in the area contrary to the redevelopment of the Project Area;
b. Availability, capacity, removal, relocation or installation of public utilities, infrastructure and facilities;
c. Market conditions and project feasibility;
d. Necessity for reduction in the number of parcels In the Project Area, land assembly and the possibility
of resubdivlsion of land area;
e. Long term land planning and Agency resources;
f. Allocation and application of Agency funds and staff;
g. Ability of community resources to support an activity;
h.' The impact of a proposed development on the community and its environment;
i. Conformance to the Redevelopment Plan and the implementation plans of the Agency;
j. .The relationship of a proposed development to the surrounding community, its quality, configuration,
appearance and service of community needs;
k. The contribution of the proposed development to the'tax base of the community; and
I. The experience and financial capability of the participant.
If you have any questions on the Statement of Interest form or information required, please feel free to call. We
would be happy to discuss your project or situation. Please contact Charles Webb of our Economic
Development staff at (661) 326-3765.
Sincerely,
John F. Wager, Jr.
Deputy Executive Director, Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
STATEMENT OF INTEREST
FOR THE
CENTRAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FOR THE
SOUTHEAST BAKERSFIELD PROJECT AREA
PROJECT: COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
AREA: CALIFORNIA AVENUE COMMERCIAL.CORRIDOR
Name of Property Owner/Business Tenant:
Mailing Address:
Phone:
Address of Property or properties owned, or business operated:
Name of Business (if applicable):
Attach additional information or sheets as required to provide the fo/lowing information:
Type of Development being proposed:
AnY proposed redevelopment assistance/action being requested; i.e. purchase of property, financial
assistance, site consolidation, site clean up, etc.
Statement of Interest
Page 2
Development experience to accomplish this type of project, or development team that would be
contracted:
Financial ability to complete project; i.e. source of funds, loans, etc:
Any other pertinent information to assist in the evaluation of proposal:
I understand that this submission does not obligate me to participate in the project, nor does it
obligate the CDDA to select the proposal or participate in the development.
Signed:
Print Name and Title:
S:\REDVAREA\OP for SE\INTEREST FORM - SE,wpd
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FRO~: R~ul Roja~, Public INork~ Director ~'~'~'
D~TE: I::obrua~ 2a, 2000
SUBJECT: Transportation D~¥olopm~nt ~¢t {TD~} Audit- ~uno 30, 1999 and
1998
This memo addresses agenda item 5A of the Budget and Finance Committee Meeting
of February 7, 2000.
Kern Cog contracted with the accounting firm of Brown, Armstrong, Randall, Reyes,
Paulden and McCown (BARRPM) to conduct a TDA audit for its member agencies for
the years ended June 30, 1999 and 1998.
The resulting audit report for the City of Bakersfield was submitted to Council at its
January 26, 2000 meeting and was referred to Budget and Finance.
Councilmember Maggard requested a copy of the Auditor's Management Letter and
any other correspondence relative to the TDA Audit which was not included in the final
audit report.
My staff contacted Ben Reyes of BARRPM to obtain copies of any
correspondence/reports not included in the final TDA Report. He stated no
Management Letter was issued on the TDA audit. He also indicated the submitted
audit report contains all correspondence/reports on this TDA Audit.
G:\GROUPDATWlemo~000\TDA Audit June 30-1999-1998.wpd , ' .. . ~ ;L--~;
FEB ; 520t]0I
PAUL
ROJAS
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
o B A K E R S F I E L D
Patricia J. DeMond, Chair
Mike Maggard
Mark Salvaggio
Staff: Darnell Haynes
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Monday, February 7, 2000
12:00 noon
City Manager's Conference Room
Second Floor- City Hall, Suite 201
1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 20, 1999 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. UPDATE AND POSSIBLE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING REQUEST
FROM KERN COUNTY FOR AIRPORT TERMINAL FUNDING
B. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSAL
RECEIVED FROM DAVID TURCH AND ASSOCIATES, WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST-
Rojas
., 5. NEW BUSINESS
A. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE 1998-99
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FINANCIAL
STATEMENT - Rojas
B. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT FUND - Rojas
C. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION OF FY 2000- 01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT (CDBG), HOME AND EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) ANNUAL
SPENDING PLAN - Wager
D. SET FUTURE MEETING DATES - Haynes
6. ADJOURNMENT
DH:jp
D AFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE
Monday, February 7, 2000
Page -3-
Committee Report from her and Committee member Salvaggio, and a Minority Committee Report
from Committee member Maggard. The Committee unanimously approved the motion.
The Majority Report will recommend entering into a memorandum of understanding with the
County for funding assistance of $1.5 million over a three-year term with yearly payments,
consisting of two payments of $.5 million and the transfer of the airpark (Bakersfield Municipal
Airport) and its fund balance of $.5 million. The agreement is to include a stipulation that the
County formally agree to accept the operation of the airpark by June 30, 2001 in order to put a
hold on the $.5 million airpark fund balance.
The Minority Report will.recommend entering into a memorandum of understanding with the
County for funding'assistance of $3 million over a five-year term with yearly payments, consisting
of five payments of $.5 million and the transfer of the airpark (Bakersfield Municipal Airport) and
its fund balance of $.5 million. The agreement is to include a stipulation that the County. formally
agree to accept the operation of the airpark by June 30, 2001 in order to put a hold on the
$.5 million airpark fund balance.
Committee member Maggard also wants the Minority Report to include that the City funding
assistance go for specific components of the terminal so that citizens could identify with what is
being paid for by the City as follows:
Main Lobby $1,426,000
Hold Rooms 787,750
Ticketing 502,550
Concessions 270,000
The Committee directed staff to prepare the reports for the February 23rd Council meeting.
B. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSAL RECEIVED
FROM DAVID TURCH AND ASSOCIATES, WASHINGTON D.C. LOBBYIST
This item was deferred.
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE 1998-99
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FINANCIAL
STATEMENT
Councilmember Maggard asked staff to get a copy of the auditor's management letter and any
other correspondence, which was not included in the final audit report. This item was deferred.
B. DISCUSSION REGARDING THE EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT FUND
This item was deferred.
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: MARCH 2, 2000
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ' ~' ~~"~"~ '
SUBJECT: ¼ CENT SALES TAX PUBLIC OPINION POLL-FINAL REPORT
The ½ cent sales tax public opinion poll final report is now complete. The attached copies are
provided for distribution to the Mayor and Council.
REPORT
PUBLIC OPINION POLLING
CONDUCTED BY
I
! J. MOORE METHODS
!
FOR
TRANSPORTATION
SALES TAX
1717 1 Street
Sacramento
California 95814
916.444.5701
,',,,®,r~
/~ttp:// ....... tr~. ......
To: Dale Hawley
Max Besler
FROM:
DATE: June 16, 1999
RE: Poll Analysis
ANALYSIS OF KERN COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX POLL
CONDUCTED BY J. MOORE METHODS
May 8- 15, 1999
I This survey was administered to 500 registered voters in Kern
County. The sample was drawn from the Kern County voter file. The
margin of error was + or - 4.5 percent.
!
i OV~RW~W
In general, voters in Kern County are happy with the direction in
I which both the county and their individual communities are headed.
Fifty-seven percent of the voters believe that the county is on the
I "right track," and 62 percent believe their local communities are also
on the "right track." This is a positive benchmark and indicates a
level of optimism that tends to augur well for governments that want
I to take on projects or expand services.
Memorandum
Page 2
A series of questions was asked to determine how satisfied voters were
with 'a series of local issues, and how inaportant eaeh issue was. Of
the. 10 issues listed, ranging from government spending to protection
of the environment, in only one - maintaining streets and roads - did
'voters show a higher degree 'of dissatisfaction than satisfaction. And,
69 percent indicated that this issue was very important to them. The
nexus between dissatisfaction and degree of importance is an
important prerequisite to successful passage, of a sales tax measure.
questions is, ff voters are optimistic, what 'do
However,
the
ultimate
they want and how much are they willing to pay for those services?
POP~TY OF ~SPORTATION
Next,. a series of questions 'was asked to determine which issues
voters would favor as a ballot initiative. In order of favorability, the
answers were as follows for those issues where
support
was
excess
of 60 percent (,percentage is in parentheses):
Providing transit services for the elderly and
handicapped (76)
· Improving public schools (70)
Maintaining local streets and roads (66)
· Improving fire protection
· ImproVing air qualRy and reducing pollution (611
Improving police protection (60)
Once. again, maintaining streets and roads scores high, exceeded only
by providing transit services to the elderly and handicapped, and
improving public schools. It is significant that two of the most
important issues that could be the subject of a ballot measure a_re
concerned with transportation.
To refme further th'e possible expenditure of transportation tax funds,
a question set was designed to determine where funds should be
'l directed. The categories were as follows:
·
Memorandum
Page 3
I · Maintaining local' streets and roads
· Improving local bus service
I * Widening existing roads
· Building new roads
!
Of these, maintaining local streets and roads was overwhelmingly the
i most favored, gaining a positive response of 53 percent.
TAXATION OPTIONS AND DURATION
We developed questions to determine how such improvements should
be paid for and for how, long such a revenue measure should be in
effect.
Four options were tested:
· Half-cent sales tax for 10 years
· Quarter-cent sales tax for 10 years
A $15 property tax increase, per parcel, for 10 years
A $10 property tax increase, per parcel, for 10 years
Of these, the parcel taXes gained only 29 percent and 14 percent
favorable responses, respectively, versus 70 percent and 83 percent
responsesl respectively. Neitlier of these will pass
unfavorable
muster as viable tax increase options.
The sales tax options were more favorably received with 52 percent of
the voters favoring the half-cent for 10 years and 53 percent the
quarter-cent..However, after a Series of safeguards (e.g., 10-year
sunset and project-sPecific ballot language) and arguments were
provided, support for these taxes dipped to 47 percent, and 48
percent, respectively, A third reading of the tax alternatives read
was
to voters after a list of projects was read. While the half-cent tax
increased by one percent, the quarter-cent increased to 53 percent.
Memorandum
Page 4
PROJECTS
The following projects gained significant enough Support (above 50
percent) they a priority projects. HoWever, it
that
nst
of
should be noted that maintaining .roads is still the highest priority
with vOters. Including any of these projects on a prospective
expenditure plan to put before voters would need to be carefully
considered. The cost of any of the major undertakings such as
Highway 46 improvements coUld exceed the level and duration voters
are willing to support.
ARVIN/~ONT
Widening WeedPatch Highway to four lanes from Route 223 north to
Route 58.
CALIFORNIA CI'lW//CANTIL
Widening Route 14 to four lanes from Mojave north with an
interchange at California City Boulevard.
BAKERSFIELD/EDXSON
Widening Route 46fto four lanes from Interstate 5 to .the San Luis
Obispo County line.
DELANO/GLENNVILLE/WOODY
Widening RoUte 46 to four lanes from Highway 99 to the, San,Luis
Obispo County linel
Widening and realigning Cecil Avenue to four lanes from Highway .99
east to Browning Road with a railroad Undercrossing.
SHAFTER/BUTTONWILLOW
Widening to lanes Interstate 5 to the San Luis
Route
46
four
from
Obispo County line.
Widening Route 46 to four lanes from HighwaY 99 to Interstate 5.
MCFARLAm)
Widening Route 46 to foUr lanes from Interstate 5 to the San Luis
Obispo County line.
Memorandum
Page 5
TAFT/FELLOWS/McKITTRICK/TUPMAN/MARICOPA
Widening Route 119 to four lanes from Route 33 to Interstate 5.
Widening Route 119 to four lanes from Interstate 5 to Highway 99.
'WAsCo/LOSr I'IILLS/CHOLAME
Widening Route 46 to four lanes from Highway 99 t° Interstate 5 with
a railroad overcrossing.
Widening Route 46 to four lanes frOm Interstate 5 to the San Luis
Obispo County line.'
ROSAMOND
Widening RosamOnd BouleVard with a railroad overcrossing at Sierra
Highway.
MOJAVE/BORON/NORTH EDWARDs/EDWARdS AFB
Constructing a Route 14 railroad overcrossing north of Mojave.
LAKE ISABELLA/BODFISH/KERNVILLE/ONYX/WELDON/WOFFORD HEIGHTS
Building a new RoUte 178 freeway on a new alignment from
Bakersfield to Lake Isabella.
RiDGEcREST/RANDSBURG/JOHANNESBURG/iNYOKERN
Paving major city streets, including' Downs, Upjohn, Drummond,
Richmond and Mahan.
CONCLUSIONS
The message that very clearly comes across from voters is this: Any
transportation measure that is put before voters must address first
and foremost.the maintenance of local streets and roads. No other--
transportation-related issue has the same draw as this one does.
And, while providing services for the elderly and handicapped may be
an element that should be included in an expenditure plan, .the lion's
Memorandum
Page 6
share of funding must be directed to street and
any
road
maintenance.
The only tax we believe has any viability with voters is a quarter-cent
sales tax. However, only a scant majority favors this option even after
they have heard arguments in favor of the potential measure, -
safeguards that could be imposed and the duration of a sunset
clause. Our rule of thumb on sales taxes is that in order to be
successful at the simple majority level, overall support must be above ·
60 percent and Strong support must be at 40 percent. Neither of
these levels has been reached in the .poll we conducted. It is our belief
that,, while voters believe that transportation issues are important and
could be supported by them in the form of a sales tax, the levels and '
duration we tested are still too steep for them.
We recommend that in the next phase of polling we test the following
Options:
· Quarter-cent at three years for road' repair and maintenance
· Eighth- or 10~-cent at five or 10 years for road repair and
maintenance
1717 1 Street
Sacramento
California 95814
916.444.0382fax
MEMORANDUM tr~,,*trb,,.co,ne-mai'
http://~vww, tr~u.com
To: Dale Hawley
FROM: Max Besler
DATE: September 19, 1999
RE: Poll Analysis
ANALYSIS OF KERN COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX POLL
m CONDUCTED BY J. MOORE METHODS
August 19 -- 23, 1999
!
I This survey was administered to registered voters in Kern County.
The sample was drawn from the Kern County voter file. The margin of
i error was + or- 5 percent.
I Overview
The goal of this poll was to determine ff voters in Kern County would
I support passage of a transportation sales tax, and if so at what level
of taxation and for what duration.
I Two versions of prospective ballot language were read to a split
sample of voters (400 in each sample). Thus, each sample was read
only one ballot question.
,!
Memorandum
Page 2
The projeCts· and services included in both ballot questions were
based on the poll conducted in May 1999 and consisted of those
projects and services that were most popular.
Polling Results.
The first sample was asked their response to the followingquestion:
"Shall the Kern COunty Transportation Authority be authorized to
impose a transaction and use tax of ONE-QUARTER of one percent for a
period not to exCeed five years, to be used solely to:
Improve safety on existing streets, roads and highways,
· To maintain existing streets, roads and highways,
· And to provide transportation services for senior citizens and person
with disabilities." ~ ·
A second, follow-up questions'was asked to determine if Voters would
be more likely to support a plan of shorter duration:
"The sales tax increase measure I just read to you was proposed for
five years. Would you support of oppose a sales 'tax increase of il4 cent
for three years instead of the 1/4 cent for five year plan?"
These same question sets were administered to a second sample of
400 voters, with one difference. The level of taxation was increased .to
lA cent.
The resUlts were as follows:
· At the ¼ cent level, support was at 61 percent support with 37
percent supporting strongly. -'
o' At'the ~-/i cent level,-support was at 61 percent with strong support
at 35 percent.
Memorandum
Page 3
Reducing the duration of the tax from five to three years yielded the
following results:
· Support at the ~A cent level was at 49 percent with strong SuPport
at 25 percent, ..
·Support at the ¥~, cent level was at 48 percent with strong support
at 26 percent,
Conclusion
We determined in the .previOus poll that 'employing the "A + B"'
approach of using a general tax increase coupled with an advisory
vote would not be .likely to pass in Kern County, Further, we explored
the other option to increase the Possibility of passage - a special tax
(requiring a two-thirds super-majority). Our goal was to develop a tax
measure that might pass ff the level of taxation were acceptable to
voters, and ff the duration of the tax were short enough to cause
voters to believe that the tax-would not be too burdensome.
In order for a special sales tax effort to be successful in Kern coUnty,
support for the tax would need to be in the mid-70 percent range, and
.
strong sUpport at the 50 percent level. Neither of these levels of
support were gained. The support levels achieved are pOsitive, and
would augur well if the option of a simple majority passage were still
open. Without the simple majority option, we believe that passage of.
a sales tax at the super-majority level is unlikely.
Further, reducing the length of the tax from five to three years had no ·
impact on improving support. Voters seem to ·recognize no difference
between three and five years. They also don't see difference
any
between the ~A and V~. cent alternatives.
1717 I Street
Sacramento
California 95814
--~' X~ 916.444.0582 fax
trbu ~trbu.cam e-mail
h ttp :lAy w w. tvb u. ca m
PORT
i T SPORTATIO POL
COnDUCTeD
I Two polls were conducted by d. Moore Methods for the Kem
i Transportation Foundation.
As mentioned in our proposal to the Foundation, four general needs
must be met in a sales tax measure if it is to be successful with
I voters. These are the following:
O They perceive a need for the measure.
O The projects or sen, ices of the proposed
measure are what voters really want.
I/~ The method or amount of taxation is
reasonable and appropriate for the proposed
projects or services.
0 What is promised in the measure will be
delivered by those administering the funds.
Furthermore, these elements must be delivered up in a ballot label
(the 75-word description that the voter reads when casting his or her
vote, frequently referred to incorrectly as ballot "language") that is
simple and persuasive.
Our research team devised a two-pronged strategy to determine if a
measure could be drafted to satisfy these needs.
The first was a benchmark poll conducted from May 8 through 15 to a
sample of 500 registered voters in Kern County. This poll was
developed to determine if a transportation sales tax could be waged
Page 2
and Won in Kern County, and ff so, which elements should be
-included in the expenditure plan. To determine thiS, we tested' the
following:
· The importance of transportation issues within the context of
other public policy issues
· Safeguards and sunset clauses to increase voter confidence in
the plan
· .Transportation projects and services distributed throughout the
'cOunty
· Taxing alternatives (sales vs. property} to pay for the
improvements
· Alternative taxing strategies: The "A + B" approach used
successfully in Santa Clara County (an advisory vote together
with a general tax) or a special tax (requiring a two-thirds vote)
· -Arguments in support and opposition of a transportation tax
· Potential endOrsers
In our June 16 analysis of this poll we made the following
observations:
· There was insufficient support for an "A + B" approach.
· Property taxes are the least popular form of taxation with
oVerwhelming margins of opposition.
· Levels of support for a quarter- or half-cent sales tax were
higher than the property tax options, but
below
the
levels
needed for passage.
Page 3.
· 'The sales tax options we tested indicated that any tax would
have to beofvery short duration {five to 10 years) and the
smaller the tax, the less the resistance to it.
· The only projects likely to garner enough support were limited
to road maintenance and' repair, and to providing
transportation services for senior citizens and the disabled.
The goal in the second poll was t° determine ff a special sales tax
measure {which would require a two-thirds vote) could be fashioned to
gain enough support to be successful at the ballot box.
The polling sample of 800 was split into two halves. One-half of the'
survey sample was given a quarter-cent sales tax option, the other a
half-cent. Both taxes sunsetted at five
years.
We found in the second poll that there was not-difference in support
for the quarter- and half-cent levels. And, if it were still legal to pass
a transportation sales tax at the simple majority level', the support
numbers evidenced in this poll would augur well for passage of a
measure. However, these numbers fall well below the levels of
support that would be needed to pass a special sales tax which needs
a two-thirds vote.
In reviewing both polls, as well as analyzing the cross-tabulations, we
find that there are a number of elements which fundamentally make it
difficult to pass a local sales tax in Kern County.,
The poll indicates that maintaining and repairing road is one of the
most important issues in .the county. It ranks in importance with
education, law enforcement, wise spending of tax monies and
planning for economic growth and development. Additionally, voters
are more dissatisfied with the current maintenance and repair of
streets and roads than they are with any other service we polled. On
the face of it, this issue would seem ripe for a solution: it is important
to voters and they perceive a great need for change.
I
,I
Page 4
I However, there are a number of issues that militate against passage of
a sales tax:
The basic predisposition-of voters to support a sales tax
We asked voters hoW they Would vote for a sales tax at the quarter-
and half-cent levels on three occasions. The "simulated ballot" was
after telling voters generally that tax monies would fund
transportation improvements. The second was after pro and con
i arguments had been read to them. The third was after local projects
_ had been listed. As noted.in our previous analyses, Support levels
were not high enough to support either a general or special, tax
increase.
However, if we look at the levels of opposition to the Proposed taxes,
I we see another obstacle. Strong opposition from a low of 32
ranges
percent to a high of 42 percent. This should be viewed in contrast to
I strong support for the taxes, which ranges from 17 to 27 percent.
Moreover, the. highest levels of opposition occur after arguments and
projects are read to voters. Thus the NO side of any campaign will
I need to perSUade far fewer voters in order to prevail. Voter skepticism
is quite high in the county and this skepticism increases as voters
understand more of the taxing plan:
I' The relative weight' of Pro and Con arguments
We devised a series of argUments in support and opposition toa
I potential transportation tax to determine what effect these would have
on vOter attitudes. In effect, this element of the poll represents a
simulation of the rhetoric of a campaign.
Generally, we believe that, taken together, support arguments should
out weigh oppose arguments. This is important because there is a
larger, barrier to overcome in getting voters to support passage of a tax
than in opposing it. The boost obtained by strong support arguments
I is needed to offset the natural to tax increase.
tendency
oppose
a
i In the Kern. County poll we found that the oppose arguments tended
· to be stronger in the aggregate than th-e support arguments. The
most popular support arguments centered On what we refer to as
!
I Page 5
1
I voter safeguards: guarantees that the monies will be spent only on the
listed projects, and the tax will sunset after 10 years. Onthe other
hand, the strongest oppose arguments, focused on taxes being too
I high, wasteful spending of tax dollars and absence of a need to
impose yet another tax.
When all arguments tend to focus on the issue of taxation, voter
I skepticism increaSes significantly, r
i The effect of third-party endorsements '.
Successful tax increase efforts rely heavily on the endorsements of
credible and persuasive third party individuals and organizations.
I. These endorsements help to reassure voters that a YES vote on a tax '
increase will bring benefit. While there are some popular
organizations (e.g. Taxpayers Association, Automobile Club, chamber
I of commerce), no organization stands out as persuasive on this
very
isSue. Voters tended to be quite divided on endorsements, with even.
i the most popular almost evenly split between favorable and
Unfavorable ratings. Kern County residents are more likely to make
up their minds based on what they understand of a measure~ rather
I than'who endorses it. Without a strong, persuasive third-party
endorser (or endorsers), the task of passing a tax hike increases. This
is the case in Kern County.
Demographic profiles of the cross-tabulations
In reviewing the cross-tabulations of the poll, we sought to determine
I if there were areas potential support bY looking at
o~
discrete
demographic groups. What we found was a fairly monolithic response
to the transportation tax increase with no group or area diverging far
I from the whole.
I We also reviewed the Polling data by area within the county. In total,
14 separate geographical areas were studied. Not surprisingly, the
City of Bakersfield, representing over 60 percent of the vote defines,.
I the While there differences in the levels of
county
response.
were
support between the smaller communities, these differences tended to
i even out.
I
m Page 6
!
i In summary, and as noted elsewhere in our analyses, Kern County ~
transportation advocates face a problem similar to their counterparts
elsewhere in the state. On one hand, there is not sufficient support to
m mount a successful special tax campaign which requires a two-thirds
vote. And on the.other, voters will not support a general tax increase
because they don't believe that tax dollars will go to the transportation
'!
projects they want to see delivered.
m we do not believe that lowering'the amount of the tax hike Or
shortening the duration will be sufficient to gain the added support
needed to pass a special tax in the county. Nor do we believe that
I there are other projects or services that can be developed to gain
approval through the employment of an "A +B" approach.
I If the majority election role is reinstated for transportation tax
shnple
increases,' We believe that a measure could be developed in Kern .
County that, with vigorous campaigning, would be supported by the
I electorate.
!
I
m
1717 I Street
Sacramea~o
California 95814
916. 444. 0J82 fax
trl~u@trbu.com e-mail
Recommended B~lot L~guage
Kern County Tr~spo~ation T~
I "Shall the Kem County Transportation Authority be authorized to
impose a transaction and use tax of one-half of one percent for a
period not to exceed five to be used solely to:
years,
· widen Route 46 to four lanes from 1-5 to the San Luis Obispo
i County line,
I · improve safety on existing streets, roads and highways,
· maintain existing streets, roads and highways,
!
· provide transportation services for senior citizens and persons
i with disabilities."
I
I
I
I
KERN CLUSTER POINT
MM-99~508 INTERVIEWER
J.MOORE METHODS
1127 llth St. #1050 TIME BEGUN :
Sacramento, CA 95814 TIME ENDED :
(916-444-2727)
(FA/(-444- 6457)
!
Hello, may I please speak with __ ?
NOTE : ONLY THE NAME ON THE SAMPLE SHEET QUALIFIES FOR THE INTERVIEW.
Hello, I'm with JMM Research. We're conducting a public opinign
poll among registered voters in Kern County. The survey takes 15-17
minutes to complete, and it involves answering questions and giving me
your opinions on a variety of local County issues.
We are interviewing registered voters, chosen at random, in the County.
Can you give me 15 to 17 minutes to participate in the survey
IF NO or NOT NOW, OFFER TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR LATER :
I can call you back at a time that is better for you, if you would like
· to participate in the survey. ( SCHEDULE A FIRM APPOINTMENT TIME )
I
'.:~ · 1. Generally speaking, do you think things in (a) are going
in the right direction or do you feel things ar--~ seri--~usly off on
the wrong track ?
RGHT WRNG DONT
DIRC TRCK KNOW
al. the State of California ........ 47 43 10
~' ~ a2. Kern County. ' 57 31 12
a3. your local community ........... 62 28 10
i. Moving on...
Next I'll ask your opinion of a few'local issues and concerns.
2a. 'Are you satisfied or disatisfied with how local government'in your
community is handling the issue of (a) ?
(2 PA~T QUESTION-REPEAT CHOICES AS NEEDED)
. . 2b. Is this a very or
somewhat important issue
ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. .. 1 for you
IODD-UP ..... 2 DIS- NO SOME NO
SATI SATI OPIN VERY WHAT OPIN
al. spending your tax money ........ '46 47 7 66 33 1
!
a2. planning for future economic'
growth and development ....... 56 38 6 65 33 2
a3. providing law enforcement
services. ' 72 25 3 - 79 20 1
a4. maintaining streets and roads. ~ 44 54 2 -.- 69 31 0
services 75 17 8 -.- 56 42 2
providing
library
a6. protecting the environment ..... 63 31 6 57 41 2
a7. providing bus services ......... 57 18 25 -.- 34 59 7
aS. planning for traffic ........... 61 34 5 -.- 55 .44 1
a9. providing public education ..... 54 39 7 -.- 79 19 2
al0. reducing air pollution ......... 61 32 7 -.- 62 37 1
I "
..' .Moving on.
Kern County lead~rs are considering the possibility of placing one
.... or more ballot measures before the voters in the near future to help
pay for providing important community services.
-'. 3. Would you generally respond favorably or unfavorably to the idea of
increasing local taxes to pay for (a)__ ?
·
FAVR FAVR OPIN
· · al. improving the County transportation system .... 31 .63 6 a2. improving public library services ............. 48 47 5
i '-. a3.. improving police protection ..... ; ............. 60 38 2 a4. improving fire protection ..................... 64 34 2
a5. improving public schools 70 26 4
a6. maintaining local streets and roads ........... 66 32 2
a7. improving parks and recreation programs ....... 47 49 4
':.' · a8 improving local bus service. 37 56 7
widenin9 existing roads ....................... 54 43 . . 3
..'.. al0. constructing'new roads ........................ 49 45 6
all. building new water supply projects ............ 54 39 7
al2. building a central valley hi-speed rail system. 48 46 6
· al3. improving air quality and reducing pollution. . 61 35 4
-.. al4 providin9 transit services for the elderly and
handicapped ........... - .................. ' .... 76 21 3
I '
- . . .. Now let's discuss the issue of improving the county transportation
system. The Kern Transportation Foundation is presently putting
together a long-term plan for the future.
., 4a. There are 4 general types of-transportation system improvements
.... · being considered in the plan - maintaining streets and roads, improving_
local bus service, widening existing roads, and constructing new roads.
Which ONE of those four types of transportation improvements would
you give the highest priority to ?
MAINTAINING LOCAL STREETS & ROADS ......... 53
..... IMPROVING LOCAL BUS SERVICE .............. 18
WIDENING EXISTING ROADS .................. 16
. . BUILDING NEW ROADS ....................... 10
NO OPINION .............................
~'"' ' 4b. If you had to choose, would you give a higher funding priority
" (a) (b)
· .'.i:. : 1. maintaining local streets 76 20 ... improving local bus --.: '~. .! and roads, service.
· '. 2. maintaining local streets 72 24 ... widening existing and roads, roads.
3. maintaining local streets 82 14 ...'building new roads. and roads.
4. improving local bus service 37 55 ... widening existing roads.
.. 5. improving local bus service 47 45 ... building new roads.
6. widening existing roads. .. 69 21 ... building new roads.
There are several different types of taxation methods that could be
put' before the voters to provide the increased ~fundiHg for roads and
other transportation purposes. I'll read some of the different options
to you and ask you~ opinion of each.
To pay for improved transportation systems or roads, would you
support or oppose __(a)__ ? Is that * strongly or just somewhat?
---
(2 PART INTRO - REPEAT CHOICES AS NEEDED)
SUPP SUPP OPPS OPPS NO
STRG SOME STRG SOME OPIN
al. increasing the county sales tax by 1/2 cent
for 10 years ........... ~ ................ 21 - 31 32 15 1
a2. increasing the county sales tax by 1/4 cent
for 10 years .... ' ................ - ....... 26 27 32 14
a3. increasing property taxes by $15 dollars a
year, per parcel, for 10 years ......... 13 16 58 12 1
a4. increasing, property taxes by $25 dOllars a
-year, per parCel, for 10 years. .- ....... 6 8 70 13 3
Next I'll~ask your opinion of some arguments that could be made by
supporters and oppgnents of increasing county taxes to pay for improving
the transportation system and roads.
6a. SUPPORTERS say (a)__ Is this a gOod, fair or poor reason t°
SUPPORT increasing local taxes ?
NO
GOOD FAIR POOR OPIN
al. the ballot language will require that all tax
revenues can only be spent on a list of
specific projects approved by the voters, and
the elected officials cannot change this
expenditure plan unless voters first give
their permission ............................ 55 22 19 4
a2. this proposed tax increase will sunset and end
after 10 years unless the voters approve an
extension .............. ~ .................... 51 24 23 2
a3~ county roads are in serious need ,of maintainance
and repair and there is not enough money avail-
able. This is our best chance of getting
things'fixed ................................ / 46 23 29 2
a4. state and federal monies are not· ~vailable to
make the necessary road and transportation
.system improvements. We need to take respons-
ibility ourselves for solving this problem. 35 24 .38 3
a5. by inCreasing our local taxes by a reasonable
amount, we will be able to receive our full
share of state and.federal road funds which are
only available if local governments put up an
equal amount of their own money to match the
43 29 24 4
government.. .................................
6b. OPPONENTS say __(a)__. Is this a good, fair or poor reason to
OPPOSE increasing local taxes ? '
NO
I' GOOD PAIR POOR OPIN
al. taxes are too high already. Increasing them
will make it diffiCult for the poor and ·
senior citizens on fi~ed incomes ............ 51, 27 22 0
a2.. money raised from a tax increase would be better spent on other things, like public.schools,
law enforcement or public health care ....... 39 27 33 1
· a3. so much money, is now being wasted by the trans-
portation bureacracy that if we pass this tax,
this money will probablybe wasted too ...... 52 21 23 4
a4. we don't get enough back from the taxes we
. already pay to the State. ~We don't need to
pass another tax. · · 55 £0 22 3
"
.' a5. highway and road improvements should be paid for
by the State and Federal governments, not by
local taxpayers ............................. 49 21 26 4
6c. Now that you've hoard some of the statements made by supporters and
opponents, would you support or oppose __(a)__ ? Is that *
strongly or just somewhat ?
(2 PART INTRO - REPEAT CHOICES AS NEEDED) ' SUPP SUPP OPPS OPPS NO
STRG SOME STRG SOME OPIN
· al. increasing the county sales tax by 1/2 cent
for 10 years ........................... 17 27 42 12 2
a2. increasing the County sales tax by 1/4 cent
for 10 years. .......................... 21 27 39 12 1
' i." ' a3. increasing property.taxes by $15 dollars a
year, per parcel., for 10 years ......... 14 17 58 9 2
a4·. increasing property taxes by $25 dollars a
year, per parcel for 10 years · 7 7 73 11 2
'":''-'' Moving on.
7. Quite often, during political campaigns, groups or indiViduals will
speak out and endorse ballot measures such as' increasing local taxes
· ·~ ·· to pay for needed road or transportation system improvements. Next I'll
ask your opinion of a list of groups.
· ·· · If (a) were to endorse a local tax measure to imProve local roads
· ' or transportation systems, would you likely react favorably .or unfavorably
-' to their opinions ?
. UN- NO NO
.. FAVR FAVR DIFF 0PIN
:' ' al. the Kern County Board of Supervisors .......... 44 · 41 10 5
,a2. your local city council ....................... 44 39 9 8
a3. the Kern County Council of Governments ~ 36 39 10 15
a4. the Building Association of Kern County ....... 31 47 9 13
a5. the Sierra Club of Kern County ................ 27 55 7 11
a6. the League of Women Voters ............... ; .... 37 45 9 9
a7. the Chamber of ·Commerce ' 42 39 10 9
aS. the Kern County Association of Realtors ........ 26 54 9 11
ag. the Foundation 36 41 10 13
Kern
Transportation
al0. the Golden Empire Transit District ............ 35 43 9 13
all. the Bakersfield Smart Growth Coalition ........ 21 43 7 29
a12.. the Kern County Taxpayers Association ......... 47 35 8 10
al3. the Kern Economic,Development Corporation ..... 38 38 7 17
al4. the DoWntown Business Association ............. 34 44 8 14
al5. triple A, the Automobile Club of Southern
California ................................... 46 39 8 7
Next I'll ask your opinion of a list of possible i~provements for your
local area.
*** AS~ ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING SETS ***
*** ARVIN / LAMONT ***
93203 / 93241
In your community., would you give a high, medium or low Priority
to (a) ?
ROTATE: EVEN~DOWN. .. 1 , ' NO
ODD-UP ...... '2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
al. widening Bear Mountain Boulevard to four lanes
from the eastern city limits to Highway 99. 34 23 34 6
a2. widening Weedpatch Highway to four lanes from
Route 223 north to Route 58 60 li 23 6
a3. widening Comanche (cuh-MAN-chee) Road to four lanes from Bear Mountain Boulevard north to
Panama Road ................................. 46 23 29 0
a4. widening Wheeler Ridge Road to four lanes from
Bear Mountain .Boulevard to Interstate 5 ..... 46 11 34 6
~a5. widening Derby Road/Tejon (tub-HONE) Highway to
fou~ lanes from Herring Road to Highway 58. 34 11 40 11
' ' Bb. In summary, which ONE of those project would you give the highest
' ,. priority to completing first ?
?
· WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : __ (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
i .'i ' *** CALIFORNIA CITY / C~NTIL ican-TIL) ***
, 93505 / 93519
ga. In your community, would you give a' high, medium or low priority
i to __(a)__ ?
ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. .. 1 NO
ODD-UP .... ;. 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
I al. widening Route 14 to four lanes from Mojave north
.:' with an interchange at California City BlVd. 66 17 6 11
.. a2. building, a Route 58 interchange at California
Boulevard ................................... 34 23 34 9.
a3. widening California City. Boulevard to four lanes
:~ .' from Route 14 easterly ...................... 29 46 23 _ 3
a4. widening California' City Boulevard to four lanes
from Route 58 northerly. .................... 40 17 40 3
a5. building a new 20 Mule .Team Road to connect with
Route 58 ............... ~ .................... 23 17 60 0
a6. paving several dirt arterial roads including
:-' Mendenbone, Neuralia (neh~RAIL-ee-uh, South
Loop, North Loop, Redwood and Hacienda ...... 40 34 .23 3
: 9b. In summary, which ONE of those project would you give the highest
i ~ :' priority to completing first ?
'" WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
*** BAKERSFIELD / EDISON (ED-ih sun) ***
MANX ~ / 93220
10a. In your community, would yOu give a high, ·medium or low priority to (a) ?
ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. .. 1 NO
ODD-UP ...... 2' HIGH MED LOW OPIN
al. widening Route 58 to six lanes from Cottonwood
24 31 41 4
Road to Highway 99 .................... · ......
a2. completing the Kern. River Freeway west from
Highway 99 to Interstate 5. 38 33 23 7
a3. extending Route 178 from Oswell (OZ~well) Street·
east to Alfred Harrell Freeway with inter-
changes at Fairfax, Morning Drive and Kern ,-'
Canyon Road .............. ..... ~ ..... · ......... 24 .35 35 5
a4. extending the Route 178 crosstown freeway from the existing freeway through do~wntown to the
Highway 99~Route 58 interchange.' 40 27 27 6
a5. realigning Route 178 and constructing a new
Kern Canyon Freeway to Lake Isabella 35 30 32 3
a6. widening, Route 46 to four lanes from 1-5 to the
San Luis Obispo County line. .'.....: ......... 58 21 16 5
aT. widening Route 65 to four lanes from Bakersfield
to the Tulare County line ....... · ............. 32 24 34 10
aS. widening Golden State Avenue to six lanes from
Highway 99 to "Q" street .................... 13 21 60 5
ag. extending Oak street north from 24th Street, over
- the river to Sellect Avenue, with an inter-
change at 24th Street ....................... 29 33 33 4
al0. extending Mohawk Street north from Truxtun
(TRUCK-stun) Street to Hageman Road ......... 29. 30 34 7
all. widening 7th Standard Road to four lanes from
Highway 99 to Interstate 5 .................. 39 22 35 4
al2. widening the White Lane interchange to six lanes
at Highway 99' with improved on and off ramps. 47 27 23 3
al3. widening Panama Lane to four lanes from Wible
(WYETble) Road west to complete the widening
project and fill in the gaps ........... : .... 37 34 24 5
al4. extending Morning Drive north from Niles Road to
Round Mountain Road. 15' 28 47 10
alS. widening the Olive Drive interchange, to six
lanes,over Highway 99 and improving on and
off ramps ......................... · .......... 27 30 39 5
al6. constructing a Hageman Road overpass over Highway
99 from Fruitvale to the Golden State Highway 26. 31 36
10b. In summary, which TWO of those project would you give the highest
priority to completing first ?
WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBERS : AND
(RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)----
*** DELANO / GLENNVILLE / WOODY *** ' 93215 / 93226 / 93287
lla. In your community, would you give a high, medium or low priority to (a) ?
ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. .. 1 'NO
ODD-UP ....... 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
al. realigning the Highway' 99 on and off ramps
through town ................................ 41 9 50 0
a2. realigning the Highway 99 on and off ramps and
widening Woolomes (WOOL-ums) Rd.to four lanes 22 '17 59 2
a3. widening Garces (GAR-sus) Highway to four lanes
from Highway 99 to Browning with a railroad
undercrossing .......................... ..... 41 ~S 46 0
a4. widening Rout~ 46 to fou~ lanes from Highway
99 to the San Luis Obispo County llne ..... ~.. 80 13 '4 2
a5 extending the Garces Highway west to Interstate
5 ............................................. 50 17 30 2
a6. widening and realigning Cecil Avenue to four
lanes from Highway 99 east to Browning Road '
with a'railroad undercr0ssing ........ ....... 59 9 30 2
lib. In summary, which ONE of those project would you give the highest
priority to completing first ?
WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : __ (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
*** sHAFTER / BUTTONWILLOW *** 93263 / 93206
12a. In your community, would you give a high, medium or low priority to~ (a) ?
ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. .. 1 NO
ODD-UP.. ..... 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
al. widening Route 43 to four lanes from Euclid
(YOU-clid) Street to 7th Standard road ...... 23 6 66 6
a2. widening Route 46 to four lanes from Interstate
5 to the San Luis Obispo County line ........ 89 6 6 0
a3. widening Route 46 to four lanes from Highway 99
to Interstate 5 .............................. 83 ' 6 11 0
a4. widening 7th Standard Road to four lanes from
Highway 99 to Interstate 5 .................. 34 17 46 3
a5. widening Lerdo (LARE-DOE) Highway to four lanes _
from Shafter to Interstate 5 ................ 29 11 60 0
a6' widening Zerker (ZER-ker) Road to four lanes
from the Lerdo Highway to the south Shafter
city limits - 17 0 77 6
' 12b. In summary, which ONE of those project would yOu give the highest
priority to completing first ?
WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
*** McFARLAND ***
I '
.'' ' 93250
13a. In your community, would'you give a high, medium or low priority to __(a)__ ?
ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. . . 1 NO
ODD-UP ...... 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
Ial. widening Route~46 to four lanes from Interstate
5 to the San Luis Obispo County line ........ 84 16 0 0
a2. upgrading the Whisler (WHISS-ler) Rd/Highway 99
interchange ................................. 16 16 64 4
...... a3. constructing a new frontage road on the west.
' ~"" side of Highway 99 from Whisler Road ~o
Sherwood Road ............................... 32 ~6 ~ 48 4
I'/]' a4. upgrading and repairing the pedestrian over-
crossing over Highway 99 ' ' 32 24 40 4
13b. In summary, which ONE of those project would you give the highest
i ' priority to completing first ?
WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
! -
I ~- *** TAFT / FELLOWS / McKITTRICK / TUPMAN / MARICOPA ***
93268 / 93224 / 93251 / 93276 / 93252
I 14a. In your community, would you give 'a high, medium or low priority
": to __(a)__ ?.
ROTATE: ~EVEN-DOWN. . . 1 NO
· ODD-UP ...... 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
,." al. widening Route 119 to four lanes from Route 33
to Interstate 5 ............................. 58 19 23 ~ 0
· a2. widening Route 119 to four lanes from I-5 to
.Highway 99 .................................. 58 14 28 0
'.. a3. widening Route 33 to four lanes from~Cascades
I ' road to Midway Drive ' 14 5 53. 28
a4. widening Route 33 to four lanes from Taft to
Maricopa .................................... 23 14 58 5
I a5. raising the Route Highway grade
166/Maricopa
from Route 33 to Old River road to prevent
. road flooding .......................... '... ~ . 49· 14 33 5
I 14b. In summary, which ONE of those project would you give the highest
priority to completing first ?
I ' WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : __ (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
*** TEHACHAPI / CALIENTE / KEENE / GOLDEN HILLS *** 935~1 / 93518 / 93531
15a. In your community, would you give a high, medium or low priority
: · to__(a)__ ?
'm ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. .. 1 NO
ODD-UP ...... 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN.
mal. constructing climbing lanes on Route 202 from
Woodford/Tehachapi (teH-HATCH-uh-pee) to Bear
Valley Road ................................. 19 28 33 2.1
ma2. constructing Route 58 on and off ramps at
Dennison Road ' ' 9 23 63 5
a3. extending Red Apple Road-from Tucker Road to
Westwood Boulevard .......... ................ 23 ,~ ~ 58 14
a4. realiging Tehachapi Boulevard from Hayes Road
to Dennison Road. .~ ......................... 14 14 63 9
. a5. extending Valley Boulevard east to Dennison. .. 23 14 58 5
15b. In summary, which ONE of those project would you give .the highest
priority to completing first ?
WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
*** WASCO / LOST HILLS / CHOLAME (sho-LAME) ***
93280 / 93249 / 93461
16a. In your community, would you'give a high, medium 'or low priority to (a) ?
i.. ~ al. widening Route 46 to four lanes from Highway 99
· to Interstate 5 with a railroad overcrossing. 66 34 0 0
a2. widening Route 46 to four lanes from Interstate
· ~·' 5 to the San Luis Obispo County line ........ 66 21 14 0
a3. realigning. Route 43 along "J" Street south of
Route 46 ............................ . ........ -14 ' 41 28 17
a41 extending Poso Street west to Scofield Road. .. 28 28 34 10
· 16b. In summary, which ONE of those project would you give the highest
priority to completing first.?
.... WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
*** ROSAMOND *** 93560
17a. ~n.your community, would you give a high, medium or low priority
- to (a)
ROTATE: EVEN- DOWN. . . 1 NO
~i! ODD-UP ...... 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
al. realigning and widening Tehachapi/Willow
Springs Road .......... ~ ...................... 10 26 64 0
a2. widening 30th Street West to four lanes from
Rosamond Boulevard south to Avenue "A" ...... 21 10 69 0
- .. a3. widening Rosamond Boulevard with a railroad
overcrossing at Sierra Highway .............. 59 10 31 '0
a4. widening the Route 14/Rosamond Boulevard inter- '"
26 21 49 5
change .... . .......... . ........................
17b. In summary, which ONE of those project would you give the highest
'~-'. ~. priority to.completing first ?
WRITE IN'QUESTION NUMBER ~ (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
1
*** MOJAVE / BORON / NORTH EDwARDs / EDWARDS AFB ***
93501 / 93516 / 93523 / 93524
1Sa. In.your community, would you give a high, medium or low priority
to (a) ?
ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. . . 1 NO
' ODD-UP ...... 2 HIGH MED Low OPIN
I i' · al. constructing a Route 14 railroad overcrossing
~.',.. ~ north of Mojave ............. - ........ .~ ....... 54 17 29 0
" a2. extending "K" Street north from Mono Street to
~ ~' Route 14 .................................... 40 23 23 -14
"' ~ 1Bb. In 'summary, which 'ONE of those project would you give the highest
priority to completing first ?
I . WRITE IN- QUESTION NUMBER : __
** LAKE ISABELLA / BODFISH / KERNVILLE / ONYX / WELDON / WOFFORD HEIGHTS ***
93240 / 93205 / 93238 / 93255/ 93283 / 93285
I .~' 19a. In your community, would give a high, medium or low pr,iority
you
to (a)
ROTATE: EVEN-DOWN. . . 1 NO
I ODD-UP ...... ' 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
. al. realigning and upgrading Caliente Bodfish Road
~- '~ from Caliente (coll-ee-EN-tee) to Bodflsh. .. 39 20 24 17
a2. building a new Route 178 freeway on a new align-
' ~ ment from Bakersfield to Lake Isabella ...... 61 5 29 5
I '. 19b. In which ONE of those project would give the highest
summary,
you
priority to completing first ?
'i ~ WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : __
*** FRAZIER PARK / PINE MOUNTAIN CLUB / LEBEC ***
' 93225 / 93222 ' / 93243
20. In your community, would you give a high, medium or low priority
to (a)
HIGH MED LOW OPIN
al. widening Frazier Mountain Road and providing
climbing lanes ...... -..'.. ..................... 21-' 34 41 0
*** RIDGECREST / RANDSBURG / JOHANNESBURG / INYOKERN ***
93555 / 93554 / 93528 / 93527
2la. In your community, would you give a~high, medium or low priority
to (a) ?
ROTATE: -EVEN-DOWN. .. 1 NO
ODD-UP ...... 2 HIGH MED LOW OPIN
al. raising Route 178 from Ridgecrest Boulevard
easterly, for flood control ................. 26 26 37
Road to Route 14 37 1·9 37 6
a2.
extending
Bowman
west
a3. widening China Lake Boulevard to 4 lanes
through Ridgecrest Heights .................. 23 19 53 5
a4. paving major city streets, including Downs,
Upjohn, Drummond, Richmond and Mahan (MA-han) 50 10 37 3
a5. paving major existing ~ounty roads west and
south of the city limits .... L ............... 44. 23 34 0
2lb. ~n summary, which ONE of those project would you give the highest
priority to completing first ?
WRITE IN QUESTION NUMBER : (RE-READ "HIGH" CHOICES IF NECESSARY)
22. Now, after having heard a list of possible projects in your local
area, would you support or oppose __(a)__ ? Is that strongly or
-
just somewhat ?
(2 PART tNTRO - REPEAT CHOICES AS NEEDED) SUPP SUPP OPPS OPPS NO
STRG SOME STRG SOME OPIN
al. increasing the county sales tax by 1/2 cent
for 10 years ........................... 24 24 38 13
a2. increasing the county sales tax by 1/4 cent
for 10 years ........................... 27 26 36 11 0
a3. increasing property taxes, by $15 dollars a
year, per parcel, for 10 years ......... 16 16 57 9 2
a4~ increasing property taxes by $25 dollars a
year, per parcel,.for 10 years ......... 8 8 72 9 3
And now, a few questions for classification purposes ...........
dl. May I ask your age is ?
what
18-29 .......... 6
30-39 .......... 18
40-49 .......... 22
50-64 .......... 28
65+ ............ 26
REFUSED ...... 0
d2 Do you own or rent your place of residence ?
. OWN ........ ~ ... 81
~ ..''. RENT ........... 15
- ' OTHER ........ 4
d3. Are you a member of any of the following ethnic or.
.i.. -... or minority groups -? ( READ LIST -~IF YES, CIRCLE ITEMS )
Are you ... ? YES
al hispanic or latino.~ ....... 11
a2 asian .....................
a3 black/african-american .... 2
a4 handi-capped or disabled. 9
a5 other . 2
a6 NONE. ' 76
d4. For.statistical purposes only : What was the approximate total income of your household last year. Was it
$ 20,000 or less ..... 17
$ 20,000 - 40,000 .... 24
$ 40,000 - 75,000 .... 30
or $ 75,000 or more ..... 20
( REFUSED ) ....... 9
d5. Do you have any children 18 years or younger living at home ?
YES ~4
NO ................... 66
d6. What was'the last year of formal education which you
Icompleted ?
HIGH SCHOOL .......... 32
SOME COLLEGE ......... 37
COLLEGE GRADUATE ..... 21
GRADUATE SCHOOL ...... 10
d7. How long have you lived in Kern County ?
less than 5 yrs 7
5 - 10 yrs ........... 13
10 - 20 yrs .......... 18
· more than 20 yrs ..... 42
lifetime ............. 20
dS. In terms of your political outlook, do you consider yourself a
Conservative, a Moderate or a Liberal ?
I
COnSERVaTIVE .......... 48
~ODERATE .............
LIBERAL 10
dg. Do you work outside your home ? "
YES .................. 57
NO .... · ............... 43.
dl0. What mode of transportation do you use most often to get to work ?
Do you ... ? ( CIRCLE ANY )
... drive by yourself ......... 58
ride.the bus .............. 1
carpool/vanpool ........... 4
ride a bicycle ............ 0
ride a motorcycle ......... 0
walk ...................... 1
work at home .............. 2
or use some other mode ....... 1 DK~/ REFUSED ............ 33
'·· ··~' d11. Do you consider yourself to be an environmentalist
..'." ' YES .................. '49
· NO ................... 52
[....: d12. Do you ·regularly read the (a) newspaper ?
I ~'' YES
al. the Bakersfield Californian ......... 61
a2.- the LA Times ........................ 14
I a3. a local community paper. ..-.:... ..... 46
Thank you very much, goodday ./ goodnight
INTERVIEWER CERTIFICATION :
I I certify that I conducted the foregoing interview, asking a~l
questions in their entirety, as written, and circling the responses
given by the following respondent :
CLUSTER # :
I NAME :
PHONE NUMBER : . -
INTERVIEWER SIGNATURE
.............................................. ~ ............ ~--~---
SAMPLE INFORMATION.
I CT: CD :
: CC: SD :
I CO: 'kD ':
RNT: SP : ,
I L98: :
ETHNIC
i .................. 1 REG DATE : 1984 and earlier 1
1 1985 - 1991 ..... 2
I G94 : 1 1992 - 1993 .... 3
1 1994 - 1995 ..... 4
P96 : 1 1996+ ........... 5
1
I G96 :
1 ZIP CODE :
P98 :
1 PRECINCT :
I G98 : 1
~ CODE :
1
TOT : 1 ID# :
1
Ii ................
VBM :
IDEMO = 40
REPB = 50
.. OTHR = 10
I MALE = 45
FEML = 55
KERN CLUSTER POINT
. MM-99-508 ~ INTERVIEWER #
J.MOORE METHODS
· · ·· ' 1127 llth St. #1050 TIME BEGUN :
Sacramento, CA 95814 TIME ENDED :
· (916-444-2727)
(FAX-444-6457)
I
Hello, may I please speak With __ ?
NOTE : ONLY THE NAME ON THE.SAMPLE SHEET QUALIFIES FOR THE INTERVIEW.
Hellol I'm with'JMM Research. We're conducting a public opinion
poll among registered voters in Kern County. The survey takes 3 to 4·
minutes to complete, and it involves ~answering questions and giving me
your opinions on a variety of local County issues.
We are interviewing registered voters, chosen at random, in the county.
can you give me 3-4 minutes to participate in the survey ?
1. In general, ho you have a great deal, some or very little confidence in
· - the ability of your local government leaders to do their job.-?
-.~..' . GREAT DEAL ...... 21
· ' VERY LITTLE ..... 16
I
.. NO OPINION .... 4
(
The Kern County Transportation Authority is considering placing a
measure on the ballot next year . The official ballot question reads as
follows:
SPLIT SAMPLE 1st PASS READ 2a ..... 1 .2nd PASS READ 3a ..... 2
1st PASS - SAMPLE SIZE = 400
"Shall the Kern County Transportation Authority be authorized ·to
impose a transaction and use tax of ONE-QUARTER of one percent for a
period not to exceed 5 years, to be used solely to:
* improve safety on existing streets, roads and highways,
* to maintain existing streets, roads and highways,
· and to provide transportation services for senior citizens and
persons with disabilities.
· · i!.' 2a Would you vote "yes "or "no" on this ballot measure ?
¥~8 ............. 61 YES-STR~ m 37,
NO~ ............. 33 YES-SOME = '34
NO-STRG = 23
NO OPINION .... 6' NOrSOME = 10
I
2b. In your own words, what were your reasons for voting on this
measure ?
!
2C. The sales tax increase measure I just read to you was proposed for
five years. Would you support or oppose a sales tax increase of 1/4 cent
for three years instead of the 1/4 cent for five year plan ?
SUPPORT · 49 SUPP-STRG = 25
OPPOSE .......... 43 SUPP-SOME = 24
OPPS-STRG = 31
NO OPINION .... 8 OPPS-SOME = 12
2nd PASS '- SAMPLE SIZE = 400
I "Shall the Kern ~ounty Transportation Authority be authorized to
impose a·transaction and use tax of ONE-HALF of one percent for a
'. period not to exceed 5 years, to be used solely to:
· * improve safety on existing streets, roads and highways,
'-·· * to maintain existing streets, rOads and highways,
I * and to provide transportation Services for senior citizens and
'~.'~i.. persons with disabilities.
I ·-· 3a. Would you vote "yes "or "no" On this ballot measure ?
YES. ............ 61 YES-STRG = 35
NO .............. 33 -YES-SOME = 26
NO-STRG 24 '
NO OPINION .... 6 NO-SOME = 9
I ~· 3b. In .your own words, what were your reasons for voting on this
measure ?
i 3c. The sales tax increase measure I just read to you was proposed for
five years. Would you support or oppose a sales tax increase of 1/2 cent
· for three years instead of the 1/2 cent for five year plan ?
SUPPORT. ..' ...... 48 SUPP-STRG = 26
I '
OPPOSE .......... 40 SUPP- SOME = 22
OPPS- STRG = 31
· NO OPINION .... 12 OPPS-SOME = 9
::: And now, some quick questions for classification purposes.
I ~ dl. For statis~ica! purposes only : What was the approximate'
' total income of your household last year. Was it ....
"~.. $ 20,000 or less ..... 18
I · · $ 20,000 - 40,000 .... 30
"~ '$.40,000 - 75,000 .... 30
· . or $ 75,000 or more ..... 20
(REFUSED) ' 2
I d2. Are you a member of any of the following e~hnic or
or ·minority groups ? ( READ LIST ) '
"~ YES
,.. : al. hispanic/latino ........... 'ti
. -. a2. asian/pacific american .... 2
a3. black/African-american .... 3
I "' a4. handicapped or disabled. .. ~
· · NONE ................ : . . . 77
' d3. In terms of your political outlook, do you consider yourself a
I . Conservative, a Moderate or a Liberal ?
CONSERVATIVE ......... 52
· '.' MODERATE ............. 33
i !~' . ' LIBERAL .............. 10
- .:". . DON ' T KNOW ........ 5
i.. Thank you very much, goodday / goodnight
i INTERVIEWER CERTIFICATION :
- I certify that I conducted the foregoing interview, asking all
questions in their entirety, as written, and circling the responses
given by the following respondent :
· " ~ · · CLUSTER # :
· NAME :
. PHONE NUMBER : -
I . INTERVIEWER SIGNATURE
. ~.. _ ......... . ....................... ~ ............ . ............ ~ ........ ~ .........
I ... SAMPLE INFORMATION.
" CT: CD :
I CC: SD :
CO: AD :
I · RNT: SP :
' i ........ ' .......... 1 ETHNIC ':
1
I G94 : 1 REG DATE : 1984 and earlier
1 1985 - 1995 .. .... 2
P96 : 1. 1996 - 1997 ..... 3
1 1998+ ........... 4
i .'... ~' G96 : 1
P98 : i ZIP CODE':
G98 : 1 PRECINCT :
· CODE : :
TOT : 1
'~ VBM : DEMO = 40
REPB = 49
OTHR = 11
I .. MA~E=45
FEML = 55
! .
!
BAKERSFIELD
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 2000
TO: Jake Wager
FROM: David Lyman~~-~'
SUBJECT: Completion of URM projects
In December 1999, ten projects which had applied for reimbursement through the URM
Reimbursement Program were given a one month extension to complete work. These projects
had an additional 30 days to provide documentation that the work was complete and that all bills
were paid.
Each of these projects has been completed, and paperwork submitted, by the deadline.
Only four projects remain outstanding:
· three projects have until later this year to complete work, due to lack of response from
the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) which delayed our ability to complete the
necessary environmental documentation, and
· one project which the property owner claims is two separate buildings, but which our
research shows to be a single structure. As a courtesy, we are allowing the property
owner more time to gather appropriate documentation. This project has been completed,
and all paperwork submitted.
With the exception of these projects listed above, the URM Reimbursement Program has been
closed.
dl:SSDavid L\Completion ofURM projects.wpd
DEPARTMENT OF RECREATION AND PARKS
DATE: March 1, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Stan Ford, Director of Recreation and Parks
SUBJECT: National Aquatic Safety Award
It is my pleasure to inform you that the department has been notified that we
are the recipients of the Silver National Aquatic Safety Award for 1999. This
award is presented by the international aquatic safety firm of Jeff Ellis &
Associates, Inc. (E&A).
The staff earned this recognition based on their performance during
"surprise" operational audits that were conducted during the summer. The
evaluation of the staff's performance indicates that the citizens of Bakersfield
"are consistently being afforded with the highest degree of swimmer
protection currently available for the aquatic industry." For 1999, only ninety-
one of E&A's 476 clients earned similar recognition.
I believe that this honor is reflective of the excellent preparation, training, and
supervision that our aquatics staff receives. Sally Ihmels, Holly Larson, and
their staff should be commended for their outstanding work. Additionally, this
award demonstrates that the staff is achieving the department's goals of
safety, quality, and service.
c: Citizens Community Services Advisory Committee
Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager
John Stinson, Assistant City Manager
JEFF ELLIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
"INTERNATIONAL AQUATIC SAFETY CONSULTANTS"
SOUTHWESTERN OFFICE: 13204 CLOUDVIEW NE · ALBUQUERQUE NEW MEXICO §7123 · (505) 293-7"/87 FAX: (505) 294-0977
RONALD W. RHINEHART
Vice President
February 1'8, 2000
Ms. Sally Ihmeis
Bakersfield Parks and Recreation
4101 Truxton Ave.
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Re: "1999 Silver National Aquatic Safety Award"
Dear Ms. Ihmeis:
We are pleased to notify you that your lifeguard staff has been awarded our
firm's prestigious "Silver National Aquatic Safety Award" pursuant to
consistently "exceeding" our criteria for aquatic Safety certification this year.
While I am sure that the swimmers who frequent your aquatic facilities already
recognize the professionalism exhibited by your lifeguard staff, it is important to
inform them that only ninety one (91) of four hundred seventy six (476) E&ATM
clients earned this distinction in 1999. Accordingly, they are.consistently being
afforded with the highest degree of swimmer protection currently available for the
aquatic industry.
Please extend our profound congratulations to every member of your aquatic
safety staff for their commitment to "professional excellence" and desire to "make
a difference" for those who frequent your aquatic facilities.
Sincerely yourS,
Jeff Ellis & Associates, Inc.
Ronald Rhine~
Vice President
RWR/sas
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
February 29, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Alan Christensen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Referral # WF0018385
Red Light Enforcement
The issue of red light enforcement has been placed on the agenda for the next joint
City/County meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, March 20th.
AC:rs
City of Bakersfield ~ *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018385 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 2~28~00
REQUEST DATE: 2/23/00
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 9:03:27
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: ~'r~'r: ~23~00
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/06/00
GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: CARSON ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNKAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO ASST. CITY MANAGER, ALAN
CHRISTENSEN***
CARSON REQUESTED STAFF PLACE THE ISSUE OF RED
LIGHT ENFORCEMENT ON THE NEXT INTERGOVERNMENTAL
RELATIONS COMMITTEE AGENDA FOR REVIEW. COPIES
OF PETITIONS FORWARDED TO ALAN CHRISTENSEN.
Job Order Description: RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT Category: CITY MANAGER
Task: ~RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: CITY MANAGER
START D~TE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE / /
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Jack H~disW, Development S~ce
SUBJECT: Chap~al I~
This morning's fire at the Chaparral Inn (333 Union Avenue) involved a stack of carpets outside the
vacant wing. These were to be used to renovate some of the units. The fire charred the fronts of
four units and did some smoke damage to their interiors. Cleanup of the mattresses, doors and
debris was about 70 percent complete and they were not involved in the fire.
There are residents in the front wing and this fire raises our level of concern about their safety. The
Chief Code Enforcement Officer is arranging a coordinated compliance inspection with the Fire
Marshal, Building Inspector and Environmental Health Inspector. Most of the hallway smoke
detectors were operational this morning. However, other habitability issues should also be
evaluated.
FEB 2 8 2000
BAKERSFIELD
Economic ~d Comm~ Development Dep~ment
MEMORANDUM
February 25, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Directo~x'~_ ~_
SUBJECT: Council Referral # WF0018384 Response - Fark~g Fund for New Building
Downtown
On February 23, Councilmember DeMond asked staff to review the possibility of reserving a
portion of the tax increment to be generated from the Allen School Partners project to assist in
the future development of additional downtown parking.
Regrettably, the tax increment expected to be generated from this project is already committed as
part of the assistance granted to the developer by the RDA. A brief description of that assistance
follows:
On January 24, the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency (RDA) approved Agreement RA00-1
with Allen School Partners, LLC, for the development of an office building and parking structure
at 2000 "K" Street.
The Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) provided the following terms of assistance:
1. The RDA has agreed to reimburse up to $975,000 for the costs associated with the
development of a commercial building at 2000 K Street.
2. Rebates will be made each year in semiannual installments on January 31 and July 31 of
each year beginning January 31, 2002, and ending July 31, 2013, or when $975,000 has
been rebated, whichever comes first.
3. Rebates will automatically cease after July 31, 2013.
Thus, 75% of the expected tax increment is committed for the next 11 years. The remaining 25%
also is, in essence, committed:
· state law requires 20% of each agency's annual increment to be set-aside for housing; and
· the remaining 5% is used to defray the RDA's administrative overhead costs.
Therefore, we anticipate having no funds available from the Allen School Partners project until
2013.
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
February 29, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Alan Christensen, City Manager ~
SUBJECT: Referral # WF0018387
Computer Tracking of Constituent Concerns
I have discussed this issue with Councilmember Maggard and have agreed to add funds
for software in the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 budget.
Staff is also looking into the impacts of new software and/or a new system of tracking
referrals and complaints. One option is to write a program internally, using existing
database software.
AC:rs
REQ/JOB: WF0018387 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED:
REQUEST DATE: 2/23/00
.... "~ TIME PRINTED: 9:03:23
CREW: SCHEDULE DATES
-- ~'r~'r: 2~23~00
COMPLETION: 3/06/00
LOCATION: ZIP CODE:
LOCATION ID: FACILITY NODES
GEN. LOC: FROM:
TO:
FACILITY ID: REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
· ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
REQUESTOR: MAGGARD WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR
DESCRIPTION: COMPUTER TRACKING OF CONSTITUENT CONCERNS
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO ASST. CITY MANAGER, ALAN
CHRISTENSEN***
MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF LOOK INTO UTILIZING
COMPUTER SOFTWARE TO TRACK CONSTITUENT CONCERNS.
STAFF TO REPORT BACK ON THIS ISSUE.
Job Order Description: COMPUTER TRACKING OF CONSTITUENT CONCERNS CiTY MANAGER
atgory: asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: CITY MANAGER
ST~T DATE ./__/__ c°7373°~ ?~T~ .... / "'
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
March 3, 2000
TO: Councilmember Couch
/'1.,~
FROM: John W. Stinso/~n,~As~stant City Manager
SUBJECT: Referrals dated 2/23/00
The following are staff responses to the referrals made by you on 2/23/00.
#1 Question: Prepare a letter of support for AB 1303 in its current form.
Response: Staff prepared a letter which was sent by City Manager, Alan Tandy
per your request. A copy is attached.
#2 Question: Staff to draft a letter to Kern County Waste Management asking them
to explain their position on our request regarding commercial disposal
fees.
Response: The Public Works Department has sent a letter to the County
requesting that the issue of Bakersfield's commercial disposal fees be
placed on the next Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee
agenda in order to identify county staff's reasons against accepting
our methodology. A copy of the letter is attached.
#3 Question: Send a letter to Aneta L. Adams regarding traffic congestion studies.
Response: Ms. Aneta Adams was contacted and a letter was sent by .Traffic
Engineer, Steven Walker in response to her correspondence
concerning traffic congestion and signal synchronization. A copy is
attached.
Councilmember Couch
March 3, 2000
Page 2
#4 Question: Request that staff provide clarification to the Palm/Olive residents
regarding the issue of universal trash collection and the status of the
trash cans in the event Palm/Olive residents vote to detach from the
City.
Response: Assistant City Manager, Alan Christensen has prepared a memo
which is attached, that provides the responses to your questions on
this issue.
#5 Question: Schedule a workshop regarding the feasibility of a joint police/fire
facility in the southwest.
Response: The City Manager's Office will schedule this for a workshop at a
Council meeting in late March or in April.
BAKERSFIELD
Alan Tandy · City Manager
February 28, 2000
The Honorable Betty Karnette, Chair '
Senate Transportation Committee
The State Senate
Capitol Building, Room #3086
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Support for AB 1303 (Florez) Highways: Local Projects; Funding
Dear Senator Karnette:
The City of Bakersfield is strongly in support of AB 1303 which currently provides additional
transportation revenue directly to cities and counties and attempts to provide equity in the
distribution of the public's gas tax.
AB 1303 currently proposes to shift ~ cent of the gas tax each year until 2.5 cents are
permanently distributed to cities and counties, following the historical distribution of gas tax monies
between cities and counties, providing 50% to each. In addition, AB 1303 allocates $300 million
from the State Highway Account cash balance to cities and counties for reconstruction and storm
damage, and also requires $300,000 to be appropriated for a new division within CalTrans which
will have the responsibility for collecting and accessing data on local road and highway conditions
and integrating that data into state transportation plans.
We would appreciate your support of AB 1303 as proposed. This will greatly assist cities and
counties in providing needed improvements to their public transportation infrastructures.
(P:WrXL0002281)
cc: Members of the Senate Transportation Committee
Local State Assembly Members and State Senators
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Public Works Director Raul Rojas
Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater
League .of California Cities
City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office ° 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield ° California · 93301
(661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 852-2050
Letter of February 28, 2000
Support for AB 1303 (Florez) Highways: Local Projects; Funding
Senate Transportation Committee
Senator Betty Karnette, Chair
Senator Joseph Dunn, Vice Chair
Senator Jim Costa
Senator Liz Figueroa
Senator Tom Hayden
Senator David G. Kelley
Senator Dick Monteith
Senator Bill 'Morrow
Senator Kevin Murray
Senator Richard G. Polanco
Senator Richard K. Rainey
Senator Jackie Speier
~ ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018390 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 2~28~00
REQUEST DATE: 2/23/00
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 9:03:14
SCHEDULE DATES
~CATION: $'1'~_~'1': z~23~00
3CATION'ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/02/00
GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: AB 1303
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO TRUDY SLATER - ADMIN. ANALYST***
COUCH REQUESTED STAFF PREPARE A LETTER OF SUPPORT
FOR AB 1303 IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
Job Order Description: AB 1303 CatDgory: CITY MANAGER
Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: CITY MANAGER
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / /
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager __~
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director-,~
DATE: March 2, 2000
SUBJECT: COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL FEES
Council Referral #WF0018389/001, Councilmernber Couch
Staff has prepared the attached letter to Kern County Waste Management Department
(KCWMD) requesting that the issue of Bakersfield's commercial disposal fees be
placed on the next Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee (SWMAC) agenda.
This will provide staff an opportunity to present arguments supporting the City's position
and perhaps gain a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) over the
position expressed earlier by County staff. Out of this will come a record of the County
staff's reasons against accepting our estimate methodology.
~ KB:smp
c: Kevin Barnes, Solid Waste Director
G:~GROUPDA'r~SOLIDWASTE\COUCH_COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL FEES.wpd
March 2. 2000 ~/~ --
. ,..... ~
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(661) 326-3724
DI;tECTOR, CITY ENGINEER SOLID WASTE DIRECTOR
March 2. 2000
Daphne Washington, Director
Kern County Waste Management Department
2700 M Street, Suite 500
Bakersfield, CA 93301
RE: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY AGENDA ITEM
PAYMENT OF COMMERCIAL REFUSE BIN FEES ON A PER-TON BASIS
Dear Ms. Washington:
Following our meeting on February 25TM at which we discussed this topic, I received a copy of
the "Taft Agreement" (Kern County Agr. #277-98) from your office. We appreciate your
assistance, and the opportunity to pursue the same course of action used by the City of Taft.
However, before we enter such an agreement, we would like the Solid Waste Management
Advisory Committee (SWMAC) to consider our issue for a possible recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors (BOS). Our issue is that, since collection routes may mix City/County
generated refuse for the sake of efficiency, the best way for the City to pay for its share of
these loads is by 'a fair estimate of the weight.
Although you expressed your opinion'that the BOS would not want to consider an estimate
method, we feel that considera~tion is warranted Accordingly, we request an opportunity to
present this item for SWMAC discussion and action on the next meeting agenda, We will
provide handout material for our presentation.
S~Cer
Solid Waste Director
c: Rauf Rojas, Public Works Director
¸Smp
S/LETTERS~D_WASHINGTON._COMMERCIAL REFUSE BIN FEES wpd
Marcr~ 2. 2000
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
4101 TRUXTUN AVENUE (661,~ '~26-3114
BAK,:~RSF[ELD, CA 93309 Fax (661) 852-2114
City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
~ WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
RE~/JOB' WF0018389 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 2Z25Zo
REQUEST DATE: 2/23/0~
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 13:02:53
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: ~'l'~'l': ~23~0
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/02/00
GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL-
DESCRIPTION: COMMERCIAL DISPOAL FEES
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
COUCH REQUESTED STAFF DRAFT A LETTER TO KERN
COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT ASKING THEM TO EXPLAIN
THEIR POSITION ON COMMERCIAL DISPOSAL FEES.
Job Order Description: COMMERCIAL DISPOAL FEES
Cat~gory: PUBLIC WORKS ...............
Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / /__
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR~-"~ ~- ....
DATE: MARCH 1, 2000
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF001839'1/001, WARD 4, TRAFFIC
CONGESTION CORRESPONDENCE.
"COUCH REQUESTED STEVE WALKER SEND A LETTER TO ANETA L. ADAMS
REGARDING TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES THROUGH NEW
FREEWA YS/PARKWA YS. "
A letter was sent, by Traffic Engineer Stephen Walker, to Aneta L. Adams in response to
her correspondence concerning traffic congestion and signal synchronization in the City
of Bakersfield. A copy of the letter is attached.
cc: Traffic Engineering File - WF0018391 .SignalSynchronization.ref.wpd
stw: P:\DATA\WP\1999\WF0018391 .SignalSynchronization.ref. wpd
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93301
(661) 326-3?24
RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR · CITY ENGINEER
February 29, 2000
ANETA L. ADAMS
· 12800 OVERTON STREET
BAKERSFIELD, CA 93312
Re: TRAFFIC CONGESTION STUDIES LETTER
Dear Aneta L. Adams:
Thank you for your recent letter to Councilman Couch regarding traffic congestion studies
and the need for synchronized, or coordinated, traffic signals in Bakersfield.
As we discussed by phone a few days ago, many of our major streets are coordinated to
increase the efficiency of traffic flow. At this time, about 100 of our 240 City maintained
traffic signals are synchronized so that the traffic signal timing is coordinated. The oldest
area of coordinated signals bY synchronization is the Downtown area. Those were set up
with a simple time clock coordination nearly 30 years ago. The first computer controlled
time synchronization of signal coordination was implemented on California Avenue from
Oak to Stockdale Highway.
As more traffic signal controllers were replaced with units that could be coordinated, more
major street corridors were placed in a coordinated operation. These units have a very
accurate computer clock to maintain timing coordination of the individual signals. To avoid
the drifting time clock and effects of power outages or surges, most signals Ere being
connected by a cable of wires to transmit the clock pulse to each signal and maintain
synchronization.
Some of the traffic corridors that are coordinated are: Gosford/Coffee from Truxtun to
White Lane; White Lane from Wible to Ashe; California from Oak to Stockdale; New
Stine/Stine from Stockdale to White Lane; Stockdale Hwy from New Stine to Ashe Road;
Ming Ave from Castro Lane to Ashe Road, and others. Rosedale Highway is not a City
maintained roadway and is n°t fully coordinated by Caltrans.
Because even the best coordinated system will not flow if there is too much traffic on the
road, new freeways or parkways and improved connections are needed. This was outlined
in the report by Jack LaRochelle to the Council on a systems approach for new roads and
freeway conhections to reduce congestion, as was mentioned in your letter.
We continue to make improvements to our coordinated signal systems. Traffic conditions
change and traffic volumes increase. We also take advantage of various State and Federal
grants to improve traffic flow through coordination of new signals and revisions to existing
signals. Modeling programs and equipment aid in developing new timing programs to keep
traffic moving as efficiently as possible and still accommodate traffic in all directions.
While past studies and implementation of new coordination timing plans for the signals
have resulted in great reductions of stops and travel times, additional improvements are
needed to meet the changing traffic demand and increases in traffic volumes on major
streets. The Traffic Engineering Staff continue to adjust signal timing and add more
segments of coordinated streets each year, but more must be done to. reduce the
congestion caused by too much traffic which overloads any coordinated street system.
Coordinated signals have reduced the impact of high volumes on our roads, but they
cannot eliminate the congestion that continues to grow with development. We believe that
improved freeway connections, extensions and intersection upgrades will greatly help in
reducing the congestion as the community grows.
I hope our phone conversation, and this letter, have answered your concerns about our
traffic conditions in the City and future growth. If you have further questions, or other traffic
concerns in the City, please contact me at 326-3724.
Public Works Director
by Stephen L. Walker
Traffic Engineer
cc: Councilman Couch
Traffic Engineer
slw: P:\DATA\WP\1999\VVF0018391.SignalSynchronization.ltr.wpd
City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018391 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 2~25~00
REQUEST DATE: 2/23/00
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 16:26:22
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: STAK'r: 2~23~0~
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/02/0
GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES'
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: ~COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: TRAFFIC CONGESTION CORRESPONDENCE
CONTACT
ANETA L. ADAMS Phone 1 661 - 3281800 (
4800 EASTON DR., STE. 114 Phone 2 -
(
Bakersfield, CA 93309-9324
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO TRAFFIC ENG. - STEVE WALKER***
COUCH REQUESTED STEVE WALKER SEND A LETTER TO
ANETA L. ADAMS REGARDING TRAFFIC CONGESTION
STUDIES THROUGH NEW FREEWAYS/PARKWAYS.
Job Order Description: TRAFFIC CONGESTION CORRESPONDENCE Cat~gory: PUBLIC WORKS
Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE /
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
February 29, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Alan Christensen, City Manager/~
SUBJECT: Referral # WF0018392
Universal Collection and Trash Cans
Regarding trash service is those areas were to detach, please see the following
information:
· Varner Brothers would continue to provide the service. They currently own the truck
and the brown cans. The City owns the green cans and we have offered to sell the
cans at a reduced price to Varner Brothers to avoid having to change out the cans.
That issue is still unresolved.
· The Board of Supervisors has already approved the City's service (brown can,
green can) currently provided by Varner Brothers for the area around Palm-Olive.
If they detached, the service would, essentially stay the same, but there would be
no mandatory collection, unless the County authorized it at a later time.
· If detached, the new rate authorized by the County would be $11.95 per month.
The City's current rate is $11.50 per month.
· If detached, the Palm-Olive citizens would no longer receive the senior discount of
50% of the regular monthly bill. The City offers it; the County (Varner Brothers)
does not.
AC:rs
~--~ ~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018392 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: ~ 2~28J00
REQUEST DATE: 2/23/00
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 9:03:10
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: S'i'A~'±': 2~23~00
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 3/02/00
GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: COUCH ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: UNIVERSAL COLLECTION & TRASH CANS
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO ASST.. CITY MANAGER, ALAN
CHRISTENSEN***
COUCH REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE CLARIFICATION TO
THE PALM/OLIVE RESIDENTS REGARDING THE ISSUE
OF UNIVERSAL TRASH COLLECTION AND THE STATUS OF
THE TRASH CANS IN THE EVENT PALM/OLIVE RESIDENTS
VOTE TO DETATCH FROM THE CITY.
Job Order Description: UNIVERSAL COLLECTION & TRASH CANS
Category: CITY MANAGER
Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: CITY MANAGER
START DATE __/__/__ COMPLETION DATE
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
DATE: MARCH 1, 2000
SUBJECT: REPAIR OF CONCRETE GUTTER AT KROLL WAY & CAMINO DEL
OESTE. Referral by Councilmember Rowles
Councilmember Randy Rowles has referred to staff a formal request from Mr. Dean Gay
to repair the broken concrete gutter, located at the south west corner of Kroll Way and
Camino Del Oeste.
Work to repair the broken concrete has been scheduled by the Street Division. The
repairs will be performed during the week of April 10, when the Stockdale Elementary is
out for spring break. Since the needed repairs are on the radius (corner), they will also
install a wheelchair ramp.
G:\GROUPDA~STREETS\Gutter Repair. Rowles.wpd
02/23/00 12:12 ~'805 328 1027 C 0 B PUBLIC WKS ~]001/001
(~OOl/0Ol
oz/z~,/0o 1o; 2,1. FAX .......
DavidGay
1501 T~ Av~e
1 ~ ~fi~ ~g~d to a brok~ co~e ~t~- Io~ i~ St~d~e E~at~ ~ t~ Sout~es~
co~cr oF~oll W~y and Camino Del Oos~. For ov~ ~o years, the City ofB~c~fidd ~
b~ p-~og ~he ~er ~th a~hdt which ~Y ~a~ ~ ~w mont~. ~s comcr is sdja~m to
Stockd~ Elem~t~ ~ok ~d it is oac of thc ~gh~ Ua~ ~a~ of ~:r ~ghhor~d.
~ the upco~og Sp~ B~ ~ ~n~ when t~ akmota~ ghool ~a vae~ion.
lf~u ~d ~y adaifiooal i~o~t~n reg~ding ~s m~, ple~ ~onta~ m~ at 2g3-9119.
I::fFred Sands
DATE: March 1,2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Director Of Rec. & Parks~~
FROM:
Stun
Ford,
SUBJECT: Council Ref. WF0018147 "Turf-Kern River Parkway"
Councilmember Rowles referred a request from the Kern River Parkway Committee to investigate
the possibility of turfing about one (1) acre of the north shoreline at Lake Tmxtun. Department staff
has met with the Water Department staff to discuss ideas as to the best method in achieving this.
We have also discussed this with the Kern River Parkway Committee.
"Salt" grass, which is native to this area was the original choice but researching the availability it
proved not to be cost effective. We have located a grass mix that is native to the area and has the
approval of the Kern River Parkway Committee.. Some of the activities involved in the project are:
removal of about 6" of top soil and then import clean fill dirt; grading of the area; trenching for the
irrigation lines and the installation of irrigation pipe and heads; and finally the planting process. The
estimated cost of completing this project is $5,000 which does not include dirt removal and the clean
top soil. In order for this project to be completed we will have to budget $5,000 in the next fiscal
year.
We are estimating the maintenance of this new area would consist of litter pickup, mowing the area
two times a year and minimal irrigation repairs. This yearly cost is estimated at $1,500. The project
can begin at anytime depending on the availability of staff and what projects they are involved in at
the time. It is estimated that this project would take about 3 weeks to complete.
B A K E R S F I E L D ®
1990
C~TY MANA~E~ S OFFiCE~
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~~--~
FROM: Stan Ford, Director Of Rec. & Parks
DATE: March 1, 2000
SUBJECT: Centennial Plaza Tree Lights - Councilmember Sullivan Referral
Councilmember Sullivan requested we install lights on all of the trees in the Plaza. We
have ordered the outdoor lights for the trees and we should be receiving them within the
next week. They will then be installed on the various trees in the Plaza area. We are
also investigating replacing the individual outlets at the tree wells with a more heavy
duty outdoor waterproof electrical outlet. More and more problems are occurring with
the present outlets when they get wet causing them to short out.
RECREATION AND PARKS
-' 4101 Truxtun Avknue o Bakersfield · California · 93309
(661) 326.FUNN o Fax (661) 861-0864
MEMORANDUM ~' '" ~
FEB 2 9 2000
~t',i"? ,.,'~:'~ .... ; ':7 '.: '. ":-.iCE~
February 29, 2000
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: ALAN D. DANIEL, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. WF00183861002
IDLING TRAINS AT PACHECO ROAD
On two separate occaSions I have attempted to reach San Joaquin Valley Railroad
which I am given to understand owns the railroad line upon which the idling trains are
sitting at Pacheco Road. After failing to reach a Mr. Tom Northrup, the track
superintendent for San Joaquin Valley Railroad, I have written the attached letter in an
attempt to resolve the difficulties being experienced by Mr. and Mrs. Stewart.
Please call if you have any questions.
ADD:dlr ~
Attachment
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager (w/encl.)
Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney (w/encl.)
Jack La Rochelle, Engineering Services Manager (w/encl.)
Lori Aguilar, Administrative Assistant
S:\COUNClL\Referrals\RRMmo2.wpd
CITY ATTORNEY
Bart J. Thiltgen
Robert M. Shcl-fy
DEPUTY CITY A'VI'ORNEY
Alan D. Da~¢l
Allen M. Shaw
Waltrr H. Port, .Ir.
Mich., c. ^,fo.~ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
C~I Hcrnandcz III
Janicc Scanlan OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Virginia Gcnnaro 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE
Andrew C. Thomson BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TELEPHONE: 661-326-3721
Lori A. Aquilar FACSIMILE: 661-852-2020
February 29, 2000
Tom Northrup, Track Superintendent
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY
221 North "F" Street
Post Office Box 937
Exeter, California 93221
RE: Idling Trains at Pacheco Road
Dear Mr. Northrup:
Members of the City Council have referred to staff a letter from Stephanie and Bryan
Stewart regarding idling trains at Pacheco Road between New Stine Road and Wible Road
herein Bakersfield, California. It appears this particular railroad line is owned and operated
by San Joaquin Valley Railroad. It is my understanding that these idling trains sit on this
particular line all night with their engines running thereby causing the local residents
discomfort. The complaints involve the lack of ability to sleep, and the constant vibration and
noise caused by these idling diesel engines.
I have attempted to call yOu on two separate occasions. On February 25th, and
February 28th of 2000, I telephoned and, after paging you, the secretaries related to me that
you were not available. In both instances I left voice mail message; however, you have not
responded to these telephone calls.
The City of Bakersfield would like a resolution concerning the idling of these trains at
Pacheco Road. If possible, please relocate these engines to a new location further away
from residential areas.
Tom Northrup, Track Superintendent
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY
February 29, 2000
Page 2
Please contact me at once and let me know if we can reach a productive solution to
this problem.
Very truly yours,
Deputy City Attorney
ADD:dlr
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney
Jack LaRochelle, Engineering Services Manager
Brian & Stephanie Stewart
S:\COUNCIL\Referrals\SanJoaquinRR.Ltr.wpd
.'~ ! ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
- 3 ?_OOO
March 3, 2000
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: ALAN D. DANIEL, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: ' COUNCIL REFERRAL NO. WF00183861002
FOLLOW-UP ON IDLING TRAINS AT PACHECO ROAD
On March 1,2000, I received a telephone call from Mr. Northrup who works for San
Joaquin Valley Railroad. Mr. Northrup admits San Joaquin Valley Railroad owns the
railroad line at Pacheco Road between New Stine Road and Wible Road. Mr. Northrup
further informs me that, as of February 2, 2000, the railroad had ordered the winter idling
of the trains to cease. I have attached a memo from Mr. Keith Barksdale, Superintendent.
of Operations, concerning the shutting down of locomotives. The memorandum is dated
February 2, 2000 and tells the trainmen to begin shutting down locomotives at the end of
their tour of duty (shift). Thus, it appears the problem of idling trains will be largelY :. '~'.. ·
eliminated for the short term.
The City will continue delving into this problem to determine whether future
occurrences can be avoided. We have formally requested that idling trains be moved
further away from the residential areas.
Please call if you have any questions.
ADD:dlr
Attachment .
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager (w/encl.)
Bart J. Thiltgen, City Attorney (w/encl.)
Jack La Rochelle, Engineering Services Manager (w/encl.)
Lori Aguilar, Administrative Assistant (w/encl.)
S:\COUNCIL\Referrals\RRMmo3.wpd
To: ~lt trmnmeo
tour ol'dutv to conse~'e thel. Of ~mr~, this wall only apply ii'you do not have
in~l fuel.ions ~om manag~nt or mcchani~ lbrces to the ,mtr~
ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER