HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/00 BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
May 19, 2000
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~7-b.,/,
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Congratulations to Jake Wager on his promotion. Jake has been an extremely hard
worker who has been involved in many highly beneficial projects. He will be missed.
I am going to have Alan Christensen filling in as "acting" Economic Development
Director during the recruitment time period. Some of Alan's duties in this office will
be temporarily shifted to others to free up some time. We'll start the recruitment
promptly.
2. We got a disappointing response from the FAA on the idea Ray Bishop came up with
to improve airport and airpark safety. We will consult with Mr. Bishop on how to
appeal. On a safety issue, we should not accept their initial "bureaucratic" denial.
3. Responses to questions from the budget hearing on May 15th are enclosed.
4. Channel 23 aired an editorial on May 20th regarding the tobacco settlement monies
to be received by the County. It is their view that the County ought to share some of
those funds with the City.
5. An update on the progress of the red light enforcement project is enclosed.
6. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
Carson
· Update on Union Avenue and Baker Street motels;
· Requests to waive administrative fees for abatement at 3513 Lotus Lane and 711
Union Avenue (this was from the last Council meeting);
· Information on how transportation fees are assessed to buildings;
· Information regarding possible one-time revenues available during upcoming
budget deliberations and next fiscal year.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
May 19, 2000
Page 2
DeMond
· Contact property owner of Bakersfield Hotel regarding utilization of the structure.
· Parking / sidewalk issues regarding residence at 2613 Cedar St.
Maggard
· Arrange meeting regarding system of warrants used to determine stop sign
installation.
Couch
· Inquiry from citizen suggesting creation of park at sump on Akers between Planz
and White Lane.
Salvaggio
· Condition of sump behind 3000 Agate Street;
· Refrigerated trucks running all night near Smoke Tree Mobile Home Park.
AT:rs
cc: Mayor-Elect Harvey Hall
Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Trudy Slater, Administrative Analyst
BAKERSFIELD
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 326-3751
Fax: (661) 324-1850
FAX TRANS.MISSI,ON
To: Ray Bishop Date: May 16, 2000
Kern County
Director of Airports
Fax #:. 861-3322 Pages: 3 Pages (including cover sheet)
From: Alan Tandy
City Manager
Subject: Air Space
Comments: What to you suggest we do in light of this response?
Western-PadlOc: Region P.O. Box 92007
~/odclway Post~ Cen~er
Los Angeles, GA 90009
U.S. Deparb'nent
of TransportaUon
Federal Aviation -,~-~ - ..__
Administration -:' -~: .':?' ~,'~""~'-,
HAY 10 2000
Mr. Paul Rojas
Public Works Director
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Rojas:
Thank you for your letter of March 29, requesting that the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) expand the controlled airspace of Bakersfield Meadows Field
Airport (BFL) to include the Bakersfield Municipal Airport (L45) and reclassify the
airspace from Class D to Class C.
The current BFL airspace area is reflective of FAA policies and regulations concerning
airspace design. FAA Order 7400.2D, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,
provides criteria and guidance for. regulating and classifying airspace. This order
stipulates that surface areas are designated to provide controlled airspace for terminal
instrument operations at the primary airport. In the case of the BFL airspace, it meets
those criteria. Under those same criteria, L45 is excluded to allow unrestricted access for
aircraft arriving and departing L45.
Class C airspace classification requires a minimum of 75,000 annual instrument
operations or 250,000 annual enplaned passengers. BFL does not currently meet these
criteria, however we will reexamine these numbers again in July of this year.
Under existing federal regulations (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91),
aircraft cannot be prohibited from operating near the airspace associated with BFL.
Any aircraft must receive an Air Traffic Control (ATC) clearance to enter or transit the
Class D airspace associated with BFL, and must comply with instructions received from
ATC. Aircraft operating outside of the BFL Class D area, not under the control of ATC,
must see and avoid other aircraft. The FAA only intervenes when an aircraft violates a
specific regulation: If you believe that an aircraft is being operated in violation of a
regulation or in a manner that might endanger persons or property, please contact the
FAA Flight Standards District Office in Fresno, California, at (559) 487-5306. ___,.___,
r2_, I*"
2
While safety is our number one priority, we are obliged to balance the needs of all our
customers. Currently; there is no requirement for controlled airspace, to the surface, at
L45. Under current FAA policy and regulations concerning airspace, it would be
inappropriate for the FAA to include L45 in the BFL Class D airspace area.
If you have any questions or desire further information; please contact John Clancy, Air
Traffic Division Manager, Western-Pacific Region at (310) 725-6500.
Sincerely,
William C. Withycombe
Regional Administrator
FY 2000/01 BUDGET WORKSHOP
QUESTIONS/RESPONSES
Date: May 15, 2000
Question Response Councilmember
No. 1: How much hotel tax revenue would be Based on rates being quoted to the Bureau, a conservative estimate Couch
generated based on average room rate and is $462,000.
projected room night goal?
No. 2: What process needs to be followed by the Any material change to the location of a fire station would require Couch
City and County legislative bodies to change the formal adoption of an amendment to the JPA. The amendment would
location of a fire station in the Joint Powers have to be presented for adoption to both the City Council and Board
Agreement, and amend the Agreement? of Supervisors. Once adopted, the amendment would then be filed
with the respective entity's clerk, and any modification to the
allocation of funds would be conveyed to the Kern County Auditor-
Controller.
No. 3: 1) What would it take to implement an This item requires that a more detailed analysis be done regarding Maggard
Emergency Vehicle Locator program for the Fire the potential costs and ability to phase and coordinate systems
and/or Police Departments? 2) What are the between City Police and Fire as well as County Fire and Sheriff's
alternatives or options for phasing in this program? 3) departments. Staff will also need to meet with County personnel to
Can the cost for such a program be shared between determine possibilities for any sharing of costs between agencies.
the City and County?
No. 4: What are the issues involved in utilizing 1) Possible inappropriate use by the bus drivers with no control limit; Couch
emergency pre-emption deVices on GET buses? 2) More frequent disruption of traffic and increased traffic backup
caused by bus pre-emption; 3) The need to replace older devices to
accommodate bus pre-emption; and 4) Possible compromise of
emergency vehicle and public safety by adding bus pre-emption to
the signal operation.
No. 5: How does Bakersfield's population compare Stockton's population of 247,333 exceeds Bakersfield's of 237,222 by Salvaggio
to other California cities including Stockton? 10,111.
No. 6: What would it take to add a development fee Each of these must meet certain legal requirements including Couch
that would pay for future fire stations and other establishing the need for the facility and determining whether a
infrastructure needs, proposed development benefits from the proposed infrastructure.
Based on the appropriate findings the Council could choose to
impose developer fees for these types of facilities. Notice to the
public and subsequent hearings must be held, and voter approval is
required for forming an assessment or facilities district. California
Government Code section 66001 details the process.
~' '~RE AT ER BAKER'SFIELD '
I 0 N ~ V I $ I T 0 R $ - B U R E A U
Fi'om: .Jo~Mero~ ~; ::~. ' .
Date: ~ 'MaY 1:/~ gOO · ~ } : } }
::Re,:::::::Bud et:::,:~orkSho :Question
g~3 ~h ~he hUesti°n, "How much hotel t~ rev~nU~ Wo~a ~ ~ne~at~d based on .
rate ~d projected roomnight goal~ the f~:~ i~ ~xPl~med below.
:. :~ :~he~VB h~ established ~ an ~ml gO~i t° ~ ~00 ~o~ ~ghts. Th~ is strictly
: :t~ough convemion and amate~ spoa~g ::~nt~ ~ ~ hd~el rates berg
qUoted
to
the b~eau, ~ c~e~atively ~ticiPat~ h°t~~!l~i°nscpom t~s so,ce at . '
$462,000. (20,000 room mghts.x $65 x I2 Yo ~d ~;~00 room mghts x $75 x 12 ~)
.. Additio~ll~ the b~eau ~i~ ~P~~: i~000 visitor reque~s received t~ough
the Imemet, telephone :and fa~ ~qd~i~ ~e tr~iem,~avelers ~ok roo~:
~div.idually ~d m v~i~bl~ ~at~ flep~nd~g on ~ket demand. - · ,,
AS memi~ned ~ the b~aU ~¢~ntation, the ~dustu is woah $284 ~llion to
B~etsfield, O~ ~ffo~:~ gl0ne g:~nerate $30 ~llfon to the bus,ess co--unity.
Enclosed ig ~ ~aPh dCt~:~g the sectors d~ectly affected by travel and to--mm.,,::, ~ ~
,Uffo~ely~ ~h~ b~h does not track its effect on sales an~ other t~baS~ :~ :~
j B~
Travel Spending in Bakersfield ,-~ ~ ~ ~ ~
[] Air transportation
[]]Retail sales :12% B Travel arrangements
23% 1% [] Air transportation
[] Travel arrangements
%[] Accommodations [] Accommodations
~ · 13% [] Eating & drinking
, [] Food stores
[] Recreation [] Ground transportation
10% ] Eating & drinking [] Recreation
14%
[] Ground transp°rtation · ' [] Food stores [] Retail sales
20% 7%
_ RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM M/ Y 182000
CITY MANAGER'S OF
May 17, 2000
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, City Attorney ~
SUBJECT: Response to Fiscal Year 200012001 Budget Workshop Question
The following question was raised by Council member Couch during the May 15,
2000 City Council Budget Workshop:
"What process needs to be followed by the City and County
legislative bodies to change the location of a fire station in the
Joint Powers Agreement, and amend the Agreement?"
At the May 15, 2000 meeting, the City Council was verbally advised 1) the map
showing the station locations and the Fire Agreement Area is attached to and incorporated
by reference into the Joint Powers Agreement ("JPA"), 2) any material change to the map
would constitute a change to the JPA, and 3) no change to the JP^ can occur unless
approved by the legislative bodies of the entities who are parties to the JPA. Therefore,
any material change to the location of a fire station ("material" meaning significant deviation
from the location identified on the map or causing a change to the Fire Fund allocations)
would require formal adoption of an amendment to the JPA.
To accomplish such a change, a written amendment to the JPA would have to be
prepared, including an amended "Exhibit 1" (the map) showing the change of station
location and the respective change to the Fire Agreement Area, if any. The amendment
would then have to be presented for adoption to both the City Council and the Board of
Supervisors. Assuming adoption by both entities, the executed amendment would then
be filed with the respective entity's clerk, and any modification to the allocation of Fire Fund
would be Conveyed to the Kern County ^uditor-Controller for future distribution of Fire Fund
revenue.".
BJT:laa
· $:\LAA\BUDGET',00\Workshop Ques-Fire Station Location.wpd
RECE,VcD
,AY I 7 2000
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER'S C
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~'
DATE: May 17, 2000
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL - BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS, TRAFFIC
SIGNAL PRE-EMPTION FOR BUS, WARD 4.
"COUNCILMAN COUCH ASKED: WHAT ARE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN UTILIZING
EMERGENCY PRE-EMPTION DEVICES ON GET BUSES?"
Traffic signal pre-emption devices are being used by the City Fire Department on their fire
trucks and other emergency response vehicles. In addition, the ambulance companies are
using the same system under terms of an agreement with the City. At those signals
equipped with the devices, fire vehicles are given the I'iigh priority and a green signal is
brought up for the direction the fire vehicle is heading. The same is true for ambulances,
with the exception that fire vehicles are given the priority over ambulances should both
vehicles approach the same intersection at the same time. The pre-emption disrupts the
flow of traffic and the signal coordination for a few cycles and also disrupts the progression
of the traffic flow for five to ten minutes.
To accommodate GET buses with a signal pre'emption so they can continue through the
intersection without stopping, the pre-emption devices will have to be upgraded at 15
intersections. The other intersections with the devices have more recent models that can
handle buses. This upgrade is estimated to cost about $45,000, not counting labor. Aisc,
staff will have to upgrade the software used by the pre-emption devices. This is available
from the vendor at no cost with the upgraded hardware.
In addition, the operation of the pre;emption will change. When a bus triggers the device,
the green light for the direction of travel of the bus will stay green up to the maximum time
allowed for the signal. This will. cause other directions of travel to have minimal green time
until the system returns to coordination a few cycles, five or ten minutes, later. While this
happens, the traffic flow progression will be disrupted and traffic will back up and
experience some delay. During non-peak periods of the day, the disruption of traffic flow
will be Iow, but during the peak morning and evening times, the disruption can be severe.
Page I of 2
Fire vehicles will still have the priority over buses, but fire vehicles may have to share
priority with the ambulances. Staff is checking on this problem to see if the new software
from the vendor can designate differing priority for the emergency vehicles, when buses
are also allowed to pre-empt the signal.
Since the most heavily traveled streets also carry several bus routes, the disruption of
traffic flow will happen many times an hour. Pre-emption by emergency vehicles is
sporadic and does not interrupt traffic flow for more than a brief period.
In addition, the Traffic Engineer is concerned that there is no control over the use by the
bus driver. The bus driver can turn on the device emitter on the bus and forget to turn it off,
thereby triggering pre-emptions for the bus when not needed. On emergency vehicles, the
emitter device is connected to the emergency flashing lights and is not in use when the
vehicle is not on an emergency call.
In summary, the concerns are: possible inappropriate use by the bus drivers with no control
limit, more frequent disruption of traffic and increased traffic backup caused by bus pre-
emption, the need to replace older devices to accommodate bus pre-emption and the
possible compromise of emergency vehicle and public safety by adding bus pre-emption
to the signal operation.
cc: Traffic Engineering File
slw: P:\DATA\WP~2000\BudgetQPublicWorks. 051500. PreEmption. Ward4.ref. wpd
Page 2 of 2
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
May 16,2000
TO: Raul Rojas, Public Works Direct.~~
//.--/ /
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2000/01 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS/RESPONSES
The following question raised by the City Council during budget workshop sessions
requires a response from your department and that of the City Manager. Responses are
to be in memo form and forwarded to my office no later than 5:00 pm Wednesday, May
17. All responses will be forwarded to the Council in their Friday packet.
If you have any questions or need clarification, do not hesitate to ask. Responses to
budget inquires must be immediate!
Monday, May 15,2000
Public Works: 1. What are the issues involved in utilizing emergency
pre-emption devices on GET buses? (Couch)
cc: John W. Stinson
Darnell Haynes
S:\01 budpro\Questions\CVB 051500.wpd
2000
May 17, 2000
TO: HONO~BLE MAYOR AND CI~ COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: BART J. THILTGEN, CITY ATTORNEY
By CARL HERNANDEZ III, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY(.~
SUBJECT: FISCAL YEAR 2000101 BUDGET WORKSHOP QUESTIONS
QUESTION PRESENTED
At the Monday, May 15, 2000 budget workshop, Councilmember Couch requested
a response to the following question:
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO ADD A DEVELOPMENT FEE THAT WOULD
PAY FOR FUTURE FIRE STATIONS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE
NEEDS?
SHORT ANSWER
The City may adopt a community infrastructure impact fee or impose
community facilities assessments or special taxes to pay for future fire
stations and other infrastructure needs. Each of these must meet certain
legal requirements including establishing the need for the facility and
determining whether a proposed development benefits from the proposed
infrastructure. Furthermore, notice to the public and subsequent hearings
must be held before such fees or assessments can be established. Forming
an assessment or facilities district also requires voter approval.
DISCUSSION "-
The following paragraphs set forth the legal requirements and process for
establishing community infrastructure fees as well as community facility assessments or
special taxes.
1. Community Infrastructure Fees. In order to establish a community
infrastructure fee, the City must adhere to the Mitigation Fee Act process which requires
that the City: A) Identify the purpose of the fee; B) Identify the use to which it is to be put;
C) Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the amount and the use of the fee
and the development on which it is imposed; D) Place fees in a segregated account to be
spent only for the purpose selected; E) Hold at least one noticed open public hearing to
adopt the fee which may be imposed no sooner than sixty (60) days following its adoption.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
May 17, 2000 .....
Page No. 2
2. Traditional Assessment Districts. Where appropriate, the City may impose
as a condition of development, the financing of required infrastructure and community
facilities through traditional assessment districts. Traditional assessment districts establish
an area of benefit, provide for construction of specified improvements within the area and
provide for the levy of assessments, secured by lien, against each parcel with assessments
paid over a period of time by the property owner.
3. Integrated Financing District Act. The Integrated Financing District Act
authorizes local agencies to create an integrated financing district to levy an assessment
upon owners of land within the district, which assessment is contingent upon the
development of the land. The primary purpose of this financing act is to permit a single
developer to construct a large public works improvement and to receive reimbursement at
a subsequent date from other benefitting property owners when their property is improved.
4. Facilities Benefit Assessment Plan. The City of San Diego has adopted a
facilities benefit assessment plan which authorizes imposition of a facilities benefit
assessment to established areas of benefit to pay for certain types of public improvements.
A procedure allows for apportionment of Costs for the improvements among the parcels
within the areas of benefit and levy of assessment liens against each parcel which must
be paid before the issuance of a building permit. The facilities benefit assessment, plan
includes financing for water lines, parks, libraries and a fire station. The facilities benefit
assessment plan has been upheld by the courts.
5. Effects of Proposition 218. With'respect to the above-noted assessment '
districts, Proposition 218 requires voter approval prior to imposing' such assessments.
Proposition 218 supercedes and significantly increases manY of the existing requirements
for imposing special assessments. Therefore, practically speaking, the use of special
assessment districts to finance public infrastructure may be limited to situations Where
large landowners, as a condition of approval to develop, establish these assessment
districts as part of the subdivision process. Prop 218 requ!res specific notice, protest and
hearing requirements for assessments that now supercede virtUally all other statutory
requirements.
6. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act. The Mello-Roos Community Facilities
Act authorizes use of a special tax to finance public capital facilities and services in
developing areas. The Act provides for establishing a community facilities district and
allows for bond financing of various community facilities and services including police and
fire protection, park and recreation facilities and services, open space maintenance, flood
and storm protection systems, school facilities, libraries, and gas, electrical and telephone
lines and facilities. Establishing a Mello-Roos district requires a 2/3 vote of the electorate
of the district.
CH:Isc
cc: Alan Tandy, City Manager
S:\COUNClL\MEMOS%-O000-01budget workshop question2.wpd
ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER ~
MEMORANDUM
_~D ,E V, E L,._~O p~ M E N T S E R V I C E b
RECEIVED
· '~ May 17, 2000
TO: '- wk"ta-~Taxady; City Manager
FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services ~/
SUBJECT: FY 2000/01 Budget Workshop Response/
The following are responses to questions raised by the City Council at our May 15, 2000 budget
workshop session.
1. How does Bakersfield's population compare to other California cities including Stockton?
(Salavaggio)
Stockton's population of 247,333 exceeds Bakersfield's of 237,222 by 10,111 as indicated on
the attached "California Cities Ranged by Total Population".
2. What would it take to add a development fee that would pay for future fire stations and other
infrastructure needs? (Couch)
Attached is a copy of the California Government Code regrading the basis for establishing a
development fee.
CC:
Stan Grady
Dennis Fiddler
Jack Leonard
P52001 proposed bud\bud pres responses.wpd
CALIFORNIA CITES RANKED BY TOTAL POPULATION
JANUARY 1, 2000
Rank City County Population
i Los Angeles Los Angeles 3,822,955
2 San Diego San Diego 1,277,168
3 San Jose Santa Clara 923,591
4 San Francisco San Francisco 801,377
5 Long Beach Los Angeles 457,608
6 Fresno Fresno 420,594
7 Sacramento Sacramento 405,963
8 Oakland Alameda 402,104
9 Santa Ana Orange 317,685
10 Anaheim Orange 310,654
11 Riverside Riverside 259,738
12 Stockton San Joaquin 247,333
13 BAKERSFIELD KERN 237,222
14 Fremont Alameda 208,026
15 Glendale Los Angeles 203,734
16 Huntington Beach Orange 199,326
17 Modesto Stanislaus 188,286
18 San Bernardino San Bernardino 186,351
19 Chula Vista San Diego 174,319
20 Oceanside San Diego 160,753
21 Oxnard Ventura 160,305
22 Garden Grove Orange 158,332
23 Ontario San Bernardino 151,488
24 Santa Clarita Los Angeles 151,260
25 Pomona Los Angeles 147,656
~ I A 0~OF CAL~FORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Go~,~rnor
~DEPA~,TMENT OF FINANCE
OFFICE OF"THE DIRECTOR
STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 1145 ~.--,-?,.,
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-4998 . ,,...~ . '...
.t ',
May i, 2000 .,''
~-~ . ,-';' ,.,i',
Dear. Fiscal Officer:
PRICE AND POPULATION INFORMATION
APPROPRIATIONS LEMIT
The California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 2227, mandates the Department of
Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments.
Each local jurisdiction uses their percentage change in population factor for January. 1, 2000,
in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their
appropriations limit for fiscal year 2000-2001. This year, the price factor is not currently
available because the Federal Government will not provide the state's income estimate
until May 17. Please read Enclosure I for an explanation on how and when local areas will
be able to obtain this year's price factor. Enclosure II provides city and unincorporated county
population percentage changes (and Enclosure [L'--X provides county and incorporated areas
population percentage changes). The population percentage change data excludes federal and
state institutionalized populations and military populations, as noted.
POPULATION CERTIFICATION
The population ce~ification pro,am applies only' to cities and counties. Revenue and Taxation
Code 11005.6 mandates the Department of Finance to automatically certit? any population
estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller's Office. The
Department of Finance will certify, the higher estimate to the Controller, unless the
Department receives a written request not to certify Within 25 days of the completion of
the estimate. The citv or county then retains the current certified population. The Department
or' Finance ,,,,'ill only' certify a lower population estimate if requested bx' a city or county in
writing to do so bx' June I. 2000.
Address questions about the price and population data to the Demo~aphic Research Unit at
(916) 323-4086.
Sincerel,,.
Director
Enclosures R EG EIVED
¢! ,:,v {', 1 2000
FINANCE DEPT.
May 1, 2000. - Enclosure I
The price factor needed by local jurisdictions to compute their appropriations limit for fiscal
year 2000-2001 could not be calculated, in time for the May 1 mandated due date, as
explained below.' The Department of Finance (DOF) regrets this inconvenience and will
provide the price factor to local areas immediately, both on the Internet and by mail, when it
becomes available.
By law, the Economic Research Unit of the State Department of Finance uses a state income
estimate provided by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to calculate per capita
personal income. This is the price factor provided annually by DOF to local areas to calculate
the local appropriations limit. This year, the BEA cannot provide the state's income estimate
until May 17.
The Department Of Finance will place the price factor on its home page after May 17, and
mail both the price factor and the population change factor to local areas.
After May 17, the 2000-2001 fiscal year price factor can be obtained on the Department of
Finance web page: www. dof. ca. gov
To open the page containing the 2000-2001 price factor, click on: 2000-01 Price Factor used
for Appropriations Limit Calculation
Enclosure II
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions (*)
January 1, 1999 to January I, 2000 and Total p°PUlafl ..on January 1, 2000
Total'
County Percent Change -- Population Minus Exclusions -- Pooulatlml
City 1999.2000 1-1-g9 1.1-00 1.1-2000
KEF~N
ARVIN 4.26 11,363 ' 11,847 11,847
BAKERS FIELD 3.16 229,648 236,896 237,222
CALIFORNIA CITY 0.94 8,705 8,787 8,787
DELANO 3.81 29,294 30,411 35,545
MARICOPA 1.71 1,228 1,249 1,249
MCFARLAND 1.81 8,018 8,163 9,438
RIDGECREST 0.77 26,466 26,671 27,279
SHAFTER 2.34 ,11,159 11,420 11,895
TAFT 0.86 6,281 6,335 9,141
TEHACHAPI 1.25 6,777 6,862 12,618
WAS CO 2.48 14,406 14,763 20,092
UNINCORPORATED 1.38 263,101 266,742 273,822
COUNTY TOTAL 2.22 616,446 630,146 658,935
(') Exclusions include residents In state mental institutions, f~deral military Installations, and state and fede~l renal Inst~uttons. - Page 1
" RECEIV I'
MAY 0 1 ZOO0
FINANCE DEPT.
Basis For Establishing a Development Fee
California Government Code Section 66001.
(a) In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a
development project by a local agency on or after January 1, 1989, the local agency shall
do all of the following:
(1) Identify the purpose of the fee.
(2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public
facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be
made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or
66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may
be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the
fee is charged.
(3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and
the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
(4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
(b) In any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a
local agency on or after January 1, 1989, the local agency shall determine how there is a
reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public
facility or portion of ~he public facility attributable to the development on which the
fee is imposed.
(c) ~ Upon receipt of a fee subject to this section, the local agency shall deposit, invest,
account for, and expend the fees pursuant to Section 66006.
(d) For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five
years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with respect to
that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed.or
uncommitted:
(1) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
(2) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for
which it is charged.
(3) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing
in incomplete improvements identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
(4) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in paragraph
(3) is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. When
findings are required by this subdivision, they shall be made in connection with
the public information required by subdivision (b) of Section 66006. The findings
required by this subdivision need only be made for moneys in possession of the
local agency, and need not be made with respect to letters of credit, bonds, or
other instruments taken to secure payment of the fee at a future date. If the
findings are not made as required by this subdivision, the local agency shall '
refund the moneys in the account or fund as provided in subdivision (e).
(e) Except as provided in subdivision (f), when sufficient funds have been collected, as
determined pursuant to subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section
66006, to complete financing on incomplete public improvements identified in paragraph
(2) of subdivision (a), and the public improvements remain incomplete, the local agency
shall identify, within 180 days of the determination that sufficient funds have been
collected, an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will
be commenced, or shall refund to the then current record owner or owners of the lots or
units, as identified on the last equalized assessment roll, of the development project or
projects on a prorated basis, the unexpended portion of the fee, and any interest accrued
thereon. By means consistent with the intent of this section, a local agency may refund the
unexpended revenues by direct payment, by providing a temporary suspension of fees, or
by any other reasonable means. The determination by the governing body of the local
agency of the means by which those revenues are to be refunded is a legislative act.
(f) If the'administrative costs of refunding unexpended revenues pursuant to subdivision (e)
exceed the amount to be refunded, the local agency, after a public hearing, notice of
which has been published pursuant to Section 6061 and posted in three prominent places
within the area of the development project, may determine that the revenues shall be
allocated for some other purpose for which fees are collected subject to this chapter and
which serves the project on which the fee was originally imposed.
zEd tor a
Standing up for you!
It's time for Family Feud, this time it's the county vs. the city.
Your23 Editorial
The city and the county are at it again, battling each other for dollars...this time it's over tobacco
money.
At stake, is nine and a half million dollars every year for the next 25 years that the county gets
from California's tobacco settlement.
The question is is what the county plans to do with it. ~
It's up to the Board of Supervisors on how the money is spent. And the city wants some of it.
There's no requirement that the county shares the money with the city. But 35 percent of county
residents live and work in the city of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield City Manager Alan Tandy sent the county some suggestions on how he wants to
spend the money and we think he has some pretty good ideas...like funding highway
construction, road maintenance and additional downtown parking.
Your23 calls on the Board of Supervisors to do the right thing. Vote to share the money with the
city. They know what to do with it.
That's our solution...what do you think?
THIS EDITORIAL ORIGINALLY AIRED MAY 20, 2000
BY KERO-TV PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER DON LUNDY
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ~.~~-/~...~.~~
SUBJECT: Update- Red Light Camera Enforcement Project
FYI - Attached is a copy of an update regarding the red light camera
enforcement project.
01TY MANAGER'S
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Traffic Engineering Memorandum
DATE: May 12, 2000
TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER .,/~
SUBJECT: UPDATE - RED LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT PROJECT
Our team met again last Tuesday to go over the Red Light project. Sgt. Hajir Nu.riddin of
PD, Ginny Gennaro of the City Attorneys office, Darlene Wisham of Purchasing, Bruce
Deeter and Stephen Walker of Traffic Engineering make up the team.
We went over the sample RFPs and specifications of the various red light camera vendors
that had been collected by Sgt Nuriddin as well as information from various cities that have
engaged red light cameras. The RFPs can be done fairly quickly from the samples we
have collected.
Of more critical importance at this time is working with the judges and the traffic court
commissioner and court clerks. Information we have received from contacting other cities
stressed the importance of getting the presiding judges of the Municipal and Superior
Courts to agree to the red light camera concept. This will also be a big increase in workload
for the court clerks who process the tickets. Attorney Ginny Gennaro is contacting the
presiding judge to arrange a meeting. We will go over the project,' similar to what was
presented to the Council, to give him an understanding of the project. If possible, we would
like to have one or more judges be a part of the panel to select the vendor for the red light
cameras. The judges will also help us determine which type of camera they can support,
wet film or.digital. We have been advised by other cities that once we get the courts to
agree to the system and include them in the decision process, we should have no
problems with enforcement. A few cities did not include the courts in the process and they
are having severe problems getting camera tickets accepted. One city is even suing the
courts to force acceptance of the camera issued ticket.
Once we have the concurrence of the courts, we can send dut the RFPs and set a date to
review and pick a vendor. I will send an update when we have information on the meeting
with the judges and traffic commissioner.
Cc: Bruce Deeter, CE III, Traffic Engineering
Ryan Starbuck, CE III, Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering File
slw: P:\DATA\WP~2000\RedLight EnforcementTeam. update 1.wpd
MEMORANDUM
May 16, 2000 ' [
MAY Il' 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
':CITY MANAGEWS
FROM: Randy Fidler, Chief Code Enforcement Officer ~'
SUBJECT: Update on Union Avenue and Baker Street Motels
Turner Inn - As reported on April 6, 2000, the estimated costs of the asbestos removal and
demolition of the Turner Inn along with an inspection report has been completed. A change of
ownership to the parcel which contains the office, pool and pool house has occurred and is now
owned by John Sarad who may restore the premises to a productive use. Mr. Sarad also claims to
have a controlling interest in the rest of the motel. It appears the property has been partially cleaned,
palm trees trimmed and the fronts of the restaurant, office and north wing have been boarded.
Chaparral Motor Inn - The owner of the Chaparral Motor Inn is still working on violations noted
on the notice issued on March 29, 2000. Only a few violations remain outstanding. However, we
have been informed by the attorneys representing the Chaparral Motor Inn that the owner has filed
for bankruptcy. This has made any action to abate problems on the property a bit more complex but
still possible.
Valley Hi Motel - The graffiti on the motel has been abated and it remains boarded and fenced.
Brown Apartments Building - The building remains boarded pending further action. Trash and
debris have been removed from the building to permit proper inspection. If needed, Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds have been made available to abate this blighted and
dangerous building. A review of its possible historical status will be included in our consideration
of how to proceed.
Desert Star Motel - All corrections have been made regarding property maintenance and illegal
signs. They are currently in compliance.
Bakersfield Inn - A notice for the abatement of dangerous buildings was issued to the owner of the
restaurant building. Notices were also sent to the owner for weeds, trash and piles of dirt to be
abated. This issue has been through the hearing process and will be abated with the demolition of
the restaurant building.
May 16, 2000
Page 2
Procedural Options - In the event that property owners fail to take corrective action to abate the
problems, the City may use optional avenues to pursue abatement of them. The first would be filing
a civil suit which would ask the courts to direct action to eliminate blight. The second would be
using the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings which involve the Board of
Building Appeals for approval. We are working with the City Attorney's Office in determining
which would be the most appropriate form of action to take for each of the sites. Much depends on
the condition of the property and cooperation of the property owners.
Costs - In anticipation that responsibility for these properties might fall on the city, staff has
consulted with contractors to get an estimate of the costs we might have to bear if we were forced
to the extreme of demolition of the structures. The following chart is based on what contractors
would normally charge a private party. Due to the city's bid process and specifications, the costs
for the city to do this work would likely be one and a half times to twice as much.
ESTIMATED COSTS FOR ASBESTOS REMOVAL AND
DEMOLITION OF MOTELS OR RELATED BUILDINGS
Motel Parcel Asbestos Demolition Estimated
Removal Cost
Turner Inn 009-471-21 10,347 22,000 32,347
701 Union Ave.
009-471-12 124,253 122,721 246~974
009-471-13
009-471-14
009-471 - 15
Subtotal $ 279,321
Chaparral Motel 010-080-18 1,500 25,600 27,100
(Restaurant Only)
333 Union Ave.
Brown Apartments 014-270-07 20,450 76,364 96,814
Building
630 Kentucky
Bakersfield Inn 009-512-03 Survey cost & 30,000 30,000
Restaurant Removal not incl.
Total $ 433,235
Community Development Block Grant funds in the amount of $300,000 are being made available
to help out this budget year and an additional $274,302 is proposed over last year's budget of
$253,398 to address these and some other problems in the area.
MEMORANDUM
May 18, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Jack Hardisty, Development Services Dir ,e~ t~or~~.
/ -
SUBJECT: City Council Referral WF0018473 - Req~sts to Waive Administrative Fees for
Abatement at 3513 Lotus Lane and 711 Union Avenue
I have reviewed the cases to determine if there were any irregularities or special circumstances
which would justify the waiver of charges to reimburse the city for work done to abate the weeds,
debris and trash on the Union Avenue and Lotus Lane properties.
The first area of inquiry was to find out if the addresses for notification were correct. The tax
records show the ownership and addresses to be the same as used to send notices. Both the owners
signed for receipt of certified letters. None of the other notices were returned as undelivered.
Next a review of the procedures and notices was done to ensure due process.
3513 Lotus Lane
Officer Danny Webster mailed the first notice of violation for overgrown weeds and vegetation and
large pieces of concrete on January 4, 2000. The second notice scheduling an abatement hearing
for February 22, 2000 was mailed on February 11,2000. This notice again advised him of the need
to clean up weeds, vegetation and concrete. It contained underlined statements that if the condition
was not corrected he would be charged $145 administrative fee and cost of clean up. The notice and
order was mailed on February 22 with the hearing officer's decision and giving notice of the 1 O-day
appeal period to City Council, which Mr. Souers admits to receiving. He did not appeal to the City
Council. This notice was sent regular mail as were the other notices. After the work was done Mr.
Souers signed for the certified mail for the assessment notice.
During the Chief Code Enforcement Officer's conversation with Mr. S0uers, he explained that the
cost of abatement was higher than a lot that only had weeds because his lot had large pieces of
concrete. Mr. Souers stated that after receiving the notice of the hearing officer's decision and the
appeal process, he tried to contact Officer Danny Webster for an extension rather than the City Clerk
as directed in the notice. He stated Danny did not return his call and he then went on vacation.
Danny Webster stated he never received a message from Mr. Souers.
Mr. Souers had over a month to clean the lot from the date of the last notice to the.time.Xhe~c~mmae~ ....
was signed on March 28, 2000. ~.C~V~)
I
~CITY MANAGER'S O~F~C~
Alan Tandy
March 18, 2000
Page 2
711 Union Avenue
This is a vacant lot behind a motel on Union Avenue. On February 10, 2000, the first notice to
clean up the weeds, trash, discarded furniture and rubbish was sent to Champakbhai Patel at his
address of record, 711 Union Avenue. A second notice was sent on February 25, 2000 advising him
of the potential $145 administrative fee and cost of clean up if he did not correct the condition. He
was also given a public hearing date of March 7, 2000. The third notice, after the public hearing
ordering clean up of the property and opportunity to appeal to the City Council was sent on March
8, 2000. When he failed to do either, Blake Arnold Construction was retained to do the work.
On April 3, 2000, Code Enforcement Officer Gary Fenstermaker, met with Blake Arnold
Construction at 711 Union Avenue to abate weeds, junk, trash and debris. Upon arrival, Gary was
met by the owner of the property, Champakbhai Patel. He stated that he had been out of the country
and had not received any notices. However, the manager of the hotel had received the notices but
had neglected to forward the notices to Mr. Patel or to clean the premises. Gary informed Mr. Patel
that the property had gone to hearing and that the contractor was hired to dean the property. At that
time, Mr. Patel told Gary to have the contractor clean the property. The property was cleaned by
Blake Arnold Construction.
On May 12, 2000, Chief Code Enforcement Officer Randy Fidler, talked with Mr. Patel about the
clean up. He again stated that the manager did receive the notices but that he was out of the country
and the notices were never forwarded nor was he aware of the problem. Mr. Fidler told him that
the City paid for his lot to be cleaned and that it was his responsibility to see that the lot was
maintained.
Taking into consideration the above information I do not believe waiver of the administrative fees
would be warranted.
B A KE R,S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
May 18, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~ ~
FROM: John W. Stin sistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Coun¢ilmember Carson question regarding possible one-time
revenues.
At the May 10th City Council meeting Councilmember Carson requested that staff provide
information regarding possible one-time revenues which could be available during the upcoming
budget deliberations and then next fiscal year. The City budget evolves throughout the fiscal
year and changes as a result of a variety of circumstances. Economic cycles may change the
stream of revenues to the City, particularly for revenue sources such as sales taxes or motor
vehicle fees which are directly related to retail and auto sales activity. It is not unusual for
Federal and State grants to become available throughout the fiscal year which also may result in
additional funds becoming available. Additionally, the City may receive contributions from
groups or individuals for specific purposes throughout the year.
There are several potential sources of additional revenues which may become available. They
include the following:
· Based upon updated information we receive from the State, scheduled for June 23rd,
there may be an adjustment in sales taxes. The June sales tax information allows us to
refine our estimates and have in the past resulted in both increases and decreases in our
initial estimates. Based upon the strong economy, it is more likely that this information
could be positive this fiscal year. The June sales tax information will be available on
approximately June 23rd. However, any positive information could possibly be offset by
shortfalls in other revenue items or a shortfall in uncommited appropriations (budgetary
savings) in the current year. We cannot be certain of the final General Fund ending
balance until all revenue and expenditure accruals (including any funds carried over from
Council Contingency) and auditor adjustments have been finalized, which occurs on or
about October 1st. Any unanticipated beginning balance would be available for additional
appropriation in the 2000-01 fiscal year or remain uncommitted to become part of the
beginning balance for the 2001-02 fiscal.year as determined by the City Council.
S:~lOHN~Budget\One-Time Revenue Memo.wpd
· The State budget continues to evolve and could result in additional revenues for the City
depending on what is adopted by the State. It is likely we will not know what the specific
amounts available are until sometime in the fall. Some of the State budget proposals
involve competitive grants and allocation formulas which are not clearly defined until
after the budget is adopted. The State budget is likely to change depending on what is
agreed to by the Legislature and the Governor, so it is difficult to project what the final
funding to local government will be. Who knows, but with the State having a large
surplus, optimism for big money may be in order.
The Governor's revised FY 2000-01 budget includes the following significant items:
Local Fiscal Relief- $250 million in one-time discretionary funding to local
governments. The funds would be allocated in the same manner as $150 million local
governments received this year--50 percent based on population and 50 percent based on
local governments' contribution to their counties' Educational Revenue Augmentation
Fund. This could mean as much as $1 million additional in discretionary one-time
funding to the City, depending on the formula ultimately adopted.
Local Streets and Roads - $500 million is earmarked for deferred maintenance of local
streets and roads ($400 million) and State highways ($100 million).
COPS Program - Extend the $100 million COPS program through fiscal year 2004-05.
An additional $21.3 million will be provided to ensure that each local law enforcement
agency will receive at'least$100,000. The long-term extension of the program and the
guaranteed minimum funding.level of $100,000 will encourage the hiring of additional
sworn peace officers.
Technology Grants for Local Law Enforcement - The Budget also includes $100
million for one-time competitive grants for local law enforcement agencies. Of these
funds, $75 million will be available to local law 'enforcement agencies for
high-technology equipment. The remaining $25 million will be provided for school
safety, juvenile crime, and anti-gang purposes.
Much of the funding which may be provided by the State is allocated on a grant or other
competitive basis. Also most of the funds (with the exception of the Local Governmental
Relief portion) are for specific purposes and not available for unrestricted General
Government purposes.
· Funding from Proposition 12 and Proposition 13 may become available during the FY
2000-01. It has been indicated to staffthat the $2.5 million from Proposition 12 and $2.5
million from Proposition 13 for Kern River Parkway projects has been included in the
Governor's revised budget. The State has indicated the City will be the lead agency,
S:X.lOHNXBudget\One-Time Revenue Memo.wpd
however these funds would be subject to an allocation process and other agencies have
expressed an interest in receiving a portion of these funds for eligible Kern River
Parkway projects. The allocation process and criteria for funding projects has yet to be
finalized. Additional funding available for both Proposition 12 and Proposition 13 will
not likely be available during th 2000-01 fiscal year as allocation formulas and
regulations to apply for funds are being formulated, so funding will probably occur
during FY 2001-02.
· The City Council established the Facilities Replacement Reserve, to provide funds for the
replacement of major facilities, or should something justify and require the use of these
funds.
· The City is currently involved in various litigation which may result in settlements which
would provide for a recovery of costs incurred by the City. Generally, these would be
nominal amounts. The city is a plaintiff in one substantial case and a trial date is
calendared between now and budget adoption. There have been about four trial date
postponements already and, of course, we don't know what the outcome will be so the
range is from nothing to a seven figure number.
· The City Council has sent a resolution to the County asking for a share.of the Tobacco
Settlement monies. While there is no legal obligation for them to share these funds with
the cities, them remains a possibility that they would be willing to either commit these
funds to projects or services that benefit all County residents (including those within
cities) or contribute to joint projects that would benefit both residents in the incorporated
and unincorporated-areas,, such as the funding of Vehicle Locatorsand Mobile Data'~ :': ......
Computers for public safety vehicles, for example.
· The City typically makes mid,year budgetary use of one-time funds, f or-capital.items,
non-recurring expenditures or other special circumstances which may occur outside the
normal budgetary process. Examples over the past several years have included:
[] Use of State Booking Fee revenue to fund City contribution for Kern County
Airport Terminal.
[] Use of State local government ERAF funds for re-payment of proposed $2.1
million loan for street repairs and resurfacing
[] Contributions for anti-grafitti educational and promotional activities
[] Grant funding for curbside collection of used oil and oil filters
[] State grant for Traffic Offender Enforcement Program
[] Use of lawsuit settlement funds to pay for outside counsel in bum dump litigation
[] Use of PG&E rebate revenue for retrofitting traffic signals with LED's
[] Use of PG&E rebates for Arena Suite upgrade improvements
[] State grant for Amtrak Railway Station construction
[] State grant revenues to acquire Kern River Parkway property
S:XJOHNXBudget\One-Time Revenue Memo.wpd
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy - City Manager
FROM: Raul M. Rojas - Public Works Director
DATE: May 12, 2000
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0018468
Transportation Fees Assessed to Buildings
The Transportation Impact Fee was adopted by the City Council in June, 1992. The intent of the fee
was to have new development pay its pro rata share of new regional transportation infrastructure that
would be required by new development. This fee has been developed based on the fact that different
land uses types will place different demands on the regional transportation system. Those types of
uses whose impact on the roads system is higher will pay a higher fee (For instance, an apparel store
and a fast food restaurant may be the same size, but the fast food restaurant will have up to 20 times
as many cars visiting it- "trips" - as will the apparel store. Therefor, the fast food restaurant would
pay more impact fees than the apparel store).
This has resulted in a schedule of fees for different uses based on the size of the project and the
average daily vehicular traffic (ADT) generated by that project. The Transportation Impact Fee
Schedule adopted by the City Council in 1992 is attached - the "Phase I" fee. The table also shows
the current fee schedule - the "Phase II" fee.
These fees are collected at the time of issuance of the building permit for all new construction within
the 2010 Plan boundary in both the City and the County. It is also collected for any building project
such as remodeling, reconstruction, alteration, change of use, etc. which produces additional
vehicular'trips over the original use. Any remodeling, reconstruction, alteration, change of use,
etc. which does not produce additional trips (i.e. - residential remodels, residential swimming pool
construction, etc.) Is not subject to the Transportation Impact Fee.
G:\G ROU PDAT\Referrals\Carson\Transportation Fees.wpd
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES - PHASE I AND II
.................................................... ~:.~:.,.,.~ .............. ).=.....:,~...,.~:..,~, !~:~i
SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED I $1,179 $2,197
MULTI-FAMILY 2 $828 $1,471
HEAVY/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL 3 $87 $87
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 4 $38 $38
OFFICE COMMERCIAL
Under 100,000 sq. ft. 5 $33 $33
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 6 $39 $39
200,000 scl. ft. & over 7 $41 $41
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
Under 10,000 sq. ft. 8 $39 $35
10,000-49,999 sq. ft. 9 $25 ~$45
50,000-99,999 sq. ft. 10 $28 $60
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 11 $31 N/A
200,000-299,999 sq. ft. 12 $35 N/A
300,000-399,999 sq. ft. 13 $44 N/A
400,000-499,999 sq. ft. 14 $53 N/A
500,000-999,999 sq. ft. 15 $64 N/A
1,000,000 sq. ft. & over 16 $71 N/A
p:\tiftphase2\fulffee.wb2 (pi~/~;j ,Z,
P:\TII=~PHASE2~FULLFE E-WB2 03/21/97
MAY I2 2OO0!
BAKERSFIELD
C~TY MANAGEWS
Economic and Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
May 12,2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~
FROM: Jake Wager, Economic Development Direc
SUBJECT: City Council Referral #WF0018465 - Future use of the Bakersfield Hotel
On Thursday, May 11,2000 I spoke with Mr. Sarad regarding possible future uses of the
recently purchased Bakersfield Hotel. Mr. Sarad is still exploring possible uses. My
discussion with him are directed towards a change of use away from single room
occupancy residential.
dlk:P:\MEMOTEMP.WPD
BAKERSFIELD
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
May 18, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager ~.~
SUBJEGT: Council Referral WF00118464 - Shirley Day Parking/Sidewalk Issues
After leaving several phone messages to Mrs. Day that went unanswered, I will be
forwarding a letter to her explaining that sidewalks are the residents responsibility to build,
not the City's. I've also told her that persons parking in front of her house will not be
ticketed if their parking is intermittent rather than perpetual.
Apparently, a parking ticket that was issued previously to a family member was as a result
of a complaint from neighbors who had seen the car parked there for some time gathering
dust. I've spoken to the Police Department, who responded previously to Ms. Day's
concerns, and they assure me that no tickets will be issued for incidental parking on the
street in front of her home.
I will include all this information in a letter to Mrs. Day
BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
FROM: PAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ~
DATE: May 17, 2000
SUBJECT: COUNCIL REFERRAL WF0018472, STOP SIGN INSTALLATION
SYSTEM, WARD 4.
"COUNCILMAN MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF MEET WITH HIM REGARDING THE
SYSTEM OF WARRANTS USED TO DETERMINE STOP SIGN INSTALLATION."
The Public Works staff will make arrangements to meet with Councilman Maggard
regarding the stop sign warrants used in the State of California and based on the United
States Department of Transportation's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These
warrants are used throughout the United States to determine the appropriateness of using
stop signs on public roads and streets. For information, a copy of the CalTrans Traffic
Manual section on stop sign warrants is attached.
cc: Traffic Engineering File
_RECEIVED
Pagelof 3 I, iVJAy 18
CITY MANAGER'S OFT~¢E
· STOP SIGN WARRANTS FROM CALTRANS TRAFFIC MANUAL
The Stop sign (R1) shall be used where traffic is required to stop except at signalized
intersections. The Stop sign shall be an octagon with white message and border on a red
background.
At a multiway stop intersection, a supplemental plate (R1-3 or R1-4), may be used. When
used, they should be mounted below each Stop sign. The numeral on the supplementary
plate shall correspond to the number of approach legs, or the legend Ali-Way (R1-4) may
be used. The plate shall have white letters and border on a red background. The
supplemental plates R1-3 and R1-4 should not be used at intersections with State
highways.
A red flashing beacon, or beacons may be used in conjunction with a Stop sign. See
Section 9-05, "Flashing Beacons". Secondary messages shall not be used on Stop sign
faces.
· Warrants for Stop Signs
Because the Stop sign causes a substantial inconvenience to motorists, it should only be
used where warranted. A Stop sign may be warranted at an intersection where one or
more of the following conditions exist:
1. On the less important road at its intersection with a main road where accident
history justifies the placement of Stop signs.
2. On a county road or city street with its intersection with a State highway.
3. At the intersection with two main highways. The highway traffic to be stopped
depends on approach speeds, volumes and turning movements.
4. On a street entering a legally established through highway or street.
5. On a minor street where the safe approach speed to the intersection is less than
16 km/h (10 miles per hour).
6. At an unsignalized intersection in a signalized area.
7. At other intersections where a combination of high speed, restricted view and
accident record indicates a need for control by the Stop sign.
A Stop sign is not a "cure-all" and is not a substitute for other traffic control devices. Many
times the need for a Stop sign can be eliminated if the sight distance is increased by
removing obstructions.
Stop signs should not be used for speed control. Stop signs shall not be erected at any
entrance to an intersection when such entrance is controlled by an official traffic control
signal, nor at any railroad grade crossing which is controlled by automatic signals, gates,
Page 2 of 3
'~r other train-actuated control devices except as provided in CVC 21355, Stop Signs. The
conflicting commands of two types of control devices are confusing.
Where two main highways intersect, the Stop sign or signs should normally be posted on
the minor street to stop the lesser flow of traffic. Traffic engineering studies, however, may
justify a decision to install a Stop sign or signs on the major street, as at a three-way
intersection where safety considerations may justify stopping the greater flow of traffic to
permit a left turning movement.
Stop or Yield signs may be installed at any highway-rail grade crossing without automatic
traffic control devices with two or more trains per day traversing the crossing. Two or more
trains per day is interpreted to mean an average two or more trains per day operating over
the crossing each day for a period of one year prior to the installation of the Stop or Yield
control sign.
Portable or part-time Stop signs shall not be used except for emergency purposes.
· Multiway Stop Signs
The "Multiway Stop" installation may be useful at some locations. It should ordinarily be
used only where the volume of traffic on intersecting roads is approximately equal. A traffic
control signal is more satisfactory for an intersection with a heavy volume of traffic.
Any of the following locations may warrant multiway Stop sign installation:
1. Where traffic signals are warranted and urgently needed, the multiway stop may
be an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic while
arrangements are being made for the signal installations.
2. An accident problem, as indicated by five or more reported accidents within a 12
month period of a type susceptible of correction by a multiway stop installation.
Such accidents include right and left- turn collisions as well as right angle collisions.
3 .Minimum traffic volumes;
(a) The total vehicular volume entering the intersection from all approaches
must average at least 500 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of an average
day, and
(b) The combined vehicular and pedestrian volume from the minor street or
highway must average at least 200 units per hour for the same 8 hours, with
an average delay to minor street vehicular traffic of at least 30 seconds per
vehicle during the maximum hour, but
(c) When the 85th percentile approach speed exceeds 64 km/h (40 milesper
hour), the minimum vehicular volume warrant is 70 % of the above
requirements.
slw: P:\DATA\WP~2000\WF0018472.STOP SIGN WARRANTS.ward3.ref. wpd
Page 3 of 3
~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
~ WORK REQUEST PAG~ 1
REQ/jOB: WF0018472 / 001 PROJECT: DATE PRINTED: 5~12~00
REQUEST DATE: 5yl0y00
cREw: TIME PRINTED: 13:25:00
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: ~'l'a~'l': 5~10~00
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 5~22~00
· FACILITY NODE~
GEN. LOC: FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: MAGGARD ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: STOP SIGN INSTALLATION SYSTEM
REQUEST COMMENTS
***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS***
MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF MEET WITH HIM REGARDING
THE SYSTEM OF WARRANTS USED TO DETERMINE STOP SIGN
INSTALLATION.
Job Order Description: STOP SIGN INSTALLATION SYSTEM
CTatggory: PUBLIC WORKS
asK: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: PUBLIC WORKS
START DATE/ /.__ COMPLETION DATE / /
B A K E R .S F I E L D ®
1990
RECEIVED
MAY
May 8, 2000
CI~TY MANAGEI'~'S OFFV;E
Mr. Jim Segesta_'
4138 Pinewood' Lak(i~ - '
Bakersfield, California 93309
Dear Mr. Segesta:
In response to your e-mail regarding a park in your area similar to Haggin Oaks Park.
The sump located at Akers between Planz and White Lane is approximately seven (7)
acres and is considered an "active" sump. This sump was designed specifically for the
purpose of taking water in so the neighborhood will not flood. By adding trees, turf,
irrigation and other park related equipment to the sump area it would destroy the
effectiveness of the sump to accept flood waters thus creating potential flood problems
in the neighborhood.
This seven acre sump does not meet the City's minimum park acreage of ten (10)
acres. Before a park can be developed in the area a Maintenance District must be
formed to-fund the cost of maintaining the park on an annual basis.
We appreciate your suggestion, but in this particular instance a park is not possible due
to the above stated factors. If you have further questions, please call me at 326-3117.
Sincerely,
Allen Abe
Assistant Director of Rec. & Parks
RECREATION AND PARKS
4101 Truxtun Avenue · Bakersfield · California · 93309
(661) 326-FUNN · Fax (661) 861-0864
MEMORANDUM
May 18, 2000
TO: Alan Tandy, City 1V~nager,
FROM: Gene Bogar~, Water-Resources Manager
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL WR0018467
The attached memo is in response to Councilmember Salvaggio' s referral on May 10, 2000 regarding the
condition of a sump located behind 3000 Agate Street.
On May 9, 2000 staff contacted the resident at 3000 Agate Street. The problems regarding the sump were
discussed and staff developed an action plan as shown on the attached memorandum to address each of the items.
If additional information is needed at this time, please don't hesitate to call our office.
GB:sr
Attachment
S:~2000MEMOS\Referral WF0018467
RECEIVED
TO: Gene Bogart, Water Resources Manager
FROM: Don Richardson, Water Supervisor I ~
SUBJECT: 3000 AGATE STREET- SUMP #40
Water Resources staffmade contact with thc resident at 3000 Agate Street off May 9, 2000. Based
on the information obtained from this meeting the following is an Action List/Time Frame ibr the
maintenance of Ston'n Drainage Basin #40:
1. Clean up and erosion repair scheduled to start May 15, 2000.
2. Gopher abaternent scheduled May 17, 2000.
3. Kern County Mosquito Abatement Notified May 12, 2000.
4. Upon completion of earthwork, the Parks department shall be notified for herbicide
application.
5. Water Level in Basin is approximately 1', and is dropping.
City staff did not notice any odors and/or frogs in the Basin. This Action List/Time Frame is an
estimate for the repair and clean up of Storm Drainage Basin #40. Every eflbrt will be made to
adhere to this Schedule. Should tbr any reason this schedule cannot be complied with, a revised
Action List/Time Frame will be developed.
cc: Pat Hauptman
Flora Core
Frank Tinoco
Steve Lafond
RECEIVED
MAY I B 2OOO ',, i
/~/_~i, ' 'X~g?", BAKERSFIELD POLICE
~. ~ ~//~">:~?~?~ MEMO~NDUM
May ~ 8, 2000
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
Honorable Mayor Price and Council Members
From: W.R. Rector, Assistant Chief of Police ~
Subject: Response to Council Member Salvaggio Regarding Refrigerated Trucks
Salvaggio referred the issue of refrigerated trucks running all night long near the
Smoke Tree Mobile Home Park, and requested that Chief Matlock have the Watch
Commanders monitor the situation and enforce the ordinance adopted a few
years ago.
Council Member Salvaggio's request was referred to the Operations Division, and
Lt. Alan Zachary assigned staff to investigate. Officers monitored the Smoke Tree
Mobile Home Estates, 4401 Hughes Lane, and the Smoke Tree Recreation Vehicle
Park at 4435 Hughes Lane, May 15th through May 17th during various nighttime hours.
No violations were observed during this time period, however officers will continue to
monitor the area as calls for service permit.
Vrf
!
~ _ ~-~ City of Bakersfield *REPRINT*
WORK REQUEST PAGE 1
REQ/JOB: WF0018466 / 001 PROJECT: DATEREQUEsTPRINTED:DATE: 5~12~05/10/0§
CREW: TIME PRINTED: 10:51:59
SCHEDULE DATES
LOCATION: S'r~/<'l': b~ll~00
LOCATION ID: ZIP CODE: COMPLETION: 5/22/00
GEN. LOC: FACILITY NODES
FROM:
FACILITY ID: TO:
REF NBR:
REQ DEPT: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL PRIORITY: HIGH
REQUESTOR: SALVAGGIO ORIGIN: CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL
USER ID: RBARNHAR WORK TYPE: REFERRAL
DESCRIPTION: REFRIGERATED TRUCKS
REQUEST COM~4ENTS
***REFERRAL TO POLICE DEPARTMENT***
SALVAGGIO REFERRED THE ISSUE OF REFRIGERATED
TRUCKS RUNNING ALL NIGHT LONG NEAR THE SMOKE TREE
MOBILE HOME PARK AND REQUESTED THAT CHIEF MATLOCK
}{AVE THE WATCH COMMANDERS MONITOR THE SITUATION
AND ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE ADOPTED A FEW YEARS AGO.
Job Order Description: REFRIGERATED TRUCKS Cat~gory: POLICE SERVICES DEPT
Task: RESPONSE TO REFERRAL
Assigned Department: POLICE SERVICES
START DATE / / COMPLETION DATE / /
cc: Captain Wahl
Lt. Zachary
Watch Commander