Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/28/2008 X100P B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: John W. Stinson Ken Weir, Chair Rick Kirkwood Sue Benham Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, April 28, 2008 — 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 31, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues—Tandy/ Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Cost Recovery Fees—Smith B. Discussion regarding Transportation Development Act Audit - Rojas 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT B A K E R S F I E L D Ken Weir, Chair John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Sue Benham Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant Irma Carson AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT REGULAR MEETING OF THE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE Monday, March 31, 2008 — 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room—Suite 201 City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA The meeting was called to order at 12:03:52 PM 1. ROLL CALL Committee members present: Councilmember Ken Weir, Chair Councilmember Irma Carson Councilmember Sue Benham Staff present: City Manager, Alan Tandy Assistant City Manager, John Stinson Management Assistant, Rick Kirkwood Administrative Analyst, Steven Teglia City Attorney, Virginia Gennaro Deputy City Attorney, Josh Rudnick Finance Director, Nelson Smith Public Works Director, Raul Rojas Assistant Public Works Director, Brad Underwood Solid Waste Director, Kevin Barnes Solid Waste Superintendent, Sal Moretti Solid Waste Business Manager, Luda Fishman Others present: Jim Baldwin, BARC Roland Burkert, Roland Consulting William Winchester, Berg Mill Supply Bernard LeBeau, Attorney for Kern Refuse John McNamara and George Eowan, Env. Strategy Consultants Larry Moxley, Kern Refuse Vernon Varner, Jacob Penero, Dan Penero and Greg Sanders, ----- Varner Bros, Inc. John Price and Jay Price, Price Disposal Bruce Keown, Superior Sanitation Daphne Harley and Nancy Ewert, K.C. Waste Management Dept Richard Caglia, Jim Verros and Ray Medley, CARTS John Fermanian, Smurfit-Stone Recycling John Richardson and Dave Baldwin, Community Recycling Various members of the media AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT DRAFT Page 2 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 31, 2008 2. ADOPT FEBRUARY 25, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4. NEW BUSINESS Discussion regarding Recycling Issues —Tandy/_Roias City Manager Tandy reported that this item is on the agenda based on a referral from Councilmember Scrivner. Two written proposals have been received and will be presented. City staff will also present their comments. The Committee will be asked for direction to staff on the proposals and any alternatives that the Committee may wish to be studied. Staff is not prepared at this time to discuss issues such as rate impacts, landfill fee impacts, legal issues, costs, measurements of impact on air quality, or recycling. Staff expects that there will be additional Committee consideration before a recommendation is forwarded to the full City Council. Public Works Director Rojas stated that future State mandates are still unknown. The City is meeting the existing 50% mandate. Staff believes the matter should be investigated and clarified so that the City Council has all the available information on which to base a decision. MRC and BARC submitted proposals in writing. Community Recycling, Cedar Avenue Recycling and Smurfit Corporation have expressed interest in doing business with the City on recycling projects, whether they are recovery or collection projects. There is a vendors list of interested firms, and all have been kept apprised of the City's progress towards recycling programs. Bernard LeBeau, Attorney for Kern Refuse, addressed the issue of whether the proposal has to be submitted for competitive bidding. Larry Moxley with Kern Refuse presented the MRC proposal as a slide show. He introduced George Eowan, the head consultant and former CEO of Integrated Waste Management Board, John McNamara, with Environmental Strategies, and William Winchester with Berg Mill, who is involved in marketing. The proposal covered reduced air emissions, diversion estimates, capital and operating costs, fee projections and job creation estimates. The projected construction cost is $50 million, with an annual operating cost of $40 million over a period of 25 years. The proposed rate increase for residential customers would be $2 per month, according to Mr. Moxley. Jim Baldwin, President of BARC, presented their proposal which would be implemented at no additional cost to the consumer. Richard Caglia, with CARTS from Fresno, stated that they recently introduced the company and services to the City, and is very interested in potentially entering the market. John Richardson, with Community Recycling Resource Recovery, stated that they also would like the opportunity to be able to provide services to the city. They have a greenwaste composting facility in Kern County, and also operate a transfer station and MRF in conjunction with C&D Recovery Greenwaste and Food Waste Processing. 0Arr ......;;r.,.....,;44-1o)nna�no e.A—f—A Rnon—%KAornhkhAorrh'31 GCR rinr AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Page 3 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 31, 2008 City Manager Tandy gave an overview of the written materials that had been distributed. Both the City and County attempted to obtain grant funds for a full transfer station at the Mt. Vernon site through the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The funds are currently tied up in litigation for an unknown period of time and will not be released until the litigation has been resolved. Staff suggests various ways to reduce air pollution and/or increase recycling efforts. These include a full transfer station, detachable unit or direct transfer station, convenience stations for self haulers, dual collection (which is a truck split down the center and capable of holding greenwaste on one side and recycling materials on the other), apartment programs, blue cart expansion, marketing improvements, and expansion of existing programs. All refuse trucks are being converted to clean air fuel, which is a State law to be complied with by 2010. Staff is looking for direction from the Committee and City Council on which of those options they would like to see further analysis. Committee member Benham asked if the City should wait for State mandates to make any changes before implement additional recycling. Public Works Director Rojas recommended making changes in small increments. Ms. Benham stated that she has always been a proponent of recycling and believes that the City should take more of a lead on the issue. She wants recycling to be available and encouraged for commercial and multi-family users. Committee member Carson stated that it was her belief that at the last Joint meeting of the City and County, building a complex that would be a one-stop shop for both agencies was discussed. It was to be a comprehensive approach to waste disposal and recycling, and a cost-savings venture for all City and County residents. She said her concern is for the overall community and how it will impact ratepayers in the City. City Manager Tandy confirmed that item was discussed at the joint meeting and involved a transfer station at the Mt. Vernon site. This, however, was dependent on the $20 million San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control Grant, and that is now unlikely to be awarded. Mr. Tandy stated that staff has not done an analysis on any of the proposals received or presented. Staff would require consulting assistance to accomplish this. Committee Chair Weir reported that the Committee evaluated a blue can proposal last October and it was then forwarded to the full Council for consideration. He asked at that time that the Grant not only be used for a mandatory blue cart program, but also a more comprehensive plan. He recommended moving forward on a program that will benefit the community rather than waiting for new State mandates. He prefers a long-range plan with long-term goals over an incremental approach for a solid waste reduction recycling program. He suggested that staff meet with interested parties and provide monthly updates to the Committee. Public Works Director Rojas asked for a recommendation or motion for staff to hire a consultant to help with that task. Committee member Benham made the motion. City Manager Tandy asked if the consultant would evaluate only City data, or if the City would be paying for a comprehensive Metropolitan Bakersfield analysis. Daphne Harley with Kern County Waste Management stated that the issue is on the agenda for the April 8, 2008 meeting of the Board of Supervisors, and she would ask the Board to move forward for the County's portion. There would then be a clear indication of the County's direction before it goes to Council for approval. The estimated time to prepare the analysis is 12— 18 months. Committee member Carson received confirmation that the consultant would prepare a comprehensive solid waste plan. 15-A M.....J Ci.... -n RA....k%RA... k 91 AQD.1.... AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT A a_ Page 4 BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday, March 31, 2008 Mr. Moxley stated that the Board of Supervisors and City Council asked the haulers to provide an analysis, which they did. He asked that it now be sent to the City Council for consideration. City Manager Tandy noted that individual members of the Board of Supervisors or City Council may have stated their desire to see a proposal; however, at no time did either agency vote on the issue. The matter would require a bidding process and procedures as a legal requirement, which prohibits Council consideration of only the MRC proposal. Committee member Benham confirmed that any consultant hired jointly by the City and County would, as part of their study, analyze the MRC proposal and all others that have been submitted. Committee Chair Weir asked for clarification on what the consultant would be expected to do. City Manager Tandy stated that staff is not in a position to validate either the capital or operating cost projections of the MRC proposal, and would need consulting help to understand what the end user costs will have to be. While the $50 million construction cost would be advanced by the haulers, the funds, in the end, be paid by the taxpayers. Since the term of the proposal is for 25 years, the estimated total cost to consumers would be $1 billion. The consultant would further analyze economic impacts and benefits in terms of air pollution reductions. City Attorney Gennaro stated that the motion on the floor is for staff to retain a consultant to study a long-term comprehensive refuse reduction program for the metropolitan area and include in that analysis all proposals that have been submitted to the city. The motion passed by a vote of 2-1, Committee members Benham and Carson in favor and Committee Chair Weir opposed. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 2:12:49 PM n.n_..__a n_�_:•a___nnnono o...A.._....,.A r;..........\AA... 6%RA.._.6 OA Aeo.Inn B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Directo5 �,� DATE: April 25, 2008 SUBJECT: Budget and Finance Committee Referral of Recycling Issue As reported to the Budget and Finance Committee on March 31St, the legislature is still considering various alternatives including changes to the recycling percentage, capping disposal levels, and requiring specific program to increase the recycling mandate. Since the legislative outcome is uncertain, staff recommends consideration of additional recycling programs in a way that would complement the use of a material recovery facility (MRF) if one is ultimately developed. This strategy would provide flexibility in complying with current and potential state mandates and maximize the value of recyclables. Many California MRF programs rely on separate collection of some recyclables to avoid cross contamination with food waste. The City has successfully implemented its recycling programs with an incremental, cost effective approach. New programs which could be implemented to recycle more now, and complement a future MRF could include: 1. Expansion of the existing residential blue cart recycling program, through a universal program or by providing incentives for further voluntary participation through a reduction of the recycling service fee. 2. Extension of blue cart and blue bin recycling service to businesses and apartments. 3. Expanding the successful self-haul recycling program at Kern County landfills into more convenient locations in the city, such as the Mt. Vernon Facility. The City still has a $1.5 million state grant for equipment which could be used to sort recyclables in options 1 and 2 above. Staff has attached a draft administrative report which details additional information for the Committee to consider regarding the recycling issue. &VOHNTrojectABudget&Finance Memo 4-28-08_l.doc April 25,2008 � BAE� O�coaroarea S ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DRAFT gLIFO DRAFT MEETING DATE: AGENDA SECTION: ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: April 7, 2008 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Recommendation from the Budget and Finance Committee regarding the study of a comprehensive refuse reduction program. RECOMMENDATION: The Budget and Finance Committee recommends the City Council direct staff to retain a consultant to produce a long-term comprehensive refuse reduction program for Metropolitan Bakersfield that will analyze all proposals (written or oral) presented to the City. BACKGROUND: On March 31, 2008 the Budget and Finance Committee met to discuss a referral from Councilmember Scrivner regarding a proposal submitted by Metropolitan Recycling Corporation (MRC) to develop a transfer station and material recovery facility (MRF) to serve Metropolitan Bakersfield. Councilmember Scrivner represents the City of Bakersfield on the Kern County Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee and Local Task Force (SWMAC/LTF). His referral was in response to a February 15, 2008 SWMAC/LTF recommendation that the MRC proposal be presented to both the City Council and Board of Supervisors. MRC provided the committee with a presentation outlining their proposal to operate a transfer station/MRF facility (proposal attached), which they stated would result in greater diversion rates for the City and County and reduce air quality emissions. In addition to the MRC presentation, several other potential service providers were on hand including representatives from the Bakersfield Association of Retarded Citizens (BARC). BARC representatives highlighted a proposal they had recently submitted to the City that would allow BARC to partner with the City to expand the existing "blue cart" recycling program. This proposal would utilize a facility constructed by BARC to sort the recyclables that they received (proposal attached). Additional service providers were present and voiced their desire to explore the possibility of contracting with the City if and when the City expands its recycling efforts. Following the various presentations that were made, staff presented a report that included a number of alternative options that would have the potential of increasing recycling rates and reducing air emissions (also attached). Following a lengthy discussion of the items presented, the committee voted (2 to 1) to recommend that the City Council retain a consultant to produce a long-term refuse reduction program for Metro Bakersfield that will analyze all proposals that have been presented. City County Coordination: A key consideration in planning refuse and recycling programs for the metropolitan area is coordination with The County of Kern. This is important due to the fact that the Metropolitan Bakersfield service area includes waste streams from large areas of the County. These combined waste streams must be studied together when analyzing new refuse recycling or transfer station April 25,2008, 10:02AM C:\DOCUME-1\JWSTIN-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\Budget&Finance Memo Attachment 4-28-08.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT DRAFT DRAFT programs in order to maximize the impact these programs will have. It is, however, not known at this time whether the County will participate in this new study, at least with respect to the scope of services as articulated by the Budget and Finance Committee. With the uncertainty of the County's involvement, the City would have to determine how the study would proceed, options include: • The City could proceed with an RFP for the recommended study without taking into consideration the County's metropolitan waste stream. • The City could proceed with an RFP that includes the County's metropolitan waste stream as a factor, at the City's expense. A draft scope of study for this RFP is attached for your reference. This project is not budgeted, and will require additional appropriation of funds once a consultant is selected and the fees are determined. A rough cost for this study is between $250,000 and $300,000. The cost will depend on the number of recycling service vendor proposals received before the evaluation begins, and the depth of analysis. The study period is estimated to be at least a year, once the consultant begins. Of course, if the County decides to participate in this new study and share in the cost associated with it, the City's commitment would be reduced. kb April 25,2008, 10:02AM C:\DOCU ME-1\JWSTIN-1\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\Budget&Finance Memo Attachment 4-28-08.doc Scope of Study For a Comprehensive Recycling System and Air Emission Reductions For the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area " ?44 The purpose of this study is to aid the City of Bakersfield and Kern County in developing a long term, comprehensive refuse reduction program for the Metropolitan Bakersfield Area. Recycling Study Several types of recycling programs have been implemented in response to the California state recycling mandate since 1990. As a result, the City and County have each exceeded the 50% mandate, with 57% and 61% respectively. In response to popular demand for curbside recycling, the City applied for and obtained a $1.5 million equipment grant for material sorting equipment. Acquisition and placement of this equipment is currently on hold, pending a broader study of recycling options. City and County elected officials have expressed a goal of expanding current recycling levels. This expansion stems from a desire to be "ahead of the curve" when it comes to meeting potential new state mandates, while keeping a focus on program efficiency. The development of a comprehensive plan is critical in order to minimize the cost burden over the long term. The goal of this study is to analyze options to generally increase recycling rates. Due to the fact that it is uncertain what form any new state mandates may take, this study should evaluate a wide variety of programs which may result in greater recycling rates. In the course of this study, the various programs identified should be compared for relative effectiveness, evaluating program costs with the impact they will have on recycling rates as well as air quality impacts. While this study is intended to analyze a range of recycling program options, it should also include an analysis of the various proposals already received by the City of Bakersfield. To achieve a meaningful comparison, the study will need to develop a method of measurement that can be commonly related among the various proposals and other options studied. Copies of the proposals received and documents including other options to be studied are attached. Others may follow. Work Outline 1. Review available proposals and other options, and provide a cost/benefit analysis of each in terms which can be compared among all options for recycling and air emission reduction. Also indicate what modifications or considerations may be needed, if any, to make a comparison. Those available include: a. MRC proposal for a material recovery facility. b. BARC proposal for processing of curbside recyclables. c. Smurfit-Stone Corp. proposal for processing of curbside recyclables. d. Other proposals which may be received by the City prior to the study. e. A list of options provided by City staff, to include: L Direct transfer type trailers in lieu of a large transfer station. ii. Detachable refuse truck trailers in lieu of a large transfer station. iii. Convenience stations for small self-haul users, to both recycle and v,--a reduce landfill trips. iv. Dual collection of different routes to reduce collection truck mileage. t v. Restricting disposal of greenwaste at landfills, maximize recycling at the existing greenwaste facility. vi. Restricting disposal of construction and demolition (C&D) waste at landfills, to maximize the use of the existing C&D recycling facility. 2. Analyze the cost estimates presented in the proposals listed above, and gather cost information from similar projects for comparison. "ex April 18,2008 Mr.Kevin Barnes Solid Waste Director City of Bakersfield 4101 Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield,CA 93309 RE: Recycling Services for the City of Bakersfield Dear Mr. Barnes: Community Recycling& Resource Recovery,Inc.(Community Recycling)has been providing recycling services to the waste industry since 1974. We have the capability to provide not only residential'but also commercial recycling services as well. As we have talked in the past, Community Recycling is very interested in providing some or all of the recycling services we offer to the City of Bakersfield. As you are aware, we participated in the March 31,2008 Budget and Finance Committee meeting discussing the City's goals in providing recycling services to the City of Bakersfield. At that meeting we reiterated our offer to provide recycling services to the City. Community Recycling can provide everything from simple single stream recycling for residential source separated recyclables to mixed residential and commercial waste that would be processed through a"Dirty MRF". We have been operating a"Dirty MRF" processing up to 1700 tons per day since 1983. This system can capture glass,metals, cardboard,newspaper,soiled paper,and organics for recycling. Community Recycling has existing markets for all these recycled materials. Community Recycling feels that our experience in the recycling of residential and commercial waste streams would be a great addition for the residents of Bakersfield. Sincerely, Jo Richardson Vice President 9189 De Garmo Avenue P.O. Box 1062 Sun Valley, CA 91352 Tel: 818.767-6000/323.875-0587 - fax: 818-768-0541 4/25/08 To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to inform the City of Bakersfield that Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station(C.A.R.T.S) is still interested is assisting the city in its upcoming discussions concerning its recycling goals. There have been many different scenarios proposed and discussed over the past months and CARTS would like the opportunity and time to possibly submit a proposal that we feel would achieve those goals. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 559-233-1158. Thank you, Richard M. Caglia Business Development Cedar Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station f BARC Blue Barrel Recycling - Material Recovery Facility City Resources BARC Resources Blue Barrel Rec clables Stream 7.7 Acres at Union and White Lane $1.5 Million DOC Grant 20,000 sq ft building designed forMRF operations 70'Scale and scale house Loading Docks Name Recognition/Community Recognition/Community Support 30 Years Recycling rience Long standing relationships with markets Ability to receive more grants to fund future growth DOC CIWMB, Private Foundations Ability to attract recyclable materials from smaller cities in Kern County BARC's Proposal: 1) Use City's$1.5 million DOC grant to purchase sorting equipment 2) Install sorting equipment in BARC's new building a) City retains ownership and control of sorting equipment b) BARC provides facility, labor and recovered material marketing 3) City delivers blue barrel materials a) City retains control of recyclable material flow b) City retains option to change programs if conditions require it 4) BARC and City share profits of sorting operation a) BARC to provide full transparency of P&L financial information b) City to have ability to audit c) Profit sharing based on agreed negotiated formula d) City included in decision making process Advantages: 1) City retains control and flexibility(does not require a 25 year commitment) 2) No capital outlay by the City(grant is not a City cost)and investment in additional sorting capacity can grow incrementally as material volume increases justify the investment 3) No operating cost to the City(requires a minimum material volume) 4) Does not require a mandatoly blue barrel program(incentives and marketing program are strongly recommended to increase material volume,shared profits increase as volume increases) 5) Lowest possible rates for citizens(does not require a gate fee or land use fee subsidy) 6) Blue Barrel program is a necessary front-end to waste conversion or waste to energy technologies that may become necessary, if waste diversion mandates are increased to 75%. The relatively small investment in Blue Barrel will pave the way for future technologies and does not preclude any future technology. 7) BARC is motivated to find long term win-win solutions, BARC is not a winner take all proposition 1 a.fi F r r � r< s v r4F v-• 4j,�; �x >�• •9." ski f �,�72 �� f < dust'L7� it 5 , x ar r � E m s e hy- t S glg AM 4 # y}°�,°,`�°' ,i "eck3•d ^i, mt,S k • r `' '�, ate.-. Li go r'.€�t�'t� Ili it >�' ,e : '.�*. ,: w' ,�, � - �•; s ,,,... �; r/ k r fx.k ,m, n .rr. r J III i ii`i III i t,s l ��I�III q' r� _i 7, F, W J.+ e r^ ti.a � 4• i� �z s n to y a ON Zr XM IV co t gyp, Y '"v y J Y r'12 { r 'S s ys. x yaa* 6 .mac 5 t U.1 W.IF " �- bo `. NNE+ t N s 4 �. x YMM alit jg LL tows CV cm ate+ YS:K a t x K t:i Y f � Y t Y� .. ZOOM AN r: c k 3.5'i- nu dpi#,ix,'7 i' a E S� `R 5' E35+t`[ u � N x +C. y Pe ol #y 5h 4 ixv a i r co � =Lk✓ X 7 A ft I III `fx�'�r Wl rn OOT It i � E x k y fir} uj ` . r _ tA Al, -. IW Pogo CD co i'".•� r,, r 7 . ✓ X F a P S; n �, 'yu �•y T t A ) f Y t.•.'1 S S` fY, f F s{ W - h� SWINK 4-2 qf ^S co rt e �y 4. 4 2N LU > ' -4iia 014 0 o0 �-+ s g CD JK " . 6 '4 � CD co C) } CD AS AM s.'"�'`T r _ s } •ed+ �- cc LU " 164 F w#104 co CIa 00 Igg ..5 ,,e ZOE gum qt� + f goo r Smw NMI Q mmum NOT A kr' t � r Ana, > Liu FOR Cn t ° Y K � w t 0 4 ' c s n Iz -¢'k 4➢ °-�G 3 � d -: �N9' £ .fir }} 3' s .el 4Z ul co c I } 4 ZV NO � 't SNO Mg OR ny yQ;jvrj 00 LLLU CD co w t '. ? � a Y to t4d kf •:S•�� �'s• ��,}����°�# �s s of .. �' 's xx - E Now oil 1 :rW c a.� +4- my too 3 ,� r z tai r L s 11, ilk cc) SO h a i 3 LLIU ar co R C` C L'�i METROPOLITAN RECYCLING CORPORATION P.O. Box 2716 Bakersfield, CA 93303 661.631-1171 TRANSFER/RECYCLING PROPOSAL FOR THE MOUNT VERNON FACILITY INTRODUCTION: Planning for solid waste management facilities in the City of Bakersfield and Kern County is at a critical juncture.Legislators in Sacramento are actively and aggressively pursuing new legislation that will likely mandate a 75%diversion rate and new recycling programs in the immediate future.If the city and county are to reach these aggressive legislative mandates,new and innovative facilities must be sited and operational in the next three years. In order to accomplish this,Kern Refuse Disposal(KRD)through Metropolitan Recycling Corporation (MRC)proposes to plan and develop a comprehensive state of the art solid waste complex This complex, complete with a Multi Stream Material Recovery Facility and transfer station, will bring the metropolitan Bakersfield area into compliance with 21"century solid waste mandates,reduce hazardous vehicle emissions,reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, and save valuable resources for future generations. BENEFITS To THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SOLID WASTE COMPLEX Benefus to the solid waste management system. The development of this complex benefits the local solid waste system in a variety of ways. This complex will allow us to meet new legislative mandates that have or will be signed into law in the immediate future.It will also position the City of Bakersfield and Kern County to process and recover large volumes of waste that will extend landfill life and enhance the ability to manage and transport waste more efficiently. It is anticipated that legislation mandating new diversion programs,including multi- family and commercial recycling, will take effect establishing aggressive diversion mandates for all cities and counties in California. 77te most efficient and cost effective method to meeting these mandates is by commingling materials and separating them at a Multi-Stream MRF.In addition if these diversion rates are to be realized, conversion technology will have to be employed Drafts of the legislation for this technology require that all possible recyclables be extracted from the entire waste stream before conversion technology can be implemented The Multi-Stream MRF allows the best option for the recovery of materials from residential,commercial,and industrial generators If the city and county are to stay compliant with current and future laws, a Multi-Stream Material Recovery Facility must be sited and operational in the immediate future. KERN COUNTY FEB - 8 2008 D'.5-3 fktA WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPT Air Quality Benefits. Transfer stations are an efficient way to reduce the number of long trips to local landfills by "carpooling"materials from smaller vehicles to larger vehicles. Trip reduction in commercial rolloff vehicles can be as great as 5-1 and by transferring self haul residential or commercial generators the number can be 50—1. This trip reduction generates large emission savings inNOX,PM10, CO, VOCs,and SOx AB 32 was signed into law on September 27,2006 and this legislation mandates the reduction of Greenhouse Gases to 1990 levels by the year 2020.By recycling materials like glass,aluminum,paper,etc instead ofprodudng them from virgin materials, Greenhouse gas emission savings are realized These emission savings will be critical if local governments are to reach the legislative mandates outlined in AB32. PLANNING,DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING A NEW SYSTEM Sitinr the complex The Mount Vernon Transfer and Processing facility is the site that meets all the necessary criteria for the establishment of the solid waste complex A recent report by Shaw Environmental Inc evaluated a series of sites in Metropolitan Bakersfield and supported this conclusion based on the following criteria: L Greatest reduction in vehicle miles traveled 2. Lowest capital cost per ton of emissions reduced 3. Lowest capital cost per vehicle mile reduced 4. Best balance of cost to level of service. Additional benefits are as follows: 1. The site could be completely permitted for operations in a short period of time. 2. Sufficient acreage exists to site the complex on ARD lease property. 3. Some infrastructure for operations already exists(scales,loaders,etc) 4. This site is already recognized by the public as a solid waste facility. S. Site managers with experience in managing the public and solid waste facilities. MRC has 12 acres available at Mount Vernon as apart of a lease agreement with the City of Bakersfield This lease is part of a 20 year agreement signed in 1999 with the intent to develop this property into solid waste facilities to help the City meet state diversion mandates. This property is perfectly situated for a solid waste complex and MRC developed the existing C&D operations with the intent of building this type of facility. This property was intended for this type of facility and now is the time to proceed with the project FUNDING CAPITAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS The funding of the capital and yearly operational costs of a solid waste complex is staggering and it puts a financial burden on the entire community.KRD is proposing private financing but public financing options will be evaluated Monies generated from fee increases and the sale of recyclable materials will be used to repay capital debt based on payment structure over 25 years.KRD or their associates, via contract'will be responsible for repayment of the debt over the 25 year period and therefore will require 25 year extensions of the existing contracts between both the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern to insure a guaranteed waste stream for debt retirement Specifically the contracts requiring 25 year extensions are the franchise hauling agreements between Zone 2 haulers and Kern County,the franchise hauling agreements between the City of Bakersfield and Kern Refuse Disposal,and the lease agreement between MRC and the City of Bakersfield on property at the Mount Vernon Recycling Facility.In addition a new Independent Contractor Agreement for a term of 25 years between the City of Bakersfield and Metropolitan Recycling Corporation would need to be developed to encompass all solid waste management activities relating to this project The funding of the on going operational costs for this complex and related programs must also be addressed Residents,businesses,and owners of multifamily units must shoulder the financial burden of funding both operational and capital costs of this facility. This can be accomplished by establishing recycling fees/surcharges that place per resident or per ton fees based on the waste processed from each of those generators This is a common practice in many municipalties✓eoundes and is a practice already established in the Zone 3 region of Kern County where residents and businesses are being charged on a per resident and/or per ton basis THE MULTI-STREAMMATERIAL RECOVERYFACILITY(MSMRF) New technology in the material recovery industry has recently been developed that provides additional options for the recovery of materials Due to new state recycling mandates,new recovery technologies,and the costs to implement the technologies,it is important to evaluate available systems in an attempt to decide which approach has the best opportunity to successfully reach local and state goal& Although,these options will cost residents,commercial businesses,and the industrial sector,these "recycling surcharges"already exist in the Zone 3 region of Kern County where residents pay $3.08 per month, 183 per cubic yard,and 512.67 per ton. The development of new and innovative technology has improved the ability of Multi- Stream Material Recovery Facilities to recycle additional materials This new technology,and aggressive anticipated mandates gives a MSMRF many beneficial advantages over a traditional Single Stream MRF. This new technology utilizes e) sting refuse containers,enclosures,and collection vehicles This system also eliminates difficult and costly changes at Commercial and Multi Family facilities where there is no room for recycling containers. All Residential, Commercial,and Industrial refuse is collected in the traditional manner and deposited at the Multi Stream MRF. This material is then sorted into cardboard glass,paper,plastics,aluminum,stee4 tin,green waste, wood,etc., with the resulting residual waste going to the landfill, This strategy allows much more material to be processed and sorted which will yield much more recycled tonnage than a traditional Single Stream System. Also,the Multi-Stream system requires no additional collection vehicles, which will maximize trip reduction and reduce harmful vehicle emissions. Finally,the additional recycled material will minimize Greenhouse Gas emissions and put Metropolitan Bakersfield in a position to comply with AB32 o C4 Q a0 N 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 1� o co M to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p QO00C.00ppC O..� O Na t'e OO �CCOONOOO K r 0 N OrONOC) t3)11p0 000 f) C �) OImcoNN'At COOSn V c 0§ In `O I.:NNPrN r rNN FR N o U) CID N h d Io 0 � W J N J J m o p (a co m V a - - W 2L. C mc U o t Z LL K cc c V)0) W mL CL2Ec"wzem J f- - t m 0 o m m m mW . CL o to N I 1A 0 ` OC m 2 p m .N �W.W}.. V i �+ .. .� U U U ooc000000000 °p o m o oodoo 0 ood0000 000op p c C c o00000o 000d c c o a` o00 o t� o m •- ms m m coo p OOOOood asoop V1 �p v� l6 y m > OOO to O O to CL r-p to O O C m m W 0 1'0 ti cq CL cq O�lq�O � � O� p i r IA �. ui� 4s ups 49��40 c.O c 0 0 m ��� o `9 `" 0 LL LL LL U2 •3 o V o mW �+ CD V N > QN Ui09 $bg am' 0 N C d N m mLL E Oo ON tyQ.' C X71 6�9 6r9 10, 64 4 iA -m m n •�� It •` m m O m IL CA C W E W O c- m W to co m Q m m m � .Um. (A 3 (n U 3 CL ''m � d mroU m G 'c _ C tD v > 3 m g m_m ttl Q C �- W 7 m l0 +�+ N c y m yp tD � m c « d E Q j O o etl iu C .. V U F Y to V amOU � � -o F- � 1- SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND LOCAL TASK FORCE February 6, 2008 COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TASK FORCE and MEMBERS KERN COUNTY SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ASSOCIATION OF CITIES Ed Grimes City of Tehachapi SPECIAL MEETING BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL Councilman Zack Scrivner Date: Friday, February 15, 2008 COUNTY OF KERN Time: 9:00 A.M. Supervisor Don Maben Place: Kern County Public Services Building COUNTY OF KERN 2700 °M" Street, First Floor Supervisor Michael Rubio Bakersfield, CA 93301 FRANCHISE HAULERS, METRO-BAKERSFELD Larry Moxley(Chairman) AGENDA FRANCHISE HAULERS, NON-METRO BAKERSFIELD 1. Metro Transfer Station/MRF Paul Benz 2. Public Comments RECYCLER 114nnis Lynch 3. Committee Member Comments ru8LlC-AT-LARGE, • Indicates Task Force item * Indicates Attachment/Handout UNIVERSAL COLLECTION AREA Patricia DeMond(Vice-Chair) PUBLIC-AT-LARGE, NON-UNIVERSAL COLLECTION AREA Michael Geyer AL7ERNA7E MEMBERS COUNTY OF KERN Supervisor Jon McQuiston ASSOCIATION OF CITIES (Not Designated) BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL Councilman Harold Hanson All Agenda item supporting documentation is available for public review at the Kern County Waste Management Department,2700 M Street,Suite 500,Bakersfield,CA 93301,661-862-8900;during regular business hours(8:00 AM-5:00 PM,Monday through Friday),following the posting of the Agenda. Any supporting documentation that relates to an Agenda item for an open session of any regular meeting that is distributed after the Agenda is posted,and prior to the meeting,will also be available for review at that same location. B A K E. R S F I E L U CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: March 28, 2008 SUBJECT: Budget and Finance Committee Report Regarding Recycling and Air Pollution Reduction Program Issues In response to Council Member Scrivner's referral of this subject to the Budget and Finance Committee, staff has prepared the attached report. This report is intended to also respond to the prior request for a comprehensive solid waste plan made by Budget and Finance Committee Chairman Weir. The report briefly addresses a number of issues and presents altematives for consideration. It is summarized below: 1. The City has implemented numerous projects, complying with recycling and clean air mandates, with fee increases not exceeding overall inflation. 2. The state may increase mandates,but is struggling with choices over what to require. We can best respond to mandates only if they are clearly set. 3. In the meantime, there is some social interest for doing more sooner. If this is to be done, goals and cost limits must be identified. 4. The contract refuse haulers have proposed to build and operate a multi-million dollar recycling facility, which seems premature and may or may not address future mandates. It would burden ratepayers by sharply increasing County disposal fees. 5. Significant fee increases for projects of this type tend to drive waste and revenue away from the system. Other counties have experienced spiraling fees as a result of similar projects. 6. A project, such as the one proposed, would require a bid process if built on City property and backed by City fees through a contract for service. 7. There are alternative methods to increase recycling and/or reduce air emissions using other kinds of recycling efforts, potentially at lower cost. -8. Staff recommends a more complete study of alternatives methods and a full study in the event a major recycling facility becomes necessary. 9. If the City Council intends to pursue the development of a full transfer station and MRF, a committee study analyzing the full range of costs and methods is recommended. PACityManageRBudget&Finance Mew 3-21-08.doc March 28,2008 Page 1 of 3 Recycling and Air Pollution Reduction Future Program Issues California has various mandates for recycling and air pollution reduction. Historically, the City Council has had a philosophy of complying with mandates while keeping trash fees to a minimum. The City has a track record of successful compliance, implementing several clean air and recycling programs with fee increases not exceeding the rate of inflation. New state imposed mandates seem likely, but it is not yet clear what form these mandates will take. There is current debate in the capitol over 3 different recycling strategies, such as: 1. Not allowing cities to dispose of more than their 2006 level of trash. 2. Requiring 75% recycling by 2020. 3. Requiring specific programs, or banning disposal of specific materials, regardless of the recycling percentage. While we wait for the legislature to determine new goals, there are possibilities for increased recycling and air pollution reduction. The question is how much should we attempt to do before the new mandates, and at what cost? Should we choose a new direction now, or wait for new rules to guide our efforts? It is important to note that new mandates usually allow cities a few years to develop and implement new programs, facilities, etc. One option that has been proposed is the development of a material recovery facility (MRF) to sort out recyclables from the trash. A MRF could be combined with a refuse transfer station, as a way to reduce both trash and air pollution. However, the current proposal would ultimately place a large financial burden on the rate payers, and has the potential to significantly increase County disposal fees. The current proposal is limited to general information on cost estimates. Until new mandates are established, it is risky to plan a multi-million dollar MRF. Therefore, we have presented below some possible interim steps to achieve air pollution and recycling goals. Further study is needed to estimate the full cost of a MRF versus other options. Air Pollution Reduction There are two ways to reduce air pollution from trucks that haul trash. One way is to convert to cleaner engines. State law is already requiring cleaner engines for all trash trucks by 2010. The other way is to combine trash into larger loads at a transfer station, which is like "carpooling the garbage". This applies to trash trucks as well as other"self-haul' trucks of all sizes. Around Bakersfield, there are many more self-haul trucks than trash trucks. If a transfer station is used, most of the air pollution reduction would be from self-haul trucks, since they are not required to have the clean technology and outnumber trash trucks by about 3 to 1. Page 2 of 3 The City and County applied for a $20 million air district grant to build a transfer station, but funds were not available. A transfer station could be built without grant funds, but it would increase disposal fees about 30%. Higher disposal fees may trigger more illegal dumping. Fortunately, there are some lower cost alternatives to a large central transfer station that could help reduce air pollution. These include: 1. Residential trash trucks that can swap trailers and transport two loads at once (Figure 1). These could phase in as old trucks are replaced. 2. Direct truck-to-truck transfer systems that require minimal capital improvements (Figure 2). These could be used at hauler yards. 3. Low cost "convenience stations"for self-haulers (Figure 3). These could be established around town (perhaps at home improvement centers). While these options would obtain only part of the air pollution reduction compared to a major transfer station, they may be more affordable. They may also be used as interim steps to reduce air pollution. Transferring refuse or combining loads from the western side of the metropolitan area would save the most mileage at the least cost, since it is farthest from the landfill. Therefore, costs can be minimized by using these options only in areas farthest from the landfill. Since grant funds are not available for the major transfer station, a study of alternatives is needed. Recycling There are various options to increase recycling. Basically, trash can be recycled either by sorting out the trash at a central facility, or by separate collection of recyclables. There are trade-offs. Sorting out the trash avoids extra collection routes, but tends to be very costly. Also, recyclables sorted from raw garbage have lower value. Most major MRFs do not actually sort the raw household trash, because it is unproductive. On the other hand, separate collection makes cleaner recyclables, but may require extra collection routes. However, there are ways to recycle with a minimal number of extra routes. 1. Commercial and apartment trash bins can be converted to a tan and blue system like the curbside recycling program. By changing some of the regular trash bins to blue recycling, some of the trash routes can be changed to recycling routes. Thus separate collections can be made without doubling the number of routes. The $1.5 million grant funded equipment for curbside recycling can be used to sort the mixed recyclables from apartments and some businesses. 2. A universal curbside blue cart program could be added with minimal extra trucks, using a technique called dual collection. Dual collection uses a divided truck body to collect two routes in one trip. Processing the blue cart material can be done at the Mt. Vernon Facility, minimizing travel for blue/green dual collection trucks to unload. Page 3 of 3 In addition to possible new recycling programs, expansion of current ones should not be overlooked. There are two ways to reduce self-haul truck trips and increase recycling with existing infrastructure: 1. Restrict disposal of construction and demolition (C&D) materials at the landfill. A simple ordinance could direct self-haul away from landfills to facilities such as the haulers' existing C&D facility. 2. Restrict disposal of greenwaste at the landfill. Currently, residential waste is admitted to the landfill free, paid for by the residential land use fee. Many commercial gardeners abuse this, enjoying free admission to the landfill by claiming their loads are from residential sources. Eliminating this loophole would induce greater use of the existing greenwaste facility. Recommendations With so many considerations for a total solid waste system, a full study of options would be complex, especially as the new rules begin to come out of the state capitol. Therefore, a consultant study is recommended. The City and County jointly funded the recent transfer station study. The prior work could easily be expanded to provide a complete MRF feasibility study. Continuing to work jointly with the County would be more efficient in addressing metropolitan area issues. Both staffs were preparing to do so when the County Board of Supervisors instead directed staff to develop a MRF plan in coordination with the local haulers. The local haulers have since proposed that they be exclusively given a contract to handle the entire project. This would need to go through a bidding process because: 1. It would be a project on publicly owned land, ultimately paid for by rates set by City Council, making it a Public Works project. 2. Several other vendors have requested the opportunity to bid on waste and recycling projects. The list ranges from local to large corporate organizations. A key consideration is that large fee increases to support a MRF have the potential to increase illegal dumping, and more importantly, drive waste out of the countywide system. This would in turn require additional fee increases to maintain revenues for debt service and operation of the MRF. Therefore, it is prudent to avoid fee increases that exceed other disposal options around the state. Until the new mandates are set, no one is sure how much the average fees will increase. Before contracting for a MRF project, staff recommends first completing a MRF feasibility study in light of pending legislation. Staff also recommends conducting Pilot programs for some of the options mentioned above, to help choose strategies as the new rules eventually come out. In the event a MRF becomes an appropriate solution, the regular competitive bidding process could begin. Refuse Transfer and Recycling Options For the Solid Waste System Following the bad news that the Metropolitan Area Transfer/Recycling Station did not receive grant funding from the air district, this is to list alternative ways the solid waste system can potentially reduce air pollution through refuse transfer or increase the level of recycling at minimal cost to the community. It should be noted that, in the air emissions study, most of the available emission reductions are from transferring self- haul loads. Refuse trucks are already regulated to minimize air emissions by 2010 under state rules, and therefore offer less opportunity for emission reductions. Refuse Transfer Options 1. Direct Transfer From Routes-Refuse trucks can transfer waste directly into transport trailers in two different ways, without the cost of a large central transfer station: a. Direct transfer trailers at yard docks(see Figure 1). b. Detachable packer trailers(see Figure 2). These options may be practical for transferring loads from the west Metro Area, which is the furthest from the landfill. East Metro Area loads can still be hauled a shorter distance directly to the landfill. 2. Convenience Stations for Self Haulers- Drop off sites with large containers or trailers can accept small loads from the self-hauling public, with minimal site development cost(see Figure 3). Recycling Options 1. Maki nn Curbside Recvclino Cost Less— Universal curbside recycling may cost less with a method called dual collection, in which two types of carts are dumped into separate sides of a collection truck on one trip. A previous pilot program for dual collection of tan and green carts showed the system works. However, it was not expanded because a transfer station was not available. A new consideration would be dual collection of blue and green carts, so that a transfer station is not needed. Staff recommends a pilot program for this. 2. Expanding Blue Cart Recycling to Apartments—Blue cart recycling does not need to be limited to single family homes. Small and medium apartment complexes can also use them. There are a few such complexes already on the voluntary program. 3. Expanding Blue Cart Recycling to Businesses—Blue cart recycling is already used by a few dozen small businesses and schools. It can be expanded further. 4. Creating l3lue Bin Recycling for Large Apartments and Businesses—The existing commercial cardboard recycling bin program can easily be expanded to include other recyclables, for blue bin service at larger apartment complexes and businesses. Figure 1 dw � 4 k c aa } M e v"'` I 9n , a..wr x �E'�.. � z A S � r _ p w ty �y b 5 3 F e Figure 2—Direct Transfer Trailer t N; N ;V Y �A`� _. :a r'WN, x n d. f 3 � a Figure 3 - Convenience Station for Self Haulers MEMORANDUM TO: Budget,and Finance Committee FROM: Nelson Smith,Finance Director /vs DATE: , April 25, 2008 SUBJECT: Review of the Master Fee Schedule State law requires new fees and charges, as well as increases in existing fees and charges; be adopted by ordinance or resolution following a public hearing. .The City's procedure is provided. for in Chapter 3.70 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code. The City's review process includes a complete and thorough review of all fees every two years to check assumptions for labor costs, materials usage, etc. Every other year staff proposes fees to be increased by a standard Consumer Price Index(CPI)factor. Staff last performed the complete review in May 2007, r Each department completed a review of fees, considering current salary and benefit cost information..The attached is a list of fee increases based on the CPI Index of 4.2%for your review. In addition, there are two fee increases above the CPI. Furthermore, to be consistent with this year's budget instructions, departments carefully reviewed their fees and verified cost recovery. The following is a summary of adjustments and restructuring to existing fees over the CPI Index for 2008 (4.2%). 2008 Cost Recovery Program U_ odate Exhibit"A" Proposed Master Fee Schedule for 2008: The attached schedule is a comprehensive list of all fees authorized under the cost recovery program, Exhibit"B" Proposed Master Fee Schedule for 2008: Changes Only: The attached schedule is a summary list of services that staff is proposing to be changed or modified to recover the actual cost of providing the service. SARichardUvIASTER FEE SCH\Memo-Fees 2008.doc INCREASES TO FEES OVER THE CPI INDEX FOR 2008 J A -INSPECTION FEES &SERVICES A-12 Re-inspection of Municipal Code Violations -Complaints and Enforcement -Initial Contact and Inspection $ 0 -Follow.-up Inspections Required(Each Occurrence) $ 105 -Abatement Hearing Processing Fee $ 195 Assessment Hearing Processing Fee $ 300 Abatement Warrant Processing Fee $ 535 -Property Abatement ACTUAL COST Legal Action Required ACTUAL COST These proposed fees are restructuring previous fees in an effect to obtain improved p compliance issues in code violation issues. B-LAND USE REVIEW/PERMITS B-28 Site Plan Review(DS) -Maximum Fee $3,500 The current maximum fee is $2,500. The fee is proposed to recover the actual costs of providing this service for the increased value in commercial developments and compliance with appropriate standards. D - PUBLIC SAFETY D-61 Business Regulation (PD) -Vehicle Code Enforcement - Unlicensed Driver Fee -DUI Towing Charge $ 125 The current fees are$101 125 'r an Unlicensed Driver and DUI Towing Charge. The new fees proposed are to recover the actual costs of providing this service. The increase is caused by the rise in costs of enforcement and personnel involved in the regulation of these activities including sending certified letters to each offender. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends forwarding these proposed fee increases to the full City Council for their consideration. CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" TABLE OF CONTENTS A-INSPECTION FEES 8r SERVICES A-1 NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION A-2 RESIDENTIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR A-3 COMMERCIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR A-4 SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION A-5 STREET CUT INSPECTION A-6 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION A-7 STREET ENCROACHMENT INSPECTION A-8 STATE-MANDATED FIRE INSPECTION A-9 OIL WELL INSPECTION(ANNUAL) 3 A-10 FIRE SAFETY REVIEW/INSPECTION A-12 REINSPECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS ............................................................................ 4 A-13 HOUSING PROGRAMS B-LAND USE REVIEW/PERMITS B-20 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL/COMPLIANCE FEE B-21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT B-22 HOME OCCUPATION REVIEW .......................................................................... 4 B-23 FIRE SUPPRESSION-PERMIT PROCESSING AND PLAN REVIEW FEES B-24 SIGN-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTIONS FEES B-25 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP REVIEW B-26 MINOR LAND DIVISION REVIEW B-27 PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW B-28 SITE PLAN REVIEW B-29 SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW B-30 PUD OR PCD ZONE CHANGE B-31 ZONE CHANGE REVIEW B-32 APPEAL PROCESSING B-33 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW B-34 CONCURRENT APPLICATION GPA/ZONE CHANGE B-35 ZONE MODIFICATION REVIEW-MODIFICATIONS B-36 SIGN REVIEW B-37 MAP&IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECKING B-38 DEVELOPMENT TIME EXTENSION REVIEW B-39 TRAFFIC MARKING REQUEST REVIEW B-40 CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY(CUPA)FEES B-41 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW B-42 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW B-43 HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW B-44 WIDE/OVERLOAD REVIEW B-45 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS C-PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES C-51 FIRE REPORT COPY C-52 POLICE RECORDING DUPLICATION SERVICE C-53 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH COPY ............................................................ 7 C-54 DOCUMENT PRINTING AND COPYING ..........................................................I....... 7 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 1 of 2 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" TABLE OF CONTENTS C-55 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS C-56 RESEARCH AND CERTIFICATIONS C-57 AGENDA/MINUTE MAILING SERVICE C-58 MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENT C-59 PUBLIC WORKS INFORMATION D-PUBLIC SAFETY D-61 BUSINESS REGULATION D-62 CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT PROCESSING D-63 LIMOUSINE/TAXI/TOWING REGULATION D-64 WEED ABATEMENT OR FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT D-65 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RESPONSE D-66 FIRE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE D-67 POLICE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE D-68 SPECIAL EVENT SAFETY SERVICES D-69 AUTOMOTIVE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION D-70 FINGERPRINT SERVICE D-71 VEHICLE CODE ENFORCEMENT D-72 SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD SERVICE D-73 PARKING ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT D-74 BOARD UP OF STRUCTURES D-75 ANIMAL REGULATION E RECREATION/CULTURAL .............................................................. 9 - E-82 PARK FACILITY RENTAL E-83 RECREATION CENTER RENTAL ........................................................................... 10 E-84 CITY ADULT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES E-85 CITY YOUTH PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES E-86 AQUATIC PROGRAMS-RECREATIONAL SWIMMING E-87 LEISURE CLASSES .....................................................................I...... 12 E-88 AMPHITHEATRE FEES-THE PARK AT RIVER WALK F-MISCELLANEOUS FEES ..........................................................................1 14 F-90 HEARINGS AND APPEALS F-91 FIRE HYDRANT DISTRIBUTION AND INSTALLATION INSPECTION F-92 DOCUMENT IMAGING ........................................................................... 14 ............................................................I.............1 14 F-93 PROCESSING SCHOOL FACILITY FEES F-94 COMPUTER DATA ...............................................................I........... 14 F-95 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FEES ........................................................................... 14 ........................................................................... 14 F-96 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STREET USE ...........................................................I................ 14 F-97 RETURN CHECK CHARGE ........................................................................... 14 F-98 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER RENTAL F-99 BROADCAST CHARGES FOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS F-100 BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING FEES ..........................................................................1 14 .............................................I.............................. 14 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 2 of 2 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" 7SERVICE- ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) A•,._.aPECTION FEES&SERVICES ALL CONSTRUCTION(INCLUDING:NEW,ADDITIONAL,ALTERATION,REMODEL,REPAIR,AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION) FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PROCESSING,SERVICES,AND INSPECTION FEES ARE CALCULATED AS FOLLOWS: TWO GENERAL METHODS ARE USED TO CALCULATE FEES. THE USE OF A FLAT FEE AND THE USE OF THE ESTIMATED REGIONAL MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION MULTIPLIED BY A "FEE FACTOR". THESE METHODS REPRESENT THE ESTIMATED COST OF PROVIDING ALL PLAN REVIEW AND VARIOUS INSPECTION FEES REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT. VALUATION DATA IS BASED UPON THE AUGUST 2007 BUILDING VALUATION DATA(BVD). ALTERATIONS& REMODELS WILL BE VALUED AT$50 PER SQUARE FOOT OR BY AN OFFICIAL CONTRACT APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DIRECTOR. THE REVENUE GENERATED FROM THIS IS THEN SPREAD TO THE VARIOUS COSTS CENTER AS FOLLOWS: BUILDING PERMITS: 55.00% PLAN CHECKING FEES: 45.00% THIS METHODOLOGY IS USED IN SERVICE CENTERS Al,A2,A3,AND A4. A-1 NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$10,000.00) 0.0050 x VAL 0.0050 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION ABOVE INCLUDES STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL,PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS AND PLAN REVIEW NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$7,042.00) VALUATION$7,042.00 TO$1,000,000.00 0.0071 x VAL 0.0071 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION VALUATION$1,000,001.00 AND GREATER 0.0065 x VAL 0.0065 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION ABOVE INCLUDES STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL,PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS AND PLAN REVIEW GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE $75 $78 $3 A-2 RESIDENTIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR RESIDENTIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$10,000.00) 0.0050 x VAL 0.0050 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION ABOVE INCLUDES STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL,PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS AND PLAN REVIEW MECHANICAL(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PERMIT AND ISSUANCE FEE OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$10,000.00) 0.0050 x VAL 0.0050 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION PLUMBING(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$10,000.00) 0.0050 x VAL 0.0050 x VAL ELECTRICAL(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$10,000.00) 0.0050 x VAL 0.0050 x VAL A3 COMMERCIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION -COMMERCIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$7,042.00) VALUATION$7,042.00 TO$1,000,000.00 0.0071 x VAL 0.0071 x VAL VALUATION$1,000,001.00 AND GREATER $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION ABOVE INCLUDES STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL,PLUMBING, 0.0065 x VAL 0.0065 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS AND PLAN REVIEW -MECHANICAL(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$7,042.00) $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER 0.0071 x VAL 0.0071 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION -PLUMBING(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$7,042.00) 0 $50 $52 $2 .0071 x VAL 0.0071 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION -ELECTRICAL(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE OTHER THAN MINIMUM(VALUATION>$7,042.00 $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER 0.0071 x VAL 0.0071 x VAL $0 VARIES WITH VALUATION A-4 SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES(EACH PERMIT) AIR CONDITIONER,ALL SIZES $50 $52 WALL HEATER INSTALLATION $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER FIREPLACE INSERT INSTALLATION $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.8 HEATER COOLER INSTALLATION $50 $52 $2 KITCHEN HOOD INSTALLATION $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER Prepared by: R.Ryberg 1 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS 16ER 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,FIXTURES, APPLIANCES&OTHER APPARATUSES(EACH PERMIT) MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER -OTHER THAN MINIMUM FEE IS CALCULATED UNDER SERVICE CENTER A-2 OR A-3 AS A MECHANICAL PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES PLUMBING CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES(EACH PERMIT) GAS LINE $50 $52 $2 SEWER LINE $50 $52 $2 WATER LINE $50 $52 $2 PIPE LINE REPAIR(GAS,SEWER,WATER,ETC) $50 $52 $2 WATER HEATER REPLACEMENTS $50 $52 $2 SEPTIC TANK $50 $52 $2 SEPTIC TANK ABANDONMENT $50 $52 $2 GREASE INTERCEPTORS $100 $104 $4 WATER SOFTENERS $50 $52 $2 SHOWER PAN -SOLAR $50 $52 $2 $50 $52 $2 SITE SEWER SYSTEMS $50 $52 $2 SITE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS $50 $52 $2 MISCELLANEOUS PLUMBING EQUIPMENT,FIXTURES, APPLIANCES AND OTHER APPARATUSES(EACH PERMIT) MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 OTHER THAN MINIMUM FEE IS CALCULATED UNDER SERVICE CENTER A-2 OR A-3 AS A PLUMBING PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES(EACH PERMIT) TEMPORARY POWER SERVICE<or=600 VOLTS AND 200 AMPS $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER PERMANENT POWER SERVICE<or=600 VOLTS AND 200 AMPS $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER SITE ELECTRICAL AND OTHER SITE POWER APPARATUSES $50 $52 $2 MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT,FIXTURES, APPLIANCES&OTHER APPARATUSES(EACH PERMIT) MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER -OTHER THAN MINIMUM FEE IS CALCULATED UNDER SERVICE CENTER A-2 OR A-3 AS A ELECTRICAL PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES DEMOLITIONS OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION $50 $52 $2 ENTIRE STRUCTURE DEMOLITION $50 $52 $2 MOVED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES RESIDENTIAL MOVED STRUCTURE $50 $52 $2 COMMERCIAL MOVED STRUCTURE $50 $52 $2 RESIDENTIAL STATE APPROVED MOBILE HOME AND PRE-MANUFACTURED CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MOBILE HOME WITHOUT PERMANENT FOUNDATION $50 $52 $2 MOBILE HOME WITH PERMANENT FOUNDATION $200 $208 $8 MOBILE HOME GARAGE $50 $52 $2 MOBILE HOME ACCESSORY STRUCTURES $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER PRE-MANUFACTURED HOUSING $200 $208 $8 COMMERCIAL STATE APPROVED MOBILE COACH AND PRE-MANUFACTURED CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES COMMERCIAL COACH(PERMANENT) $200 $208 $8 COMMERCIAL PRE-MANUFACTURED(PERMANENT) $200 $208 $8 COMMERCIAL COACH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECT.&HEATER CONSTRUCTION TRAILER(TEMPORARY)- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES $50 $52 $2 RESIDENTIAL RE-ROOF-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -MINIMUM FEE(EACH PERMIT,REGARDLESS OF SIZE) $100 $104 $4 VARIES WNALUE&IF COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIAL RE-ROOF-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -MINIMUM FEE(EACH PERMIT,REGARDLESS OF SIZE) $100 $104 $4 VARIES WNALUE&IF COMMERCIAL OR POOLS AND SPAS-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -SWIMMING POOLS POOL&SPA $200 $208 $8 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL&HEATER -SPA/ IN GROUND $250 $260 $10 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL&HEATER -SPA/PORTABLE $100 $104 $4 INCLUDES PLUMBING,ELECTRICAL&HEATER EACH OF THE ABOVE INCLUDES STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL,PLUMBING, $50 $52 $2 ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS AND PLAN REVIEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MISC.-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES PATIO ADDITION(EACH PERMIT),REGARDLESS OF SIZE $100 $104 $4 ANTENNA DISH $50 $52 $2 OIL WELL PERMIT FEE $686 $714 $28 RETAINING WALL OR FENCING MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(LENGTH>80 LIN FT) $0.50/FT $0.50/FT $0 PER LINEAL FOOT STORAGE RACKS/SHELVES(EACH PERMIT) $100 $104 $4 STORAGE CONTAINER/SEA TRAIN(EACH PERMIT) $50 $52 $2 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 2 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS 1BER 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) REQUESTED PLAN REVIEW FEES-COMMERCIAL EXPEDITE PLAN REVIEW $70 $72 $2 PER HOUR CHARGE ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW $70 $72 $2 PER HOUR CHARGE REQUIRED BY CHANGES,ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO APPROVED PLANS REQUESTED PLAN REVIEW FEES-RESIDENTIAL EXPEDITE PLAN REVIEW $60 $62 $2 PER HOUR CHARGE ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW $60 $62 $2 PER HOUR CHARGE REQUIRED BY CHANGES,ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO APPROVED PLANS REQUESTED BUILDING INSPECTIONS FEES SPECIAL INSPECTIONS NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS $55 $57 $2 PER HOUR CHARGE OUTSIDE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS(2 HOUR MINIMUM) $55 $57 $2 PER HOUR CHARGE RE-INSPECTIONS NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS $55 $57 $2 PER HOUR CHARGE OUTSIDE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS(2 HOUR MINIMUM) $55 $57 $2 PER HOUR CHARGE TEMPORARY SALES LOTS-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -TEMPORARY SALES LOTS $50 $52 $2 ABOVE INCLUDES XMAS TREE&PUMPKIN LOTS,FIREWORKS BOOTHS, PARKING LOT,TENT SALES,ETC GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -GOVERNMENTSTRUCTURES $0 $0 $0 EXEMPT ABOVE INCLUDES STRUCTURES AND PROPERTY OWNED BY A FEDERAL, STATE,COUNTY OR CITY AGENCY REQUEST FOR CODE MODIFICATION PER MODIFICATION $100 $102 $2 ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS $551 HR $55/HR $0 REQUEST FOR ALTERNATE MATERIAL&METHOD PER ALTERNATE MATERIAL/METHOD $100 $102 $2 ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND ANALYSIS $55/HR $55/HR $0 - UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP REVIEW $55 $57 $2 PERMIT EXTENSION $55 $57 $2 SPECIAL INSPECTOR REGISTRATION $25 $26 $1 ANNUAL REGISTRATION -TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY INITIAL CERTIFICATE $200 $208 $8 ADDITIONAL EXTENSION $100 $104 $4 GRADING INSPECTION GRADING INSPECTION(BASE FEE) $220 $229 $9 INCLUDES 4 INSPECTIONS REINSPECTION FEE $0 $55/HR $0 OSHPD3 INSPECTIONS ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 (OFFICE OF STATEWIDE HEALTH PLAN&DEVELOPMENT) A-5 STREET CUT INSPECTION STREET CUT PERMIT(BASE FEE) $210 $218 $8 FEE INCLUDES 2 INSPECTIONS INSPECTION FEE DEPOSIT $65 $67 $2 FEE FOR EACH ADDITIONAL INSPECTION OVER (DEPOSIT VARIES DEPENDING UPON TYPE OF WORK.MIN DEPOSIT$130) CANCELLATION FEE $85 $88 $3 THE TWO INCLUDED IN THE BASE FEE RIDER/AMENDMENT FEE $20 $20 $0 (NO REFUND AVAILABLE IF INSPECTION SERVICES HAVE COMMENCED) A-6 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION $210 + $218 + $8 1.61%x VAL 1.61%x VAL $0 OVERTIME RATE $65/HR $67/HR $2/HR NORMAL WORKDAY 7AM TO 4PM MON-FRI IF APPLICANT REQUESTS OUTSIDE CONSULTING ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 -PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT INSPECTIONS ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 (FOR OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS TO INSPECT NEW PARKS) A-7 STREET ENCROACHMENT INSPECTION -STREET ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $200 $208 $8 A-8 STATE-MANDATED FIRE INSPECTION -CONSULTATION REQUESTS FOR IN HOME CARE FACILITIES $96 $100 $4 PER HOUR CHARGE A-9 OIL WELL INSPECTION(ANNUAL) OIL WELL INSPECTION(ANNUAL) $96 $100 $4 ANNUAL INSPECTION RE-INSPECTION(IF REQUIRED) $96 $100 $4 PER HOUR CHARGE OIL WELL INSTALLATION $96 $100 $4 PER HOUR CHARGE A-10 FIRE SAFETY REVIEW/INSPECTION SAFETY INSPECTIONS-PRIVATE PARTY/INSURANCE REQUESTS $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE -RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE TENT INSTALLATION $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE AFTER HOURS TENT INSTALLATION $121 $121 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE AFTER HOURS RE-INSPECTION FEE $121 $121 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE PAINT BOOTHS NEW SPRAY PAINT BOOTHS $235 $235 $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE HIGH RISE INSPECTION FEE $168 $168 RE-INSPECTION FEE $0 PR HR FOR 2 INSPECTORS WORKING TOGETHER $168 $168 $0 PR HR FOR 2 INSPECTORS WORKING TOGETHER Prepared by: R.Ryberg 3 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ WBER NOTES/COMMENTS 10/24/07 05/21108 (DECREASE) FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSPECTION(COMMERCIAL) MINIMUM FEE $140 $140 $0 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(IF OVER 10,000 SQ.FT.) 0.014 x SQ.FT 0.014 x SQ.FT $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSPECTION(ADDITIONS/REMODELS) MINIMUM FEE $140 $140 $0 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(IF OVER 10,000 SQ.FT.) 0.014 x SQ.FT 0.014 x SQ.FT $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE FIRE ALARM SYSTEM COMPONENT INSPECTION MINIMUM FEE $140 $140 $0 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(OVER 10,000 SQ.FT.) 0.014 x SQ.FT 0.014 x SQ.FT $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE COMMERCIAL VENT HOOD INSPECTION MINIMUM FEE $235 $235 $0 INSPECTION OF EACH ADDITIONAL VENT HOOD $58 $58 $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE -STANDPIPE INSPECTION INSPECTION OF STANDPIPES $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE EXPLOSIVES PURCHASE,SALES& STORAGE INSPECTION INSPECTION&PERMIT FEE(IF MATERIAL TYPE CHANGES) FIRST INSPECTION $235 $235 $0 EXPLOSIVES STORAGE PERMIT $31 $31 $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE PYROTECHNICS INSPECTION PERMIT $96 $96 $0 ONE TIME FEE PER EVENT -NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE -AFTER HOURS RATE $121 $121 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE FIREWORKS BOOTH PERMIT FEES APPLICATION FEE-FIREWORKS PERMIT $40 $40 $0 NON-REFUNDABLE ADMINISTRATIVE&INSPECTION SERVICES $203 $203 $0 CODE ENFORCEMENT $300 $300 $0 POLICE AND FIRE A-12 RE-INSPECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS DANGEROUS BUILDING INVESTIGATIONS INITIAL CONTACT AND INSPECTION $0 $0 $0 FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS REQUIRED(EACH OCCURRENCE) $340 $354 $14 LEGAL ACTION REQUIRED ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 COMPLAINTS AND ENFORCEMENT INITIAL CONTACT AND INSPECTION $0 $0 $0 FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS REQUIRED(EACH OCCURRENCE) $300 $105 -$195 ABATEMENT HEARING PROCESSING FEE $0 $195 $195 ASSESSMENT HEARING PROCESS FEE $0 $300 $300 ABATEMENT WARRANT PROCESSING $0 $535 PROPERTY ABATEMENT $535 NEW FEE LEGAL ACTION REQUIRED ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 A-13 HOUSING PROGRAMS REHABILITATION INSPECTIONS -INITIAL INSPECTION/DOCUMENTATION $152 $158 $6 FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS INSPECTION $100 $104 ADDITIONAL INSPECTION COSTS/FEES $4 DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING COSTS $121 $126 $5 ROOF REPLACEMENT $ ELECTRICAL 55 $57 $2 PLUMBING $76 $79 $3 MECHANICAL $76 $79 $3 -FRAME/FLOOR $76 $79 $3 $55 $57 $2 MAXIMUM CHARGE FOR REHAB INSPECTIONS $614 $639 $25 B-LAND USE REVIEW/PERMITS B-20 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL/COMPLIANCE FEE -PHASE I-PLANNING PERMIT PROCESS USED ON SPECIFIC PLANS,PUDs,&PCDs PHASE II-BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS $ $330 $0 $440 0 $40 $0 B-21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL OIL WELL REVIEW GENERAL REVIEW(ALL ZONES) $1,920 $2,000 $80 B-22 HOME OCCUPATION REVIEW $1,565 $1,630 $65 HOME OCCUPATION PERMIT $30 $30 LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE $0 B-23 FIRE SUPPRESSION-PERMIT PROCESSING AND PLAN REVIEW FEES $30 $30 $0 PAINT BOOTH PLAN REVIEW(P.I.=PLAN INSPECTION) $235 $235 -RE-INSPECTION FEE $0 $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR NON-FLAMMABLE MEDICAL GAS SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR Prepared by: R.Ryberg 4 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ MBER NOTES/COMMENTS 10124/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) EXISTING SPRINKLER SYSTEM ADDITION PLAN REVIEW(COMMERCIAL) MINIMUM FEE $140 $140 $0 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(IF OVER 10,000 SQ.FT.) 0.014 x SQ.FT 0.014 x SQ.FT $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR SPRINKLER SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW(COMMERCIAL) MINIMUM FEE $140 $140 $0 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(IF OVER 10,000 SQ.FT.) 0.014 x SQ.FT 0.014 x SQ.FT $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $98 $96 $0 PER HOUR SPRINKLER SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW(RESIDENTIAL) MINIMUM FEE $140 $140 $0 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(IF OVER 10,000 SQ.FT.) 0.014 x SQ.FT 0.014 x SQ.FT $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR FIRE ALARM SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW MINIMUM FEE $140 $140 $0 OTHER THAN MINIMUM(OVER 10,000 SQ.FT.) 0.014 x SQ.FT 0.014 x SQ.FT $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR COMMERCIAL VENT HOOD PLAN REVIEW MINIMUM FEE $235 $235 $0 INSPECTION OF EACH ADDITIONAL VENT HOOD $58 $58 $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR STANDPIPE SYSTEM PLAN REVIEW INSPECTION OF STANDPIPES $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR PORTABLE LPG STORAGE/DISTRIBUTION $96 $96 $0 (ONE TIME FEE FOR BUSINESSES W/PORTABLE PROPANE) MAIL OUT INSPECTION $31 $31 $0 FIRE PREVENTION OVERSIGHT $112 $112 $0 B-24 SIGN-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTIONS FEES SIGN, BANNER SIGN,TEMPORARY $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PERMIT AND ISSUANCE FEE SIGN,PERMANENT $50 $52 $2 INCLUDES PERMIT AND ISSUANCE FEE SIGN,PERMANENT-FACE CHANGE $100 $104 $4 INCLUDES PERMIT,ELECTRICAL& ISSUANCE FEE ABOVE INCLUDES STRUCTURAL,ELECTRICAL INSPECTIONS AND PLAN REVIEW $50 $52 $2 B-25 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP REVIEW TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP REVIEW -STANDARD $2,185 $2,275 $90 REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP REVIEW -STANDARD $595 $620 $P5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVIEW -STANDARD $2,695 $2,805 $110 REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVIEW -STANDARD $1,530 $1,590 $60 WALL AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW $1,040 $1,080 $40 SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY REVIEW $110 $110 $0 -STREET NAMING $400 $415 $15 -EXTENSION OF VESTING RIGHTS $115 $115 $0 B-26 MINOR LAND DIVISION REVIEW LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $1,000 $1,042 $q2 PARCEL MAP WAIVERS $1,600 $1,687 $67 OWNER INITIATED PARCEL MERGER $1,000 $1,042 $42 CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE $1,000 $1,042 $42 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION(SUMMARY VACATION ONLY) $850 $885 $35 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION(NON-SUMMARY VACATION) $1,380 $1,437 $57 B-27 PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW REQUESTED LAND USE&ZONING REVIEW $65 $65 $0 ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS -ADVERTISED -POSTED $400 $415 $15 COMPLETENESS REVIEW $115 $115 $0$130 $135 $5 SOUND EQUIPMENT REGISTRATION-ZONING CHECK $10 $10 $0 B-28 SITE PLAN REVIEW MINIMUM FEE-NO HEARING REQUIRED $200 $200 $0 MAXIMUM FEE-NO HEARING REQUIRED $2,500 $3,500 OTHER THAN MINIMUM FEE UP TO MAXIMUM $1,000 001668 x VAL .001668 x VAL $0 LEGAL ADVERTISING FEE-IF HEARING REQUIRED $390 $405 $15 B-29 SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW INITIAL PREPARATION FEE $4,790 $4,990 SINGLE ELEMENT $200 MULTIPLE ELEMENTS $4,790 $4,990 $200 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT $5,390 $5,615 $225 b-s0 PUD OR PCD ZONE CHANGE $2,395 $2,495 $100$3,550 B-31 ZONE CHANGE REVIEW $3,700 $150 $2,955 $3,080 $125 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 5 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS NBER 10124/07 05121108 (DECREASE) ..2 APPEAL PROCESSING APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER OUTSIDE NOTICE AREA-BASE FEE $390 $405 $15 NOTICE AREA=300 FT APPLICANT INSIDE NOTICE AREA-BASE FEE $390 $405 $15 NOTICE AREA=300 FT (PROPERTY OWNER INSIDE NOTICE AREA-EXEMPT) LAND DIVISIONS $390 $405 $15 REGARDLESS OF NOTICE AREA LEGAL ADVERTISING FEE $285 $295 $10 WEED ABATEMENT APPEALS -MINIMUM FEE-NO NOTICE REQUIRED $102 $105 $3 B-33 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW - SINGLE ELEMENT $4,140 $4,310 $170 B-34 CONCURRENT APPLICATION GPA/ZONE CHANGE $7,000 $7,295 $295 FEE IS PRESENTED IN THE MASTER FEE B-35 ZONE MODIFICATION REVIEW-MODIFICATIONS -ZONE MODIFICATION REVIEW-MODIFICATIONS $1,275 $1,325 $50 B-36 SIGN REVIEW COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REVIEW $1,040 $1,080 $40 COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REVIEW-REVISED $375 $390 $15 B-37 MAP&IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECKING FINAL TRACT MAPS $690 + $718 + $28 $31/LOT $31/LOT FINAL PARCEL MAPS $690 + $718 + $P8 GRADING PLAN REVIEW $31/LOT $31/LOT (FEES FOR ANY PLANS NOT COVERED BY THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES WILL BE COMPUTED ON AN ACTUAL COST BASIS) -COMMERCIAL PROJECTS&OTHER MULTI-FAMILY PLANS,PARCEL MAPS, $360 $375 $15 &PARCEL MAP WAIVERS LESS THAN 5 ACRES IN SIZE -COMMERCIAL PROJECTS&OTHER MULTI-FAMILY PLANS,PARCEL MAPS, $360 + $375 + $15 &PARCEL MAP WAIVERS IN EXCESS THAN 5 ACRES IN SIZE $19.00/ACRE $19.00/ACRE SUBDIVISION TRACTS $360 + $375 + $15 REVISION FEE $19.00/ACRE $19.00/ACRE - $360 $375 $15 STREET/SEWER IMPROVEMENTS ORIGINAL PLAN SUBMITTAL $330+0.93% $343+0.93% $13 ADDITIONAL PLAN SUBMITTAL AFTER SECOND CHECK 10.0%OF 10.0%OF $p MINOR REVISION TO PLAN AFTER PLAN APPROVED ORIGINAL FEE ORIGINAL FEE MAJOR REVISION TO PLAN AFTER PLAN APPROVED $330 n $+0, $13 MAJOR REVISION TO PLAN DURING CHECKING PROCESS $330+0.93/o $343+0.93% $13 BASED ON CURRENT PORTION -SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMANCE $330+0.93% $343+0.93% $13 BASED ON REVISED PORTION $235 $244 $g MAINTENANCE.DISTRICT MAP PREPARATION FEES (REGARDING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FORMATIONS&ANNEXATIONS) NO COMPUTER DISC PROVIDED $2,270 + $2,365 + $95 $16.30/LOT $16.30/LOT COMPUTER DISC PROVIDED $1,740 + $1,813 + $73 -APPORTIONMENT FEE FOR MAINTENANCE.DISTRICTS $3.20/LOT $3.20/LOT WITH CAD DISC PROVIDED BY APPLICANT NO CHARGE NO CHARGE $0 PER LOT FEE(NO DISC PROVIDED BY APPLICANT) $16.30/LOT $16.30/LOT MIN.FEE$100.00 B-38 DEVELOPMENT TIME EXTENSION REVIEW $570 $590 $20 -REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE $105 $105 $0 B-39 TRAFFIC MARKING REQUEST REVIEW $160 $166 B-40 CERTIFIED UNIFIED PROGRAM AGENCY(CUPA)FEES $6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLER FEES ANNUAL FEE MATERIAL TYPE 1 $104 $104 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 2 $224 $224 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 3 $280 $280 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 4 $414 $414 $0 F MATERIAL TYPE 5 $157 $157 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 6 $309 $309 $p MATERIAL TYPE 7 $465 - MATERIAL TYPE 8 $465 $p MATERIAL TYPE 9 $536 $536 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 10 $224 $224 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 11 $414 $414 $p MATERIAL TYPE 12 $536 $536 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 13 $571 $571 $p MATERIAL TYPE 14 $309 $309 $p MATERIAL TYPE 15 $536 $536 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 16 $571 $571 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 17 INSPECTION FEE $600 $600 $0 MATERIAL TYPE 18 SMALL QTY GENERATOR $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE $72 $72 $0 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 6 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS MBER 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITS CONDITIONALLY EXEMPT $118 $118 $0 PERMIT BY RULE $249 $249 $0 CONDITIONALLY AUTHORIZED $187 $187 $0 OVERSIGHT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOLLOW-UP ON HAZARDOUS WASTE VIOLATION-FEE PER HOUR $112 $112 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE RISK MGT PREVENTION PLAN FEE-CHARGE PER HOUR $112 $112 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE SITE ASSESSMENT&CLEANUP OVERSIGHT-CHARGE PER HOUR $112 $112 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK OVERSIGHT-CHARGE PER HOUR $112 $112 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE SPILL PREVENTION CONTROL&COUNTERMEASURE PLAN $112 $112 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMITS NEW TANK INSTALLATION $878 $878 $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE ANNUAL OPERATING PERMIT $96 $96 $0 MANDATED LEAK DETECTION TESTING $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE TANK MODIFICATION $878 $878 $0 MINOR TANK MODIFICATION $167 $167 $0 TANK REMOVAL $573 $573 $0 STATE SURCHARGE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HANDLER FEE SET BY STATE FEE SET BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITS FEE SET BY STATE FEE SET BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA OVERSIGHT FOR RISK MANAGEMENT PREVENTION PLAN FEE SET BY STATE FEE SET BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PERMITS FEE SET BY STATE FEE SET BY STATE OF CALIFORNIA FILE RESEARCH FEE $50 $50 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE ABOVE GROUND FLAMMABLE LIQUID STORAGE TANK INSTALLATION INSPECTION INSTALLATION INSPECTION OF ONE TANK $180 $180 $0 CHARGE FOR EACH ADDITIONAL TANK $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE TANK REMOVAL $109 $109 $0 RE-INSPECTION FEE $96 $96 $0 PER HOUR CHARGE ANNUAL FEE FOR GENERATING 10 OR MORE WASTE TIRES/YEAR $37 $37 $0 B-41 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW $250 $260 $10 B-42 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 $2,500 MINIMUM DEPOSIT COUNTY CLERK FILING FEE $25 $25 $0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS $255 $265 $10 HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW $2,500 $2,605 $105 . s4 WIDE/OVERLOAD REVIEW SINGLE TRIP $16 $16 $0 ANNUAL TRIP $90 $90 $0 SPECIAL SERVICE CHARGE $50 $50 $0 IF ADDL REVIEW WORK IS REQUIRED-PER HR B-45 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FEE $285 $295 $10 PROJECT SITE SIGN POSTING INSPECTION $70 $70 $0 C-PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES C-51 FIRE REPORT COPY $0.25/PAGE $0.25/PAGE $0 C-52 POLICE RECORDING DUPLICATION SERVICE $60/HOUR $60/HOUR $0 C-53 POLICE PHOTOGRAPH COPY FIRST PRINT $10 $10 $0 ADDITIONAL PRINTS(EACH)8 X 10 $0.50 $0.50 $0 ADDITIONAL PRINTS(EACH)5 X 7 $0.50 $0.50 $0 ADDITIONAL PRINTS(EACH)4 X 5 $0.50 $0.50 $0 DIGITAL IMAGING SALE $10 $10 $0 C-54 DOCUMENT PRINTING AND COPYING PHOTOCOPYING CHARGES STANDARD&LEGAL SIZED DOCUMENTS $0.25/PAGE $0.25/PAGE $0 COPY OF MICROFILMED DOCUMENTS $0.25/PAGE $0.25/PAGE $0 SPECIAL MAPS&OVERSIZED DOCUMENTS ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 ACTUAL COST BASED ON LABOR&MATERIALS PRINTED DOCUMENTS(IE BUDGET) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 ACTUAL COST BASED ON LABOR&MATERIALS POLICE CRIME REPORTS $0.25/PAGE $0.25/PAGE $0 FREE TO VICTIMS C-55 REQUEST FOR PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC RECORDS PHOTOCOPYING CHARGES STANDARD&LEGAL SIZE $0.25/PAGE $0.25/PAGE $0 COPIES FROM MICROFILM $0.25/PAGE $0.25/PAGE $0 OTHER DIRECT&INDIRECT CHARGES ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 REQUESTS BY SUBPOENA COPY SERVICE FEE(TO LOCATE&COMPILE RECORDS) $15 $15 $0 FEE SET BY LEGISLATION DIRECT LABOR COSTS(TO LOCATE,COMPILE,&COPY RECORDS) $24/HR $24/HR $0 FEE SET BY LEGISLATION PHOTOCOPYING CHARGES STANDARD&LEGAL SIZE $0.10 $0.10 $0 FEE SET BY LEGISLATION COPIES FROM MICROFILM $0.20 $0.20 $0 FEE SET BY LEGISLATION OTHER DIRECT CHARGES ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 FEE SET BY LEGISLATION C-56 RESEARCH AND CERTIFICATIONS CERTIFICATION $5 $5 $0 FEE IS CHARGED PER DOCUMENT Prepared by: R.Ryberg 7 of 14 412512008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS 4BER 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) ,l AGENDA/MINUTE MAILING SERVICE AGENDA/MINUTES MAILING SERVICE-CHARGE PER YEAR $70 $72 $2 COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET-CHARGE PER PACKET PER MEETING ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 C-58 MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENT $74 $77 $3 C-59 PUBLIC WORKS INFORMATION D-PUBLIC SAFETY D-61 BUSINESS REGULATION ADULT ENTERTAINMENT NEW APPLICATION $664 $691 $27 ANNUAL PERMIT RENEWAL $1,925 $2,005 $80 EMPLOYEE PERMIT $41 $42 $1 MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS $179 $186 $7 NEW&RENEWAL -MASSAGE TECHNICIAN $101 $105 $4 NEW&RENEWAL CARD ROOMS NEW APPLICATION $889 $926 $37 RENEWAL APPLICATION $1,840 $1,917 $77 CARD DEALERS NEW APPLICATION $197 $205 $8 RENEWAL APPLICATION $23 $23 $0 ESCORT/DATING SERVICES NEW APPLICATION $362 $377 $15 RENEWAL APPLICATION $173 $180 $7 EMPLOYEE-NEW $95 $98 $3 EMPLOYEE-RENEWAL $60 $62 $2 RETAIL SALES OF FIREARMS PERMIT $41 $42 $1 LIQUIDATION(CLOSEOUT)SALE-PERMIT $38 $39 $1 BINGO-NEW PERMIT $39 $40 $1 BINGO-RENEWAL PERMIT $39 $40 $1 SECOND HAND DEALERS,ITINERANT MERCHANTS,PUBLIC DANCE HALLS,OUTDOOR FESTIVALS,CABARETS, PREVIOUSLY INCLUDED AMPLIFIED MUSIC, SPEECH AND SOUND NOW INCLUDED IN B-27 TEMPORARY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES,HOUSE ADDRESS CURB PAINTING, JEWELRY AUCTIONS,SPECIAL EVENTS,HOTELS&LODGING HOUSES $39 $40 $1 INCLUDED NEW HOUSE ADDRESS CURB PAINTING BAIL BOND OWNER/AGENTS/SOLICITORS $22 $22 $0 PUSHCART FOOD VENDORS $38 $39 $1 MOTION PICTURE PERMIT $72 $75 $3 RESIDENT SOLICITATION $20 $20 $0 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND/OR NECESSITY APPROVAL(ALCOHOL PERMIT) $304 $316 $12 FEE IS NON-REFUNDABLE D-62 CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT PROCESSING -CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT $44 $45 $1 -RENEWAL $8 $8 $0 D-63 LIMOUSINE/TAXI/TOWING REGULATION LIMOUSINE DRIVER PERMIT $43 $43 $0 TAXI DRIVER PERMIT $43 $43 $0 SET BY ORDINANCE TAXI DRIVER PERMIT RENEWAL $26 $26 $0 SET BY ORDINANCE TAXI DRIVER PERMIT TRANSFER $6 $6 $0 SET BY ORDINANCE TAXI DRIVER PERMIT DUPLICATE $6 $6 $0 SET BY ORDINANCE AMBULANCE VEHICLE INSPECTION $32 $32 $0 INSPECTIONS CURRENTLY DONE BY CHP LIMO VEHICLE INSPECTION $32 $32 $0 TAXI VEHICLE INSPECTION $32 $32 $0 TOWING VEHICLE INSPECTION $0 $0 $0 D-64 WEED ABATEMENT OR FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT $194 $202 $8 D-65 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL RESPONSE ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 BILLED W/LABOR/EQUIPMENT RENTAL FEE D-66 FIRE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE $343 $357 $14 BILLED UPON 3RD ALARM WITHIN 12 MONTHS D-67 POLICE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE INITIAL ALARM PERMIT $30 $31 $1 -ALARM PERMIT RENEWAL $15 $15 $0 PERMIT RENEWAL DELINQUENCY PENALTY $1 $1 $0 $1/PERMIT/MONTH(MAXIMUM 10 MONTHS) CHARGE AFTER 5TH FALSE ALARM $114 $118 $4 CHARGE AFTER 10TH FALSE ALARM $197 $205 $8 D-68 SPECIAL EVENT SAFETY SERVICES POLICE-SPECIAL EVENT SECURITY(LABOR AND/OR EQUIPMENT) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 POLICE-2ND RESPONSE TO LOUD&UNRULY COMPLAINT ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 WHICHEVER IS LESS FIRE-SPECIAL EVENT SERVICES(LABOR AND/OR EQUIPMENT OR$1,000 OR$1,000 ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 D-69 AUTOMOTIVE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION -STANDARD REPORT&SHORT FORM $6.00/REPORI$6.00/REPORI $0 D-70 FINGERPRINT SERVICE -CHARGE PER APPLICANT PER FUNCTION $10 $10 $0 VEHICLE CODE ENFORCEMENT UNLICENSED DRIVER FEE(INCLUDES TOWING CHARGE) $101 $125 $24 DUI TOWING CHARGE $101 $125 $24 D-72 SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD SERVICE $0 $0 $0 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 8 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" 7SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS .3 PARKING ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) VEHICLE TOWING $56 $58 $2 PARKING VIOLATION N/A N/A N/A FEES SET BY RESOLUTION D-74 BOARD UP OF STRUCTURES LABOR COST PER INSPECTOR PER HOUR $43 $44 $1 COST OF MATERIALS ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 D-75 ANIMAL REGULATION LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES: MATCH EXISTING COUNTY FEE SCHEDULE - DELINQUENT PENALTY $10 $10 $0 FOR ANIMAL CONTROL -DUPLICATE LICENSE $5 $5 $0 SERVICE DOG NO FEE NO FEE $0 DANGEROUS ANIMAL(PER YEAR IN ADDITION TO FEE BELOW) $120 $120 $0 NON-COMPLIANCE $20 $20 $0 NATURAL DOG ONE YEAR OPTION $60 $60 $0 TWO YEAR OPTION $120 $120 $0 THREE YEAR OPTION $150 $150 $0 ALTERED DOG ONE YEAR OPTION $15 $15 $0 ONE YEAR OPTION/SENIOR CITIZEN DISCOUNT $5 $5 $0 TWO YEAR OPTION $25 $25 $0 TWO YEAR OPTION/SENIOR CITIZEN DISCOUNT $10 $10 $0 THREE YEAR OPTION $30 $30 $0 THREE YEAR OPTION/SENIOR CITIZEN DISCOUNT $15 $15 $0 -KENNEL KENNEL:PER YEAR FOR OVER 20 DOGS $100 $100 $0 KENNEL:PER YEAR FOR 11 TO 20 DOGS $75 $75 $0 KENNEL:PER YEAR 1-10 DOGS $50 $50 $0 -CATS — - OWNER I.D.TAG(OPTIONAL):PER CAT PER YEAR $6 $6 $0 DUPLICATE LICENSE TAG $5 $5 $0 WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMALS-ADMINISTRATIVE FEE $0 -ONE(1)OR MORE ANIMALS PER YEAR $150 $150 $0 INSPECTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE -COMPLIANCE INSPECTION FEE(PER OFFICER,PER HOUR $40/HOUR $40/HOUR $0 AFTER INITIAL INSPECTION) CHARGES FOR CARE AND FEEDING ANIMALS: UP TO 10OLBS.,PER DAY PER ANIMAL $15 $15 $0 ANIMALS:OVER 100LBS.,PER DAY PER ANIMAL $25 $25 $0 IMPOUND FEES DOGS LICENSED UNALTERED FIRST IMPOUNDMENT $25 $25 $0 ALTERED,FIRST IMPOUNDMENT $15 $15 $0 SUBSEQUENT IMPOUNDMENTS ARE CHARGED SAME RATE AS UNLICENSED DOGS DOGS UNLICENSED -FIRST IMPOUNDMENT $40 $40 $0 -SECOND IMPOUNDMENT $80 $80 $0 -THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT IMPOUNDMENTS $160 $160 $0 FEMALE DOG IN SEASON PER DOG -IN ADDITION TO CARE AND FEEDING AND IMPOUND FEES AND FINES $20 $20 $0 SMALL ANIMALS(UNDER 25 LBS.EXCEPT DOGS) -FIRST IMPOUNDMENT $15 $15 $0 -SECOND IMPOUNDMENT $50 $50 $0 -THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT IMPOUNDMENTS $75 $75 $0 LARGE ANIMALS(OVER 25 LBS.EXCEPT DOGS) -FIRST IMPOUNDMENT $50 $50 $0 -SECOND IMPOUNDMENT $150 $150 $0 -THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT IMPOUNDMENTS $300 $300 $0 DANGEROUS ANIMALS -FIRST IMPOUNDMENT $100 $100 $0 -SECOND IMPOUNDMENT $200 $200 $0 -THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT IMPOUNDMENTS $400 $400 $0 IMPOUND FINES FOR UNALTERED CATS AND DOGS FIRST OCCURRENCE $35 $35 $0 SECOND OCCURRENCE $50 $50 $0 THIRD AND SUBSEQUENT OCCURRENCES $100 $100 $0 REDEMPTION AND ADOPTION SERVICE CHARGES VACCINATIONS,DOG OR CAT,EACH ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 FLEA AND TICK DIP,EACH ANIMAL $5 $5 FELINE LEUKEMIA TEST $0 ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 -ADOPTION FEES FEMALE CAT $40 $40 $0 INCLUDES:$30 SPAY/NEUTER FEE MALE CAT $30 $30 &$10 CORE VACCINATIONS FEE $0 INCLUDES:$20 SPAY/NEUTER FEE -DOG &$10 CORE VACCINATIONS FEE $60 $60 $0 INCLUDES:$50 SPAY/NEUTER FEE &$10 CORE VACCINATIONS FEE Prepared by: R.Ryberg 9 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS ABER 10124/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) ADOPTION FEES FOR OTHER ANIMALS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES VARIABLE VARIABLE $0 RESPONSE TO LOOSE,INJURED OR DEAD ANIMALS $40/HOUR $40/HOUR $0 FEE IS PER HOUR PER OFFICER EUTHANASIA AND DISPOSAL OF CATS AND DOGS AT OWNER'S REQUEST DELIVERED TO THE SHELTER,PER ANIMAL NO CHARGE NO CHARGE $0 PICKED UP BY ANIMAL CONTROL,PER ANIMAL $40 $40 $0 E-RECREATION/CULTURAL E-82 PARK FACILITY RENTAL RESIDENT PARK AREA RENTAL-ONE AREA EXCLUDES ALCOHOL PERMIT-4HR BLOCK $45 $45 $0 EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR $15 $15 $0 PARK AREA RENTAL-EACH ADDITIONAL AREA $25 $25 $0 EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR $10 $10 $0 SPORTS FIELD RENTAL $50 $50 $0 (PLUS 10%OF GROSS RECEIPTS IF"FOR PROFIT'AND ACTUAL CHARGES FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS SUCH AS FIELD PREP WORK THAT MAY BE INCURRED) SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING $10 $10 $0 CHARGE PER HOUR-2 HOUR MINIMUM THE PARK AT RIVER WALK -AREAS 1,2,5&6 PARK AREA RENTAL-4HR BLOCK $100 $100 $0 EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR $25 $25 $0 -AREAS 3,4&7 PARK AREA RENTAL-4HR BLOCK $150 $150 $0 EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR $38 $38 $0 MISCELLANEOUS PARKS SERVICES ALCOHOL PERMIT WITH FACILITY RESERVATION(NON REFUNDABLE) $15 $15 $0 WITHOUT FACILITY RESERVATION(NON REFUNDABLE) $25 $25 $0 OPEN TO THE PUBLIC-SPECIAL EVENT RESERVATION FEE $125 $125 $0 MINIMUM FEE (BASED ON SIZE OF EVENT,ADDITIONAL CHARGES WILL BE .., INCURRED BASED ON ACTUAL COSTS)(NON REFUNDABLE) SOUND PERMIT $30 $30 $0 RESCHEDULING FEE ON FACILITY RENTALS $10 $10 $0 CANCELLATION FEE ON FACILITY RENTALS $15 $15 $0 NON-RESIDENT PARK AREA RENTAL-ONE AREA EXCLUDES ALCOHOL PERMIT-4HR BLOCK $56 $56 $0 EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR $20 $20 $0 PARK AREA RENTAL-EACH ADDITIONAL AREA $31 $31 $0 EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR $13 $13 $0 SPORTS FIELD RENTAL $65 $65 $0 (PLUS 10%OF GROSS RECEIPTS IF"FOR PROFIT"AND ACTUAL CHARGES FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COSTS SUCH AS FIELD PREP WORK THAT MAY BE INCURRED) SPORTS FIELD LIGHTING $13 $13 $0 CHARGE PER HOUR-2 HOUR MINIMUM THE PARK AT RIVER WALK AREAS 1,2,5&6 PARK AREA RENTAL-4HR BLOCK $125 $125 $0 EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR $31 $31 $0 AREAS 3,4&7 PARK AREA RENTAL-4HR BLOCK $185 $185 $0 EACH ADDITIONAL HOUR $46 $46 $0 -MISCELLANEOUS PARKS SERVICES ALCOHOL PERMIT WITH FACILITY RESERVATION(NON REFUNDABLE) $20 $20 $0 WITHOUT FACILITY RESERVATION(NON REFUNDABLE) $31 $31 $0 OPEN TO THE PUBLIC-SPECIAL EVENT RESERVATION FEE $160 $160 $0 MINIMUM FEE (BASED ON SIZE OF EVENT,ADDITIONAL CHARGES WILL BE INCURRED BASED ON ACTUAL COSTS)(NON REFUNDABLE) SOUND PERMIT(NON REFUNDABLE) $35 $35 $0 RESCHEDULING FEE ON FACILITY RENTALS $12 $12 $0 CANCELLATION FEE ON FACILITY RENTALS $20 $20 $0 VENDOR DISPLAY BOOTH AT EVENTS(NO SALES) PRIVATE $30 $30 $p NON-PROFIT $20 $20 $0 ADOPT-A-BENCH PLAQUE ONLY $300 $300 $0 BENCH WITH PLAQUE $1,100 $1,100 $0 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 10 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS 4BER 10/24107 05121/08 (DECREASE) a RECREATION CENTER RENTAL CATEGORY A-NON PROFIT-NO CHARGE TO THE PUBLIC THE FOLLOWING CHARGES ARE FOR ONE HOUR OF RENTAL,A TWO HOUR MINIMUM RENTAL IS REQUIRED,AN EXTENDED HOUR RATE SCHEDULE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST -MLK PARK SMALL ROOM RENTAL $25 $25 $0 LARGE ROOM RENTAL $35 $35 $0 WILLIAMS MULTI PURPOSE ROOM(GYM) $45 $45 $0 PROPOSED FEE INCLUDES BLEACHERS KITCHEN(WITH ROOM RENTAL) $10 $10 $0 SURCHARGE AFTER 10 P.M.-CHARGE PER HOUR $52 $52 $0 TABLE AND CHAIR SET UP $50 $50 $0 CITY STAFF CHARGES SUPERVISION(2 HOUR MINIMUM) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 PER HOUR CHARGE CUSTODIAL(2 HOUR MINIMUM) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 PER HOUR CHARGE SILVER CREEK COMMUNITY CENTER-EACH ROOM $36 $36 $0 COVERED PAVILION $31 $31 $0 KITCHEN(WITH MEETING ROOM RENTAL) $8 $8 $0 FEE REFLECTS COST TO OPERATE TABLE AND CHAIR SET UP $50 $50 $0 OTHER USE SURCHARGE AFTER 10 P.M.-CHARGE PER HOUR $52 $52 $0 CITY STAFF CHARGES SUPERVISION(2 HOUR MINIMUM) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 PER HOUR CHARGE CUSTODIAL(2 HOUR MINIMUM) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 PER HOUR CHARGE CATEGORY B-PRIVATE USE-ALL CHARGES TO THE PUBLIC PROHIBITED THE FOLLOWING CHARGES ARE FOR ONE HOUR OF RENTAL,A TWO HOUR MINIMUM RENTAL IS REQUIRED,AN EXTENDED HOUR RATE SCHEDULE IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST -MLK PARK SMALL ROOM RENTAL $35 $35 $0 LARGE ROOM RENTAL $50 $50 $0 WILLIAMS MULTI PURPOSE ROOM(GYM) $65 $65 $0 PROPOSED FEE INCLUDES BLEACHERS l KITCHEN(WITH ROOM RENTAL) $10 $10 $0 SURCHARGE AFTER 10 P.M.-CHARGE PER HOUR $52 $52 $0 I TABLE AND CHAIR SET UP $75 $75 $0 CITY STAFF CHARGES SUPERVISION(2 HOUR MINIMUM) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 PER HOUR CHARGE CUSTODIAL(2 HOUR MINIMUM) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 PER HOUR CHARGE SILVER CREEK COMMUNITY CENTER-EACH ROOM $50 $50 $0 COVERED PAVILION $46 $46 $0 KITCHEN(WITH MEETING ROOM RENTAL) $37 $37 $0 FEE REFLECTS COST TO OPERATE TABLE AND CHAIR SET UP $75 $75 $0 OTHER USE SURCHARGE AFTER 10 P.M.-CHARGE PER HOUR $52 $52 $0 CITY STAFF CHARGES SUPERVISION(2 HOUR MINIMUM) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 PER HOUR CHARGE CUSTODIAL(2 HOUR MINIMUM) ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 PER HOUR CHARGE E-84 CITY ADULT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES -CITY ADULT VOLLEYBALL PROGRAM WITH OFFICIALS-INDOORS $300 $300 $0 WITH OFFICIALS-OUTDOORS $250 $250 $0 WITHOUT OFFICIALS $103 $103 $0 PRIVATE LEAGUES ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 CITY ADULT SOFTBALL PROGRAM LEAGUE ENTRY FEE PER TEAM WITH OFFICIALS $465 $465 $0 RESCHEDULING FEE $36 $36 $0 $36.00 PER GAME PRIVATE LEAGUES ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 CITY ADULT BASKETBALL PROGRAM MEN'S PROGRAM-CITY LEAGUE-CHARGE PER TEAM $495 $495 $0 PLUS$39.00/EACH ADDITIONAL GAME MEN'S PROGRAM-PRIVATE LEAGUES-CHARGE PER TEAM ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 ADULT FLAG FOOTBALL-CHARGE PER TEAM $271 $271 -ADULT SPORTS TOURNAMENTS $0 CHARGE PER TEAM 85% 85% $0 TO RECOVER 85%OF TOURNAMENT COSTS ADULT PUBLIC COURTS TEAM TENNIS OF COST OF COST PER TEAM PER PLAYER $100 $100 $0 $16 $16 $0 CORPORATE TEAM CHALLENGE-CHARGE PER TEAM $303 $303 $0 CHARGE PER TEAM E-85 CITY YOUTH PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES RESIDENT -" CITY YOUTH FLAG FOOTBALL PROGRAM $40 $40 $0 CITY YOUTH SOFTBALL PROGRAM $40 $40 $0 CITY YOUTH BASKETBALL PROGRAM $41 $41 $0 CITY YOUTH VOLLEYBALL PROGRAM $40 $40 $0 YOUTH SPORTS TOURNAMENTS 50% 50% $0 TO RECOVER 50%OF TOURNAMENT COSTS CROSS COUNTRY EVENT OF COST OF COST PRE REGISTRATION $3 $3 $0 LATE REGISTRATION $4 $4 $0 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 11 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS VIBER 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) YOUTH SPORTS CLINICS - CHARGE PER PLAYER PER CLINIC $21 $21 $0 CHARGE IS PER PLAYER VARIOUS YOUTH EXCURSIONS 50% 50% $0 TO RECOVER 50%OF EXCURSION COSTS A LATE FEE WILL BE CHARGED OF$1.00 PER MINUTE-UP TO OF COST OF COST 15 MINUTES IF CHILD IS NOT PICKED UP BY CLOSING TIME. MLK YOUTH DAY CAMP-7 WEEK PROGRAM $40 $40 $0 YOUTH DAY CAMP-PER WEEK $113 $113 $0 CANCELLATION FEE $77 $77 $0 YOUTH CROSS COUNTRY CLUB $41 $41 $0 HIGH SCHOOL SUMMER LEAGUES $10 $10 $0 CHARGE IS PER PLAYER-PER ACTIVITY IN-LINE HOCKEY $62 $62 $0 CHARGE IS PER PARTICIPANT YOUTH TEE BALL $45 $45 $0 SPECIAL EVENT FEE $2 $2 $0 PEE WEE SPORTS $35 $35 $0 PARTY MOBILE $82 $82 $0 PROGRAM SERVICES TO COMMUNITY SILVER CREEK AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM $22 $22 $0 FEE IS PER WEEK NON-RESIDENT CITY YOUTH FLAG FOOTBALL PROGRAM $50 $50 $0 CITY YOUTH SOFTBALL PROGRAM $50 $50 $0 CITY YOUTH BASKETBALL PROGRAM $52 $52 $0 CITY YOUTH VOLLEYBALL PROGRAM $50 $50 $0 YOUTH SPORTS TOURNAMENTS 50% 50% $0 TO RECOVER 50%OF TOURNAMENT COSTS -CROSS COUNTRY EVENT OF COST OF COST PRE REGISTRATION $3 $3 $0 LATE REGISTRATION $4 $4 $0 YOUTH SPORTS CLINICS - CHARGE PER PLAYER PER CLINIC $21 $21 $0 CHARGE IS PER PLAYER VARIOUS YOUTH EXCURSIONS 50% 50% $0 TO RECOVER 50%OF EXCURSION COSTS A LATE FEE WILL BE CHARGED OF$1.00 PER MINUTE-UP TO OF COST OF COST 15 MINUTES IF CHILD IS NOT PICKED UP BY CLOSING TIME. MLK YOUTH DAY CAMP-7 WEEK PROGRAM $50 $50 $0 YOUTH DAY CAMP-PER WEEK $144 $144 $0 CANCELLATION FEE $77 $77 $0 YOUTH CROSS COUNTRY CLUB $41 $41 $0 HIGH SCHOOL SUMMER LEAGUES $10 $10 $0 CHARGE IS PER PLAYER-PER ACTIVITY IN-LINE HOCKEY $62 $62 $0 CHARGE IS PER PARTICIPANT YOUTH TEE BALL $56 $56 $0 SPECIAL EVENT FEE $2 $2 $0 PEE WEE SPORTS $44 $44 $0 PARTY MOBILE $103 $103 $0 PROGRAM SERVICES TO COMMUNITY SILVER CREEK AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM $28 $28 $0 E-86 AQUATIC PROGRAMS,RECREATIONAL SWIMMING RESIDENT RECREATIONAL SWIM-DAILY SILVER CREEK,MLK&JEFFERSON $2 $2 $0 FEE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 1993 PLANZ,SIEMON&JASTRO $1 $1 $0 RECREATIONAL SWIM-DAILY-MCMURTREY FACILITY $3 $3 $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY RECREATIONAL SWIM-30 DAY PASS-MCMURTREY FACILITY $85 $85 $0 RECREATIONAL SWIM-MCMURTREY FACILITY-SEASON PASS $150 $150 $0 FAMILY PASSES(GOOD FOR FAMILY OF 4)MCMURTREY FACILITY FAMILY DAY PASS $10 $10 $0 FAMILY 30 DAY PASS $250 $250 $0 FAMILY SEASON PASS $600 $600 $0 RECREATIONAL SWIM-PUNCH PASS $55 $55 $0 FEE IS GOOD FOR 30 POOL ADMISSIONS (SILVER CREEK,MLK,&JEFFERSON) RECREATIONAL SWIM-PUNCH PASS-MCMURTREY FACILITY $80 $80 LAP SWIM DAILY-ALL POOLS $0 FEE IS GOOD FOR 30 POOL ADMISSIONS -LAP SWIM-PUNCH PASS $3 $3 $0 FEE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 1992 LAP SWIM-ANNUAL PASS $80 $80 $0 FEE IS GOOD FOR 30 POOL ADMISSIONS $300 $300 $0 -WATER MOVIES -PER PERSON ($3.00 DISCOUNT FOR FAMILY OF FIVE OR MORE) $3 $3 $0 SPECIAL AQUATIC EVENTS(PER PARTICIPANT-PER DAY) $5 $5 TRAINING $0 PER PARTICIPANT-PER DAY SWIM INSTRUCTOR TRAINING $40 $40 $0 REFLECTS ACTUAL COST OF TRAINING NEW LIFEGUARD TRAINING $75 $75 $0 REFLECTS ACTUAL COST OF TRAINING RENEWAL LIFEGUARD TRAINING SWIM CLINIC $60 $60 $0 REFLECTS ACTUAL COST OF TRAINING $100 $100 $0 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 12 of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE CENTER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS ABER 10/24/07 05/21108 (DECREASE) -AQUATIC PROGRAMS -SWIMMING LESSONS SWIM LESSONS(EXCEPT MLK) $50 $50 $0 SEMI-PRIVATE LESSONS(EXCEPT MLK) $60 $60 $0 PRIVATE LESSONS(EXCEPT MLK) $70 $70 $0 SWIM LESSONS AT MLK $10 $10 $0 FEE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 2000 COMPETITIVE SWIMMING-ALL POOLS $65 $65 $0 POOL PARTY RENTAL $50 $50 $0 FEE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 2000 (ALL POOLS EXCEPT MCMURTREY. MINIMUM FEE FOR UP TO 50 PEOPLE.SIZE OF POOL PARTY WILL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LIFEGUARDS ADDED TO MINIMUM FEE) POOL PARTY RENTAL-RECREATIONAL POOL-MCMURTREY FACILITY $90 $90 $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY (MINIMUM FEE FOR UP TO 50 PEOPLE.SIZE OF POOL PARTY WILL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LIFEGUARDS ADDED TO MIN.FEE) POOL PARTY RENTAL-COMPETITIVE POOL-MCMURTREY FACILITY $130 $130 $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY (MINIMUM FEE FOR UP TO 50 PEOPLE.SIZE OF POOL PARTY WILL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LIFEGUARDS ADDED TO MIN.FEE) POOL PARTY RENTAL-RECREATION POOL AREA FEE $40/HR $40/HR POOL PARTY RENTAL-SPECIAL PARTY FEE GOLD LEVEL-FOOD,DRINKS AND CAKE(15 PEOPLE MIN.) $18/PERSON $18/PERSON SILVER LEVEL-FOOD AND DRINKS(15 PEOPLE MIN.) $15/PERSON $15/PERSON SWIM CLUB RENTAL-HOURLY(EXCEPT MCMURTREY) $40 $40 $0 SWIM CLUB RENTAL-HOURLY-MCMURTREY FACILITY $50 $50 $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY (RENTAL OF 8-25 YARD LANES) SWIM CLUB RENTAL-PER LANE FEE(FOR 25Y LANES) $6.25/HR/LN $6.25/HR/LN SWIM CLUB RENTAL-HOURLY-MCMURTREY FACILITY $110 $110 $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY (RENTAL OF 8-50 METER LANES) SWIM CLUB RENTAL-PER LANE FEE(FOR 50Y LANES) $10/HR/LN $10/HR/LN POOL SECURITY FEE $90 $90 $0 NON-RESIDENT RECREATIONAL SWIM-DAILY i SILVER CREEK,MLK&JEFFERSON $2 $2 $0 FEE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 1993 PLANZ,SIEMON&JASTRO $1 $1 $0 RECREATIONAL SWIM-DAILY-MCMURTREY FACILITY $3 $3 $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY RECREATIONAL SWIM-30 DAY PASS-MCMURTREY FACILITY $85 $85 $0 RECREATIONAL SWIM-SEASON PASS-MCMURTREY FACILITY $180 $180 $0 FAMILY PASSES(GOOD FOR FAMILY OF 4)MCMURTREY FACILITY FAMILY DAILY PASS $11 $11 $0 FAMILY 30 DAY PASS $300 $300 $0 FAMILY SEASON PASS $700 $700 $0 RECREATIONAL SWIM-PUNCH PASS $70 $70 $0 FEE IS GOOD FOR 30 POOL ADMISSIONS (SILVER CREEK,MLK,&JEFFERSON) RECREATIONAL SWIM-PUNCH PASS-MCMURTREY FACILITY $100 $100 LAP SWIM DAILY-ALL POOLS $0 FEE IS GOOD FOR 30 POOL ADMISSIONS -LAP SWIM-PUNCH PASS $3 $3 $0 FEE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 1992 LAP SWIM-30 DAY PASS $1 85 $115 $0 FEE IS GOOD FOR 30 POOL ADMISSIONS LAP SWIM-ANNUAL PASS $85 $85 $0 $350 $350 $0 -WATER MOVIES -PER PERSON ($3.00 DISCOUNT FOR FAMILY OF FIVE OR MORE) $3 $3 $0 SPECIAL AQUATIC EVENTS(PER PARTICIPANT-PER DAY) $5 $5 $0 PER PARTICIPANT-PER DAY TRAINING SWIM INSTRUCTOR TRAINING $40 $40 $0 REFLECTS ACTUAL COST OF TRAINING NEW LIFEGUARD TRAINING $75 $75 $0 REFLECTS ACTUAL COST OF TRAINING RENEWAL LIFEGUARD TRAINING $60 $60 SWIM CLINIC $0 REFLECTS ACTUAL COST OF TRAINING - AQUATIC PROGRAMS $100 $100 $p -SWIMMING LESSONS SWIM LESSONS(EXCEPT MLK) $63 $63 $0 SEMI-PRIVATE LESSONS(EXCEPT MLK) $75 $75 $0 PRIVATE LESSONS(EXCEPT MLK) $88 $88 $0 SWIM LESSONS AT MLK $15 $15 $0 SPLIT FROM CITY RESIDENTS COMPETITIVE SWIMMING-ALL POOLS $80 $80 $0 -POOL PARTY RENTAL (ALL POOLS EXCEPT MCMURTREY. MINIMUM FEE FOR UP TO $65 $65 $0 FEE HAS NOT INCREASED SINCE 2000. 50 PEOPLE.SIZE OF POOL PARTY WILL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LIFEGUARDS ADDED TO MINIMUM FEE) POOL PARTY RENTAL-RECREATIONAL POOL-MCMURTREY FACILITY $115 $115 (MINIMUM FEE FOR UP TO 50 PEOPLE.SIZE OF POOL PARTY WILL $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY DETERMINE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LIFEGUARDS ADDED TO MIN.FEE) POOL PARTY RENTAL-COMPETITIVE POOL-MCMURTREY FACILITY $165 $165 (MINIMUM FEE FOR UP TO 50 PEOPLE.SIZE OF POOL PARTY WILL $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY DETERMINE ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR LIFEGUARDS ADDED TO MIN.FEE) Prepared by: R.Ryberg 13 Of 14 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "A" 7VICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE TER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS 8ER 10/24107 05/21/08 (DECREASE) POOL PARTY RENTAL-RECREATION POOL AREA FEE $50 $50 $0 SWIM CLUB RENTAL-HOURLY(EXCEPT MCMURTREY) $50 $50 $0 FEE LAST INCREASED IN 2002 SWIM CLUB RENTAL-HOURLY-MCMURTREY FACILITY $65 $65 $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY (RENTAL OF 8-25 YARD LANES) SWIM CLUB RENTAL-HOURLY-MCMURTREY FACILITY $140 $140 $0 HIGHER QUALITY SWIM FACILITY (RENTAL OF 8-50 METER LANES) POOL SECURITY FEE $90 $90 $0 E-87 LEISURE CLASSES MLK LEISURE CLASSES-RESIDENTS A PERCENTAGE OF CLASS REGISTRATION FEE MLK LEISURE CLASSES-NON-RESIDENTS $5 $5 $0 $7 $7 $0 E-88 AMPHITHEATRE FEES-THE PARK AT RIVER WALK TICKETED EVENTS -BASE RENT $2,000 $2,000 $0 NON TICKETED EVENTS -BASE RENT $1,200 $1,200 $0 F-MISCELLANEOUS FEES F-90 HEARINGS AND APPEALS APPEAL(OTHER THAN PLANNING) $390 $406 $16 I.E.CABARET,TAXI,FIREWORKS,ETC APPEAL WITH MAILED NOTICE&PUBLICATION $0 $0 $0 NO LONGER CHARGING FEE F-91 FIRE HYDRANT DISTRIBUTION AND INSTALLATION INSPECTION INSPECTION FEE $570 $593 $23 FEE PER HYDRANT HYDRANT FLOW AND TESTING $77 $80 $3 PER HOUR AFTER HOURS TESTING $100 $104 $4 PER HOUR F-92 DOCUMENT IMAGING DOCUMENT IMAGING FEE-MAPS AND SPECS(PW) $1.40/PAGE $1.40/PAGE $0 FEE PER PAGE LARGE DOCUMENT IMAGING FEE(PLANNING) -00 THRU 50 PAGES NO CHARGE NO CHARGE $0 -51 THRU 100 PAGES $15 $15 $0 101 THRU 200 PAGES $30 $30 gp i 201 THRU 300 PAGES $45 $45 $0 301 AND GREATER PAGES $60 $60 $0 F-93 PROCESSING SCHOOL FACILITY FEES $10 $10 $0 COMPUTER DATA ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FEES FAIR HOUSING WORKSHOP FEE $300 $312 $12 TOP FLOOR RENTAL $150 + $156 + $6 $12/HR $12/HR F-96 GEOLOGICAL SURVEY STREET USE ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 F-97 RETURN CHECK CHARGE $15 $15 $0 F-98 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER RENTAL $300 $312 $12 F-99 BROADCAST CHARGES FOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS EQUIPMENT CHARGES VIDEO PRESENTATION SYSTEM $50 $52 $2 CHG PER HOUR BROADCASTING EQUIPMENT $116 $120 $4 CHG PER HOUR STAFF CHARGES ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 TAPE DUPLICATION ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 F-100 BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING FEES: $5 $5 $0 INITIAL BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING $5 $5 $0 RENEWAL BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING $5 $5 $0 t Prepared by: R.Ryberg 14 of 14 4/25/2008 Exhibit "B " CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "B"-CHANGES OVER COST OF LIVING SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE -LATER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS ABER 10/24107 05/21/08 (DECREASE) A-INSPECTION FEES&SERVICES A-1 NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 GENERAL PLAN MAINTENANCE $75 $78 $3 A-2 RESIDENTIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR RESIDENTIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 MECHANICAL(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 PLUMBING(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 ELECTRICAL(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 ,A-3 COMMERCIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR COMMERCIAL ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 MECHANICAL(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 PLUMBING(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 ELECTRICAL(ONLY)ADDITION,ALTERATION,REMODEL OR REPAIR PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 A-4 SPECIAL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION MECHANICAL CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES(EACH PERMIT) AIR CONDITIONER,ALL SIZES $50 $52 $2 WALL HEATER INSTALLATION $50 $52 $2 FIREPLACE INSERT INSTALLATION $50 $52 $2 COOLER INSTALLATION $50 $52 $2 KITCHEN HOOD INSTALLATION $50 $52 $2 MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT,FIXTURES, APPLIANCES&OTHER APPARATUSES(EACH PERMIT) MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 PLUMBING CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES(EACH PERMIT) GAS LINE SEWER LINE $50 $52 $2 WATER LINE $50 $52 $2 PIPE LINE REPAIR(GAS,SEWER,WATER,ETC) $50 $52 $2 $50 $52 $2 -WATER HEATER REPLACEMENTS $50 $52 $2 SEPTIC TANK $50 $52 $2 SEPTIC TANK ABANDONMENT $50 $52 $2 GREASE INTERCEPTORS $100 $104 $4 WATER SOFTENERS $50 $52 $2 SHOWER PAN $50 $52 $2 -SOLAR $50 $52 $2 SITE SEWER SYSTEMS $50 $52 $2 SITE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS $50 $52 $2 MISCELLANEOUS PLUMBING EQUIPMENT,FIXTURES, APPLIANCES AND OTHER APPARATUSES(EACH PERMIT) MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES(EACH PERMIT) TEMPORARY POWER SERVICE<or=600 VOLTS AND 200 AMPS $50 $52 $2 PERMANENT POWER SERVICE<or=600 VOLTS AND 200 AMPS $50 $52 $2 SITE ELECTRICAL AND OTHER SITE POWER APPARATUSES $50 $52 $2 MISCELLANEOUS ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT,FIXTURES, APPLIANCES&OTHER APPARATUSES(EACH PERMIT) -MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 DEMOLITIONS OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR PARTIAL DEMOLITION $50 $52 $2 ENTIRE STRUCTURE DEMOLITION $50 $52 $2 MOVED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES RESIDENTIAL MOVED STRUCTURE $50 $52 $2 COMMERCIAL MOVED STRUCTURE $50 $52 $2 RESIDENTIAL STATE APPROVED MOBILE HOME AND PRE-MANUFACTURED CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES MOBILE HOME WITHOUT PERMANENT FOUNDATION $50 $52 $2 MOBILE HOME WITH PERMANENT FOUNDATION $200 $208 $8 MOBILE HOME GARAGE $50 $52 $2 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 1 of 4 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "B"-CHANGES OVER COST OF LIVING SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE 'LATER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS ABER 10/24107 05121/08 (DECREASE) MOBILE HOME ACCESSORY STRUCTURES $50 $52 $2 PRE-MANUFACTURED HOUSING $200 $208 $8 -COMMERCIAL STATE APPROVED MOBILE COACH AND PRE-MANUFACTURED CONSTRUCTION- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES COMMERCIAL COACH(PERMANENT) $200 $208 $8 COMMERCIAL PRE-MANUFACTURED(PERMANENT) $200 $208 $8 COMMERCIAL COACH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES $50 $52 $2 CONSTRUCTION TRAILER(TEMPORARY)- PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES $50 $52 $2 RESIDENTIAL RE-ROOF-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -MINIMUM FEE(EACH PERMIT,REGARDLESS OF SIZE) $100 $104 $4 COMMERCIAL RE-ROOF-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -MINIMUM FEE(EACH PERMIT,REGARDLESS OF SIZE) $100 $104 $4 POOLS AND SPAS-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES SWIMMING POOLS $200 $208 $8 POOL&SPA $250 $260 $10 -SPA/ IN GROUND $100 $104 $4 -SPA/PORTABLE $50 $52 $2 RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MISC.-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES PATIO ADDITION(EACH PERMIT),REGARDLESS OF SIZE $100 $104 $4 ANTENNA DISH $50 $52 $2 OIL WELL PERMIT FEE $686 $714 $28 RETAINING WALL OR FENCING -MINIMUM FEE $50 $52 $2 STORAGE RACKS/SHELVES(EACH PERMIT) $100 $104 $4 STORAGE CONTAINER/SEA TRAIN(EACH PERMIT) $50 $52 $2 REQUESTED PLAN REVIEW FEES-COMMERCIAL EXPEDITE PLAN REVIEW $70 $72 $2 ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW $70 $72 $2 REQUESTED PLAN REVIEW FEES-RESIDENTIAL EXPEDITE PLAN REVIEW $60 $62 $2 ADDITIONAL PLAN REVIEW $60 $62 $2 REQUESTED BUILDING INSPECTIONS FEES SPECIAL INSPECTIONS NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS $55 $57 $2 OUTSIDE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS(2 HOUR MINIMUM) $55 $57 $2 RE-INSPECTIONS NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS $55 $57 $2 OUTSIDE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS(2 HOUR MINIMUM) $55 $57 $2 TEMPORARY SALES LOTS-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTION FEES -TEMPORARY SALES LOTS $50 $52 $2 REQUEST FOR CODE MODIFICATION PER MODIFICATION $100 $102 $2 PER ALTERNATE MATERIAL/METHOD $100 $102 $2 UNREASONABLE HARDSHIP REVIEW $55 $57 $2 PERMIT EXTENSION $55 $57 $2 SPECIAL INSPECTOR REGISTRATION $25 $26 $1 TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY INITIAL CERTIFICATE $200 $208 $8 ADDITIONAL EXTENSION $100 $104 $4 GRADING INSPECTION(BASE FEE) $220 $229 $9 A-5 STREET CUT INSPECTION STREET CUT PERMIT(BASE FEE) $210 $218 $8 INSPECTION FEE DEPOSIT $65 $67 $2 CANCELLATION FEE $85 $88 $3 A-6 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT INSPECTION $210 + $218 + $8 OVERTIME RATE $65/HR $67/HR $2/HR A-7 STREET ENCROACHMENT INSPECTION -STREET ENCROACHMENT PERMIT $200 $208 $8 A-8 STATE-MANDATED FIRE INSPECTION -CONSULTATION REQUESTS FOR IN HOME CARE FACILITIES $96 $100 $4 A-9 OIL WELL INSPECTION(ANNUAL) OIL WELL INSPECTION(ANNUAL) $96 $100 $4 RE-INSPECTION(IF REQUIRED) $96 $100 $4 OIL WELL INSTALLATION $96 $100 $4 A-12 RE-INSPECTION OF MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS -COMPLAINTS AND ENFORCEMENT INITIAL CONTACT AND INSPECTION $0 $0 $0 FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS REQUIRED(EACH OCCURRENCE) $300 $105 -$195 REVISED STRUCTURE OF FEES ABATEMENT HEARING PROCESSING FEE $0 $195 $195 REVISED STRUCTURE OF FEES ASSESSMENT HEARING PROCESS FEE $0 $300 $300 REVISED STRUCTURE OF FEES ABATEMENT WARRANT PROCESSING $0 $535 $535 NEW FEE PROPERTY ABATEMENT ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 REVISED STRUCTURE OF FEES LEGAL ACTION REQUIRED ACTUAL COST ACTUAL COST $0 REVISED STRUCTURE OF FEES HOUSING PROGRAMS REHABILITATION INSPECTIONS -INITIAL INSPECTION/DOCUMENTATION $152 $158 $6 FIRST TIME HOME BUYERS INSPECTION $100 $104 $4 ADDITIONAL INSPECTION COSTS/FEES DEPARTMENTAL PROCESSING COSTS $121 $126 $5 ROOF REPLACEMENT $55 $57 $2 ELECTRICAL $76 $79 $3 Prepared by: R.Ryberg 2 of 4 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "B"-CHANGES OVER COST OF LIVING SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE -LATER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ ABER NOTES/COMMENTS PLUMBING 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) - MECHANICAL $76 $79$ $3 FRAME/FLOOR $55 $57 $2 MAXIMUM CHARGE FOR REHAB INSPECTIONS $614 $639 $25 B-LAND USE REVIEW/PERMITS B-21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL OIL WELL REVIEW $1,920 $2,000 $80 GENERAL REVIEW(ALL ZONES) $1,565 $1,630 $65 B-24 SIGN-PERMIT PROCESSING AND INSPECTIONS FEES -SIGN, BANNER $50 $52 $2 SIGN,TEMPORARY $50 $52 $2 SIGN,PERMANENT $100 $104 $4 SIGN,PERMANENT-FACE CHANGE $50 $52 $2 B-25 TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP REVIEW TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP REVIEW -STANDARD $2,185 $2,275 $90 REVISED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP REVIEW -STANDARD $595 $620 $25 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVIEW -STANDARD $2,695 $2,805 $110 REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP REVIEW -STANDARD $1,530 $1,590 $60 WALL AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW $1,040 $1,080 $40 -STREET NAMING $400 $415 $15 B-26 MINOR LAND DIVISION REVIEW LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT $1,000 $1,042 $42 PARCEL MAP WAIVERS $1,600 $1,667 $67 OWNER INITIATED PARCEL MERGER $1,000 $1,042 $42 CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE $1,000 $1,042 $42 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION(SUMMARY VACATION ONLY) $850 $885 $35 RIGHT OF WAY VACATION(NON-SUMMARY VACATION) $1,380 $1,437 $57 B-27 PRELIMINARY PROJECT REVIEW -ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVALS -ADVERTISED COMPLETENESS REVIEW $400 $415 $15 "°8 SITE PLAN REVIEW $130 $135 $5 MAXIMUM FEE-NO HEARING REQUIRED $2,500 $3,500 $1,000 LEGAL ADVERTISING FEE-IF HEARING REQUIRED $390 $405 $15 B-29 SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW INITIAL PREPARATION FEE $4,790 $4,990 $200 SINGLE ELEMENT $4,790 $4,990 $200 MULTIPLE ELEMENTS 615 390 $5, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT $5, $225 B-30 PUD OR PCD ZONE CHANGE $2,395 $2,495 $100 B-31 ZONE CHANGE REVIEW $3,550 $3,700 $150 B-32 APPEAL PROCESSING $2,955 $3,080 $125 -APPLICANT OR PROPERTY OWNER OUTSIDE NOTICE AREA-BASE FEE $390 $405 $15 APPLICANT INSIDE NOTICE AREA-BASE FEE $390 $405 $15 LAND DIVISIONS $390 $405 $15 LEGAL ADVERTISING FEE $285 $295 WEED ABATEMENT APPEALS $10 -MINIMUM FEE-NO NOTICE REQUIRED $102 $105 $3 B-33 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT REVIEW - SINGLE ELEMENT B-34 CONCURRENT APPLICATION GPA/ZONE CHANGE $4,140 $4,310 $175 $7,000 $7,295 $295 B-35 ZONE MODIFICATION REVIEW-MODIFICATIONS -ZONE MODIFICATION REVIEW-MODIFICATIONS $1,275 $1,325 B-36 SIGN REVIEW $50 COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REVIEW $1,040 $1,080 COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REVIEW-REVISED $40 B-37 MAP&IMPROVEMENT PLAN CHECKING $375 $390 $15 FINAL TRACT MAPS $690 + $718 + $28 FINAL PARCEL MAPS $31/LOT $31/LOT $690 + $718 + $28 GRADING PLAN REVIEW $31/LOT $31/LOT COMMERCIAL PROJECTS&OTHER MULTI-FAMILY PLANS,PARCEL MAPS, $360 $375 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS&OTHER MULTI-FAMILY PLANS,PARCEL MAPS, $15 &PARCEL MAP WAIVERS IN EXCESS THAN 5 ACRES IN SIZE $360 + $375 + $15 SUBDIVISION TRACTS $19$36 0 + $375 ACRE $19$375 +RE $36 + $15 REVISION FEE $19.00/ACRE $19.00/ACRE STREET/SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $360 $375 $15 ORIGINAL PLAN SUBMITTAL $330+0.93% MINOR REVISION TO PLAN AFTER PLAN APPROVED $343+0.93 3 % $13 MAJOR REVISION TO PLAN AFTER PLAN APPROVED $+0. $13 $330+ MAJOR REVISION TO PLAN DURING CHECKING PROCESS $330+0.93%+0.0.93% $343+0.93% $13 -SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMANCE $235 5 $343+0.93% $13 9 MAINTENANCE.DISTRICT MAP PREPARATION FEES $244 $g (REGARDING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FORMATIONS&ANNEXATIONS) -NO COMPUTER DISC PROVIDED $2,270 + $2,365 + $95 $16.30/LOT $16.30/LOT Prepared by: R.Ryberg 3 of 4 4/25/2008 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2008 FOR CITY SERVICE CENTERS EXHIBIT "B"-CHANGES OVER COST OF LIVING SERVICE ADOPTED PROPOSED AMT OF FEE -LATER SERVICE CENTER DESCRIPTION FEES FEES INCREASE/ NOTES/COMMENTS ABER 10/24/07 05/21/08 (DECREASE) -COMPUTER DISC PROVIDED $1,740 + $1,813 + $73 B-38 DEVELOPMENT TIME EXTENSION REVIEW $3.20 570 $/ $3.$5/LOT $570 $5 B-39 TRAFFIC MARKING REQUEST REVIEW $590 $20 6 B-41 CULTURAL RESOURCE REVIEW $160 $166 $6 B-42 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW $250 $260 $1p -ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS $255 $265 $10 B-43 HISTORIC DISTRICT REVIEW $2,500 $2,605 $105 B-45 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS -PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE FEE $285 $295 $10 C-57 AGENDA/MINUTE MAILING SERVICE -AGENDA/MINUTES MAILING SERVICE-CHARGE PER YEAR $70 $72 $2 C-58 MUNICIPAL CODE SUPPLEMENT $74 $77 $3 D-PUBLIC SAFETY D-61 BUSINESS REGULATION ADULT ENTERTAINMENT NEW APPLICATION $664 $691 $27 ANNUAL PERMIT RENEWAL $1,925 $2,005 $80 EMPLOYEE PERMIT $41 $42 $1 MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS $179 $186 $7 -MASSAGE TECHNICIAN $101 $105 $q CARD ROOMS NEW APPLICATION $889 $926 $37 RENEWAL APPLICATION CARD DEALERS $1,840 $1,817 $77 -NEW APPLICATION $197 $205 $8 ESCORT/DATING SERVICES NEW APPLICATION $362 $377 $15 RENEWAL APPLICATION $173 $180 $7 EMPLOYEE-NEW $95 $98 $3 EMPLOYEE-RENEWAL $60 $62 $2 -RETAIL SALES OF FIREARMS PERMIT $41 $42 $1 LIQUIDATION(CLOSEOUT)SALE-PERMIT $38 $39 $1 BINGO-NEW PERMIT $39 $40 $1 BINGO-RENEWAL PERMIT SECOND HAND DEALERS,ITINERANT $39 $40 $1 MERCHANTS,PUBLIC DANCE HALLS,OUTDOOR FESTIVALS,CABARETS, TEMPORARY PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES,HOUSE ADDRESS CURB PAINTING, JEWELRY AUCTIONS,SPECIAL EVENTS,HOTELS&LODGING HOUSES $39 $40 $1 PUSHCART FOOD VENDORS $38 $39 $1 MOTION PICTURE PERMIT $72 $75 $3 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND/OR NECESSITY APPROVAL(ALCOHOL PERMIT) $304 $316 $12 D-62 CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT PROCESSING -CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT $44 $45 $1 D-64 WEED ABATEMENT OR FIRE HAZARD ABATEMENT $194 $202 D-66 FIRE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE $8 D-67 POLICE FALSE ALARM RESPONSE $343 $357 $14 INITIAL ALARM PERMIT $30 $31 CHARGE AFTER 5TH FALSE ALARM $1 CHARGE AFTER 10TH FALSE ALARM $117 $118 $4 D-71 VEHICLE CODE ENFORCEMENT $197 $205 $g UNLICENSED DRIVER FEE(INCLUDES TOWING CHARGE) $101 $125 DUI TOWING CHARGE $24 D-73 PARKING ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT $101 $125 $2q -VEHICLE TOWING D-74 BOARD UP OF STRUCTURES $56 $58 $2 -LABOR COST PER INSPECTOR PER HOUR $43 $44 $1 F-MISCELLANEOUS FEES F-90 HEARINGS AND APPEALS -APPEAL(OTHER THAN PLANNING) $390 $406 F-91 FIRE HYDRANT DISTRIBUTION AND INSTALLATION INSPECTION $16 INSPECTION FEE HYDRANT FLOW AND TESTING $570 $593 $23 AFTER HOURS TESTING $77 $80 $3 F-95 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FEES $100 $104 $4 FAIR HOUSING WORKSHOP FEE $300 $312 TOP FLOOR RENTAL $12 $150 + $156 + $6 F-98 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER RENTAL $12/HR $12/HR F-99 BROADCAST CHARGES FOR CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS $300 $312 $12 EQUIPMENT CHARGES VIDEO PRESENTATION SYSTEM $50 $52 BROADCASTING EQUIPMENT $2 $116 $120 $q Prepared by: R.Ryberg 4 of 4 4/25/2008 RECE-QED APR 2.1--2008 C17y MANgC ER S OFF►CE B i K E R 5 F I E I1 D DEVELOPEMENT SERVICES TO: John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager April 25, 2008 THROUGH: Stanley Grady, Development Services Director FROM: Phil Burns, Building DirectoKK �� . SUBJECT: Building Division—Cost Recovery, Code Enforcement City Council has given our department a very important goal: "Create stricter code enforcement to help maintain neighborhoods and increase visual standards." The numbers of complaints and quantity of cases about substandard conditions in our neighborhoods have increased dramatically. Code Enforcement has responded with new programs such as a proactive approach to canvas neighborhoods to identify areas before they deteriorate. We are asking for an additional tool, which could potentially make a significant impact in obtaining voluntary compliance. Staff recommends adopting a progressive fee schedule for those who are unwilling to correct conditions which are in violation of applicable codes. Our goal is to develop a more comprehensive plan to as part of a preventative program to encourage compliance and provide a partial cost recovery by implementing a tiered fee schedule. Property owners in non-compliance would be first billed through accounts receivables and delinquent or unpaid accounts would be assessed on their property taxes as is done now. Staff reviewed the case statistics for the 2007 calendar year to evaluate compliance at each step as follows: 9670 - 7-day correction notices, 2822 re-inspections with notice of hearing, 1902 - abatement hearings and 175 assessment hearings. The statistics depict that 70% of the violation are abated after the initial notice. However, only 32% of the remaining abate prior to the abatement hearing. After the abatement hearing, 90% comply prior to the city contracted abatement. Many times the owner will abate within a day of the City contracted abatement. This is largely due to the fact that they are aware the city will not charge a fee unless we contract for the abatement. The proposed program is intended to increase earlier compliance by using fees as a deterrent. Our goal is to increase to 90% compliance prior to the abatement hearing. Staff also reviewed fee schedule of other comparable cities and found our proposed fees are slightly lower (See Exhibit C). In conjunction to the proposed fees, the ordinance would be modified to allow the abatement hearing _ officer and the assessment hearing officer to waive of modify fees in cases where it is deemed that an extenuating circumstance that must be considered. Page 1 of 4 Service Center A-12 Re-inspection of Municipal Code Violations —,This proposal would also include expanding and clarifying how the fees are presented in the Master Fee Schedule so that the following sub categories are reflected (See Exhibit A). Proposed fees for property maintenance and abatement are tiered and based on the actual cost of a typical property maintenance case at each stage of enforcement. The proposed fees will be integrated into the code enforcement administrative process (See Exhibit B). Follow up Inspections Required - When a complaint is received, a Code Enforcement Officer will visit the site and issue a notice for the property to be abated within seven days including a notice that a $105.00 fee will be applied if the property is not abated within the seven days. There is no charge to the owner if they comply. If after seven days the property owner has not complied, they are notified that their case will be going to administrative hearing and they will be charged a fee of$105.00 for not complying within the seven days. Abatement Hearing Processing - Included in above notice of administrative hearing, the property owner will be notified that if they have not abated the property within 10 days an additional fee of $195.00 will be assessed. They are then given second opportunity to abate the violation in the ten days before the hearing date. On the day before the hearing, a Code Enforcement Officer will visit the property again to see if it has been abated. If the property is clean and the violation abated, there is no additional charge assessed. If the property has not been abated at the time of the hearing, the Hearing Officer will assess $195.00 to recover the additional costs for the additional re-inspection, noticing and hearing process bringing the total fee to $300.00. The owner is given ten more days to abate the nuisance prior to the City abating the violation by contract. Assessment Hearing Processing - If the property owner does not abate the violation after the date set by the Hearing Officer, a Code Enforcement Officer will re-inspect and obtain bids to abate the property by a private contractor. The code enforcement officer will administer the contract and verity that the contractor properly abates the violation. The officer will then send the property owner notice of assessment hearing. A Code Enforcement representative will attend hearing. The hearing officer will evaluate any extenuating circumstance that has been presented. The property owner will be assessed the cumulative outstanding fees and include the actual clean up cost. It is hoped that tiered fees will be a preventive measure to encourage property owners to make the right decision early. Property Abatement - The property owner will be charged the actual clean up cost as competitively bid by the code enforcement officer. Actual cost will be assessed to the property at the assessment hearing. Abatement Warrant Processing Fees - In some instances, the property owner may become very un-cooperative and the Code Enforcement Officer is forced to use an abatement warrant process. The fee for this is $535.00 and includes: processing the legal documents, seeking a judge's approval, posting a twenty-four hour notice, serving the inspection warrant and a second warrant for forcible entry and abatement, performing the inspection or abatement, and serving a return warrant. This process is expensive and time consuming but absolutely necessary to abate properties in serious non-compliance. Page 2 of 4 The proposed progressive fees are designed to be a tool to help gain voluntary compliance. As has been our past practice, consideration will be given to individuals not able to abate violations because of physical limitations or other mitigating circumstances. Bakersfield, like many cities in California, is facing a growing need to protect our neighborhoods from slipping into blighted ted ar eas. Crime, adverse p rop e rty values and public safety demand a more active code enforcement program. Our department can best address Council's mandate of assisting our neighborhoods to be a healthy environment for raising a family by using this tool of progressive fees wisely to encourage early compliance while partially recovering costs. Cc: Chris Lee, Assistant Building Director Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT A Current proposed Fee Cost Center Description Fee Difference A-12 Follow Up Inspection $300 $105 -$195 A-12 Abatement Hearing Processing $195 $195 A-12 Assessment Hearing Processing $300 $300 A-12 Property Abatement Actual Costs A-12 Abatement Warrant Processing $535 $535 mad:S:\CODE ENFORCEMENT 07-08\Building Proposed Fees 04 2008-rev.doc Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT B C C 0) cA N N OLL C N O N O) C U N M U > cn E Q CL �`' O w co L M cn o 0 N N a O cn N .2 N O (0 > a 00 O N O .N C C ,> 6-O O N "ate C aQ O a N a C C N co N m LL U p N O r 00 .COO C N E Q- O O CO co (D 'V N C N N 6 c r N se = U N a- N 00 O_ 0 N N U) H O > M N Q cn cn LN co co N Q N Q 0d cn "a Q m O O O N a O 00 co N O U N C 0) O a V) p V U co c a O N N N � a) C C V N Cl) ti ^^`` C O CL Q W N Q W V 2 CL C N Q � Q V O a- - Q V _0 O 0) C m ` _0 0 c L L O O'C N C /1 (Uj� -- .0 t0 72 W LL N ^0` O - C -r- C 00 W m LL O (3 U O E N C) C 0 C) 6rk= a o L N C O N U � Ecn °O L m aD cf co -0 < F" N V O) \ I Q N C 07 C a) cu co V �- _ _) o � L00 O y U n' O N Cl) a N N W N U L (q C .V m \ O N N C Z m >1 C ` C cu 0 Cn (D 0 m t3 N 0) a) E O U- a r 00 a In C O O O C – 00 O N – O \—A N r- a N O U \ v7 O N O � �U0 co r-U - Q Z O O 00 C N U O CD 0 N N N U LL. O r- O ` Z U .— U >' o n3 co O >' 7 N O �- N EXHIBIT C CODE ENFORCEMENT COST RECOVERY FEE COMPARISON (4/25/08) Municipalities Code Enforcement Fees Anaheim Charge per hours: $178/hour for administration fees (Based on 2007 Fee Schedule) Fresno 0 Citation for non compliance: $200 (Based on 2003 Fee Schedule) 2"dCitation for non compliance: $500 3rd Citation for non compliance: $800 Hourly charge for public nuisance enforcement: $85/hour Sign storage fee: $20—$50(depends on size of sign) Weed abatement enforcement penalty: full cost+$500 adm.Fee(determined by the Department Director) Long Beach Charge$100,$200,$500,or$1,000(Based on type of violations) (Based on current website) Sacramento 1 S`Citation(for title report/removal of cloud): $185 (,Based on 2004 Fee Schedule) 2"d Citation(for Notice and Order&title report/removal of cloud: $690 3rd Citation: "Abatement Penalty&Abatement Warrant Fee"+Actual Cost: (fees unspecified) San Diego I'Citation: $100 (Based on current website) 2nd Citation: $250 3rd Citation: $500 Separate fee for recordation of violation Civil penalties up to$2,500/day&up to$100,000 per property Santa Ana I't Citation: $100 (Based on current website) 2 n Citation: $200 3rd Citation: $500 Violation investigation charge: $74/hour Stockton I'Citation: $200 (Based on 2007 Schedule) 2nd Citation: $500 3rd Citation: $500 Notice of Violation Processing Fee: $184 Abatement processing fee for demolition: $1,094.75 Abatement processing fee for non-demolition: $582.05 Lien processing fee: $111.40 Assessment processing fee: $36.80 Violation Inspection fee: $112.40/hour B A K E R S F I E L CITY OF BAKERSFIELD M,�Nq��ASOF MEMORANDUM FjCC TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director ;%L DATE: April 24, 2008 SUBJECT: Budget and Finance Committee Item - Transportation Development Act Audit The Independent Auditor's Reports for the Transportation Development Act Funds for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2007 and 2006 were referred to the Budget and Finance Committee at the April 23, 2008 Council Meeting. The attached Auditor's Report was prepared in compliance with the Kern Council of Governments Rules and Regulations, the California Public Utilities Code section 99245, and the California Code of Regulations section 6664. The financial statement summarizes fiscal activity for the Bikeway and Pedestrian Fund, and the Public Transit Fund. The Bikeway and Pedestrian Fund accounts for funds used to construct facilities that specifically benefit pedestrians and / or bicyclists. The Public Transit Fund accounts for funds used for maintenance and operation costs of the Bakersfield Amtrak Railway Station. The City is the owner of the station and leases the facility to Amtrak, who operates the transit service. These resources are used solely for the expenses incurred by the City as owner of the facility. The accuracy and the fairness of the presentation is the responsibility of the City. The audit firm of Brown Armstrong Paulden McCown Starbuck Thornburgh & Keeter Accountancy Corporation has issued an unqualified opinion. G:\GROUPDAT\Georgina\Fund 145\06-07 TDA Audit.doc CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORTS, FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006 a .gf ky94 1, >m� TIRUf,�E . , i CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page IndependentAuditor's Report............................................................................................................. 1 Fund Financial Statements Balance Sheets—Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund.................................................. 3 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance— Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund .............................. Balance Sheets—Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund .......................................................... 5 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance— Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund................................................................................... 6 Notes to the Fund Financial Statements........................ Suoolementary Information Budgetary Comparison Schedule—Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund...................... 9 Budgetary Comparison Schedule—Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund............................... 10 Note to Supplementary Information...................................... Other Report Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Governmental Auditing Standards and the Transportation Development Act........................................................ 12 Status of Prior Year Finding and Recommendation........................................................................... 14 i 0 t r•" 4o- �. Andrew J.Paulden,CPA Peter C.Brown,CPA Burton H.Armstrong,CPA,MST INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT Harvey J.McCown,MBA,CPA Steven R.Starbuck,CPA To the Board of Directors Aileen K.Keeter,CPA Kern Council of Governments Chris M.Thornburgh,CPA Bakersfield, California Eric H.Xin,MBA,CPA To the City Council Richard L.Halle,CPA,MST City of Bakersfield Bakersfield, California Lynn R.Krausse,CPA,MST Rosalva Flores,CPA We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Bikeway and Pedestrian Connie M.Perez,CPA Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund of the City of Bakersfield, California (City), as of and for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 and M.Sharon Adams,CPA,MST 2006, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility Diana H.Branthoover,CPA of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial T} M.Young,CPA statements based on our audits. � Alicia Montgomery,CPA,MBA We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the Matthew R.Gilligan,CPA United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States Hanna J.Sheppard,CPA of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain Ryan L.Nielsen,CPA reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material Jian0u-Yang CPA misstatement. An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that areappropriate in the circumstances, but 9 9 P Ryan S.Johnson,CPA not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal Michael C.0livares,CPA control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in Jialan Su,CPA the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant Ariadne S.Prunes,CPA estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement Samuel 0.Newland,CPA presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. Richard A.Gammel,CPA As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the Bikeway and Brooke N.DeCuir,CPA Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund of the City and are not intended to present fairly the financial position of the City and the Craig A.Rickett,CPA changes in its financial position and its cash flows in conformity ith accounting generally accepted in the United States of America. ty 9 principles In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund of the City as of June 30, 2007 and 2006, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof for the fiscal years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 1 It(61SI�R@ Wh the Rblr A � � 'Board Ond i caunhaq o(16 t anh .x,. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated October 17, 2007 on our consideration of the City's internal control over financial reporting as it relates to the Bikeway j and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund and our tests Of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing d internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be read in conjunction with this report in considering the results of our audit. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements of the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund taken as a whole. The supplementary information listed in the table of contents is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements of the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the fund financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the fund financial statements taken as a whole. BROWN ARMSTRONG PAULDEN McCOWN STARBUCK THORNBURGH & KEETER ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION fi Bakersfield, California October 17, 2007 2 t CITY OF BAKERSFIELD BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BALANCE SHEETS JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006 L ASSETS 2007 2006 Current assets: Due from other governments $ 2,400 $ _ Total current assets $ 2,400 $ _ LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Current Liabilities: Due to City's General Fund $ 2,400 $, _ Total current liabilities 2,400 _ Fund balance Total liabilities and fund balance $ 2,400 $ _ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 3 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN SPECIAL REVENUE FUND STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006 REVENUES 2007 2006 Local transportation fund $ 2,400 $ 79,913 EXPENDITURES Bikeway and pedestrian 2,400 79,913 Change in fund balance Fund balance, beginning Fund balance, ending $ $ The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 4 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMTRAK OPERATIONS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BALANCE SHEETS JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006 ASSETS 2007 2006 Current assets: Cash and investments $ 161,137 Accrued interest receivable 37 $ 176, 1,886 1,683 683 Total current assets $ 163,023 $ 178,583 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts payable Unearned revenue $ 12,562 $ 18,777 150,461 159,806 I Total current liabilities 163,023 178,583 r Fund balance Total liabilities and fund balance $ 163,023 $ 178,583 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 5 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMTRAK OPERATIONS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006 REVENUES 2007 2006 Local transportation fund $ 223,747 $ 190,292 Interest and other 8,135 3,595 Total revenues 231,882 193,887 EXPENDITURES Public transit 231,882 193,887 Change in fund balance Fund balance, beginning Fund balance, ending $ i I i I I The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 6 r CITY OF BAKERSFIELD i TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS NOTES TO THE FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006 NOTE 1 —SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The financial statements of the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund (collectively, the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Funds) of the City of Bakersfield (City) have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America as applied to governmental units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing and financial reporting governmental accounting p g principles. The more significant of the City's accounting policies are described below. A. Reporting Entity The TDA provides funding of public transportation through regional planning and programming agencies. Funds are allocated to the City through the county transportation planning agency, Kern Council of Governments. The TDA Funds account for the City's share of the TDA allocations, which are legally restricted for specific purposes as detailed in applicable sections of the Public Utilities Code. The TDA Funds of the City are the Streets and Roads Special Revenue Fund (no activity in recent years), the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund and the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund, and are included in the basic financial statements of the City. The TDA Funds are presented combined as a nonmajor governmental fund (State(TDA) Transportation Special Revenue Fund) in the City's basic financial statements. The accompanying financial statements present only the TDA Funds of the City and are not intended to present fairly the financial position, changes in financial position or cash flows of the City in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. i B. Fund Accounting The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self- balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures or expenses as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending j activities are controlled. The Bikeway and Pedestrian Fund and the Amtrak Operations Fund are governmental funds j specifically categorized as special revenue funds. Special revenue funds are used to account for the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are legally restricted to expenditures for specified J purposes. C. Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting The Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when they become measurable and available. Local Transportation Fund revenue is recognized when all eligibility requirements imposed by the provider have been met. Revenues are accrued when their receipt occurs within sixty days after the accounting period so as to be both measurable and available. Expenditures are generally recorded when a liability is incurred, as under accrual accounting. Revenues that are susceptible to accrual include local transportation fund allocations and interest income. When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the City's policy to use restricted resources first, and then unrestricted resources as they are needed. 7 NOTE 1 —SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Continued) D. Deferred Revenue The Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund reports deferred revenue on their balance sheet. Deferred revenue for this fund arises when potential revenue does not meet both the "measurable" and "available" criteria for recognition in the current period or when funds have been received prior to eligibility requirements being met. In subsequent periods, when both revenue recognition criteria are met, or when the City has a legal claim to the resources, the liability for deferred revenue is removed from the balance sheet and revenue is recognized. E. Interfund Transactions The City's General Fund allocates payroll and payroll related expenditures incurred to the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund. Amounts directly allocated to the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Funs for fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006 were $0 and $1,714, respectively. Amounts allocated to the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund for fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006 were $34,841 and $23,201, respectively. In addition, premiums paid for various risk management programs to the Self Insurance Internal Service Fund by the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006 were$7,000 and$0, respectively. F. Risk Management The City administers various risk management programs, some of which relate to the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund. The Finance Department transfers funds from the Amtrak Operations Fund to the Self Insurance Fund for the purchase of property insurance for the Amtrak Station per direction from the City's Risk Manager. The City's risk management programs are reported in the governmental activities and internal service funds in the City's basic financial statements. NOTE 2—CASH AND INVESTMENTS Cash balances of the TDA funds are pooled with those of other funds of the City. Investment income resulting from this pooling is allocated among the funds based upon each respective fund's average cash balance in relation to the aggregate investment balance. Cash and investments for the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund include a fair value adjustment for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006 of$0 and $0, and $1,640 and $(1,622), respectively. Further information regarding the City's cash and investment pool may be found in the City's basic financial statements. NOTE 3—UNEARNED REVENUE The Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and State Transit Assistance Fund (STA) are administered by the Kern Council of Governments, which allocates funds to the City to fund its TDA operations. The TDA requires that any funds not used may be returned to their source. LTF and STA allocations are considered earned when they are properly spent for eligible projects. Allocations received but not earned are recorded as unearned revenue. Changes in the unearned revenue account for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006 are summarized as follows: Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund 2007 2006 Unearned revenue, July 1 $ 159,806 $ 125,203 TDA allocations received 214,402 224,895 TDA allocations earned (223,747) (190,292) Unearned revenue, June 30 $ 150,461 $ 159,806 8 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION CITY OF BAKERSFIELD BIKEWAY AND PEDESTRIAN SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2007 i { Original Variance Positive Budget Final Budget 2007 (Negative) REVENUES Local transportation fund $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ 2,400 $ _ EXPENDITURES Bikeway and pedestrian 2,400 2,400 2,400 _ Change in fund balance Fund balance, beginning Fund balance, ending $ _ See note to supplementary information. 9 i i CITY OF BAKERSFIELD AMTRAK OPERATIONS SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BUDGETARY COMPARISON SCHEDULE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2007 t Variance } Original Positive REVENUES Budget Final Budget 2007 (Negative) � Local transportation fund $ 316,800 $ 316,800 $ 223,747 $ (93,053) Interest and other 3,000 3,000 8,135 5,135 i Total revenues 319,800 319,800 231,882 (87,918) EXPENDITURES Public transit 319,800 326,381 231,882 94,499 Change in fund balance $ - $ (6,581) $ 6,581 Fund balance, beginning Fund balance, ending $ - See note to supplementary information. 10 i CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS NOTE TO SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2007 AND 2006 NOTE 1 —BUDGETARY INFORMATION Annual budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with principles generally accepted in the United States of America for the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund. The City Manager is authorized to transfer budgeted amounts between departments within any fund and approve reductions of budgeted amounts. Since expenditures may not exceed budgeted appropriations at the fund level, any decisions that alter the total appropriations of any fund are to be approved by City Council. Projects budgeted within the fiscal year but not yet completed can be reappropriated the following fiscal year with City Manager approval. All other unencumbered (' appropriations lapse at year-end. Encumbered amounts are reappropriated in the ensuing fiscal year budget. f 11 I� f l OTHER REPORT k t- 4 S 3p t .! e N ' s Andrew J.Paulden,CPA Peter C.Brown,CPA Burton H.Armstrong,CPA,MST REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING Harvey J.McCown,MBA,CPA AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON Steven R.Starbuck,CPA AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AND THE Aileen K.Keeter,CPA TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT Chris M.Thomburgh,CPA Eric H.Xin,MBA,CPA Richard L.Halle,CPA,MST To the Board of Directors Kern Council of Governments Lynn R.Krausse,CPA,MST Bakersfield, California Rosalva Flores,CPA Connie M.Perez,CPA To the City Council City of Bakersfield M.Sharon Adams,CPA,MST Bakersfield, California Diana H.Branthoover,CPA s M.Young,CPA We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Bikeway and Pedestrian Alicia Montgomery,CPA,MBA Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund of the City of Matthew R.Gilligan,CPA Bakersfield (City), California, as of and for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, and have issued our report thereon dated October 17, 2007, which included an Hanna J.Sheppard,CPA explanatory paragraph describing that the financial statements only present the Bikeway Ryan L.Nielsen,CPA and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted JianOu-Yang CPA in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained Ryan S.Johnson,CPA in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United Michael C.Olivares,CPA States. We considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as it relates to the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Jialan Su,CPA Operations Special Revenue Fund as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for Ariadne S.Prunes,CPA the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose Samuel A.Newland,CPA.Gammel,CPA of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of its internal control. Accordingly, we do Richard A not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City's internal control. Brooke N.Decuir,CPA A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, Craig A.Rickett,CPA to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the entity's ability to initiate, authorize, record, process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected by the entity's internal control. 12 OW A&Nk(angry kw*k*Ioard and A16194 fe Mom blots q .Pu6lcktanfads „ Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and would not necessarily identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Bikeway and Pedestrian Special Revenue Fund and the Amtrak Operations Special Revenue Fund financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. Our audit was further made to determine that Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds allocated to and received by the City were expended in conformance with applicable statutes, rules and regulations of the TDA and the allocation instructions and resolutions of the Kern Council of Governments as required by Sections 6666 and 6667 of Title 21 of the California Code of Regulations. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards and the Transportation Development Act. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Kern Council of Governments, City management, the City Council, and the State Controller's Office and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. BROWN ARMSTRONG PAULDEN MCCOWN STARBUCK THORNBURGH & KEETER ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION Bakersfield, California October 17, 2007 13 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR FINDING AND RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2007 GENERAL SERVICES EXPENDITURE Prior Year Finding The City of Bakersfield Transit Enterprise Fund general service expenditures are under stated. Due to a personnel change, the insurance and bond expense account was not charged correctly. Recommendation We recommend that the City of Bakersfield take steps to implement procedures to ensure that all expenses are accounted for completely and accurately. Management Response The City of Bakersfield will implement internal control procedures to ensure this expense is recorded in future periods. Current Year Status The City of Bakersfield Transit Fund general service expenditures accounts were correctly charged during the current year. No exceptions noted. 14 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 (661)326-3751 Fax: (661)324-1850 To: Tonya Date: April 24, 2008 Fax#: 633.1317 Pages: 24 From: John W. Stinson Assistant City Manager Subject: City of Bakersfield Master Fee Schedule Tonya, This information will be presented at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, April 28, 2008. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 326.3751 or Nelson Smith at 326.3740. Thank you. HP LASERJET 3150 SEND CONFIRMATION REPORT FOR PRINTER/FAX/COPIER/SCANNER CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 3241850 APR-24-08 2:01PM JOB START TIME USAGE PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS TYPE PAGES MODE STATUS 47 4/24 1 :42PM 19,131, 661 6331 31 7 SEND.............. 24/24 EC144 COMPLETED........................................ TOTAL 19'13" PAGES SENT: 24 PAGES PRINTED: 0 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield,CA 93301 (661)326-3751 Fax:(661)324-1850 To: Tonya Date: April 24,2008 Fax#: 633.1317 Pages: 24 From: John W.Stinson Assistant City Manager Subject: City of Bakersfield Master Fee Schedule Tonya, This Information will be presented at the Budget and Finance Committee meeting scheduled for Monday,April 28,2008. If you have any questions,feel free to contact me at 326.3751 or Nelson Smith at 326.3740. Thank you. BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday,April 28,2008 ATTENDANCE LIST Name Organization Contact: Phone/ E-mail C,c(v .414 Sn,4L / Za ✓r ►� >�C�� G 31��� T-OTH 914dn -tic 36a vex C y3-7z � 46 3 H - �66� ..)" —0 L (11o�r►�a��'15�c�u t7� sP �lvm N TA-Ne�c 3aq a9 '4 q PVT 1l� sz�m,.le_ 55`1 � Me , 4� i 4 -73 Z0 v 1 y L 9 11 w ,�r( �s ��l- 3',6 - 3? n �J(e�c ILI, � E A W-5 �c�� c)V O e�v �L *0 e �w CM0 .27'17 "Az_- /" q A-4 40-(- 4c/c Ile 1� BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Monday,April 28,2008 ATTENDANCE LIST Name Organization Contact: Phone/ E-mail s B A K E R S F I E L D Staff: John W. Stinson Ken Weir, Chair Rick Kirkwood Sue Benham Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, April 28, 2008 — 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor- City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 31, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues —Tandy/ Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Cost Recovery Fees — Smith B. Discussion regarding Transportation Development Act Audit - Rojas 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT ' FaxUtil _ 19 LX File Fax List Tools Help Main - All Faxes r-1-®Newyor III= a e ® e s r Da1e(1 une To/FrondFde Fax Number/...lWjWq a S97a jAccount I Meper Ur J 413C 4/252008 3.19...News Editor-Bakersfield Californian 395-7519 1 pgs 41 OK AL $ 42520083:19...No"Director-KERO TV23 323-5538 1pgs 0 O AL JAII f 42520083.19...News Director-KGET TV77 283-1843 ipgs •OK AL '.'-I® 3 4252008 3:19.,.The Minority Construction News Bulletin 323-9287 i pgs 0 OK AL * 42520083:19...News Director-KUZZ/KCVvRJKtM T745 328-7537 i pgs 4/OK AL JMlsc 4/2520083:19...Holly Vogel-County of Kem 86&3190 ipgs YOK AL Q Trasi * 42620083:19...News Director-Chamber of Commerce 327-8751 1 pgs •OK AL * 42520083:19...News Director-KLLY95FM(KNZR 393-1915 ipgs 9 O AL 3 4252008399...Charles G.Waide 325-7814 1 pgs 0 OK AL * 42520083'.19...Editor-Bakersfield News Observer 324-9472 ipgs 9 O AL 3 40/2006319 HBA 633-1317 1 pgs •OK AL * 42526083,19...Government Affairs Dir-Bakersfield Assn... 635-2317 1 p9 0 O AL * 4/252008 3:19..pear Channel Radio 283-2963 1 pgs •OK AL * 42520083'.19...News Director-Chanel 39 334-2685 ipgs 0 O AL * 42520083:19...Opinion-Bakersfield Californian 395-7380 ipgs 41 OK AL * 42520083:19,..News Director-Unrosion 334-2687 1 pgs i OK AL it 4/2520083:19...News Director-KBAKT/29 851-9810 ipgs 0 O AL * 4252008319 News Director-KERN/KGEOIKGFM 326-0388 1 pgs •OK AL * 4252008399...Editor-El Popular 325-1351 1 pgs 0 OK AL * 4/2520083:19...Beale Library 631-9439 1 pgs •OK AL * 42520083:19...Editor-El Mexicalo 323-6951 1 pgs i OK AL * 4/2520083:19...News Director-KWACSpanish Radio 327-0797 ipgs 41 OK AL * 42520083:19...News Director-KK>O( 283-2963 1 pgs Y OK AL ,' ,) Print Job Completed X ►1 _ Microsoft Word-Document2 was sent to �— ---- —r ADM MGR 8560 --——-- �lf5ta � r-_' g3:42 PM QGroupWlse... _April 28 Ag— IJ RightFax... fl f-,h a�ilv"O EM Page 1 of 1 Amber Lawrence - Contacts for B&F Package From: Kevin Barnes To: Amber Lawrence Date: 4/25/08 12:08 PM Subject: Contacts for B&F Package Amber, here are the contacts you asked for: Nancy Ewert NancyE chi co.kern.ca.us <nancye chi co.kern.ca.us> Daphne Harley Daphne_@co.ke_.rn.ca_us <da hne@co.kern._c_a.us> John Fermanian jfermanian(p�smurfit.com Varner Brothers, Inc fax: 399-5934 Thanks for your help! Kevin file://C:\Documents and Settings\alawrenc\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4811 C9A5C... 4/25/2008 Page 1 of 1 Amber Lawrence - Budget and Finance Committee From: Amber Lawrence To: Irma Carson; Ken Weir; Sue Benham Date: 4/25/08 3:16 PM Subject: Budget and Finance Committee CC: Ken Weir Attachments: April 28 Agenda.doc Good afternoon everyone, Attached is the agenda for Monday's Budget and Finance Committee meeting. A full packet will be provided for you in your delivery today. Have a great weekend! Amber Amber Lawrence Administrative Assistant City of Bakersfield City Manager's Office (661) 326-3271 file:/1C:\Documents and Settings\alawrenc\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4811F5BCC... 4/25/2008 i Page 1 of 1 Amber Lawrence - Budget and Finance Committee From: Amber Lawrence To: Department Heads; Kevin Barnes; Sal Moretti Date: 4/25/08 3:19 PM Subject: Budget and Finance Committee CC: Assistants Attachments: April 28 Agenda.doc Good afternoon everyone, Attached is the agenda for Monday's Budget and Finance Committee meeting. Have a great weekend! Amber Amber Lawrence Administrative Assistant City of Bakersfield City Manager's Office (661) 326-3271 file:JJC:\Documents and Settings\alawrenc\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4811F675CO... 4/25/2008 r Page 1 of 1 Amber Lawrence - Budget and Finance Committee From: Amber Lawrence To: Daphney Harley; Jim Baldwin; John Fermanian; Larry Moxley; Nancy Ewert; Richard Caglia; Roland Burkert Date: 4/25/08 3:30 PM Subject: Budget and Finance Committee Attachments: April 28 Agenda.doc Good afternoon everyone, Attached is the agenda for Monday's Budget and Finance Committee meeting. Have a great weekend! Amber Amber Lawrence Administrative Assistant City of Bakersfield City Manager's Office (661) 326-3271 file://C:\Documents and Settings\alawrenc\Local Settings\Temp\XPGrpWise\4811F918CO... 4/25/2008 i P A K E R S F I E L D Facsimile Transmission From: A. Lawrence Fax Number: 661-324-1850 Voice Phone: 661-326-3271 TO: Cedar Avenue Recycling & Transfer Company: Fax Number: 559.650.1111 Voice Phone: Fax Notes: Please deliver to Richard Caglia, Jim Verros and Ray Medley. Thank you. Date and time of transmission: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:44:48 PM Number of pages including this cover sheet: 02 B A K E R S F I E L D Staff:John W. Stinson Ken Weir, Chair Rick Kirkwood Sue Benham Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, April 28, 2008— 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor-City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 31, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues—Tandy! Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Cost Recovery Fees— Smith B. Discussion regarding Transportation Development Act Audit -Rojas 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT -- ALA4811FC79CD8A --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 :45 PM 4/25/2008 Transmission Record Sent to: Cedar Avenue Recycling & Transfer Phone: 559.650.1111 Billing information: " Remote ID: 559 650 1111 Unique ID: "ALA4811FC79CD8A" Elapsed time: 0 minutes, 36 seconds. Used channel 5. No ANI data. No AOC data. Resulting status code (0/339; 0/0) : Success Pages sent: 1 - 2 XOO' B A K E R S F I E L D Facsimile Transmission From: A. Lawrence Fax Number: 661-324-1850 Voice Phone: 661-326-3271 TO: Varner Brothers Company: Fax Number: 661.399.5934 Voice Phone: Fax Notes: Please deliver to Dan Panero, Jacob Panero, Vernon Varner and Greg Sanders. Thank you. Date and time of transmission: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:46:42 PM Number of pages including this cover sheet: 02 D A K E R S F I E L D Ken Weir, Chair Staff:John W. Stinson Sue Benham Rick Kirkwood Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, April 28, 2008— 12:00 P.M. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor-City Hall, 1501 TrLDdun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 31, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues—Tandy I Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Cost Recovery Fees— Smith B. Discussion regarding Transportation Development Act Audit -Rojas 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT -- ALA4811FCEECD8C --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 :47 PM 4/25/2008 Transmission Record Sent to: Varner Brothers Phone: 661.399.5934 Billing information: " Remote ID: 661 399 5934 Unique ID: "ALA4811FCEECD8C" Elapsed time: 0 minutes, 48 seconds. Used channel 11. No ANI data. No AOC data. Resulting status code (0/339; 0/0) : Success Pages sent: 1 - 2 B A K E R S F I E L D Facsimile Transmission From: A. Lawrence Fax Number: 661-324-1850 Voice Phone: 661-326-3271 TO: Community Recycling Company: Fax Number: 661.845.9700 Voice Phone: Fax Notes: Please deliver to John Richardson and Dave Baldwin. Thank you. Date and time of transmission: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:47:42 PM Number of pages including this cover sheet: 02 ,,,om� +ea�eeoem�c..�eww,� B A K E R S F I E L D Staff:John W. Stinson Ken Weir, Chair Rick Kirkwood Sue Benham Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, April 28, 2008— 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor-City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 31, 2W8 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues—Tandy/ Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Cost Recovery Fees—Smith B. Discussion regarding Transportation Development Act Audit -Rojas 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT -- ALA4811FD26CD8E --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 :48 PM 4/25/2008 Transmission Record Sent to: Community Recycling Phone: 661.845.9700 Billing information: " Remote ID: Unique ID: "ALA4811FD26CD8E" Elapsed time: 0 minutes, 38 seconds. Used channel 12. No ANI data. No AOC data. Resulting status code (0/339; 0/0) : Success Pages sent: 1 - 2 B A K E R S F I E L D Facsimile Transmission From: A. Lawrence Fax Number: 661-324-1850 Voice Phone: 661-326-3271 TO: Bernard Le Beau Company: Fax Number: 661.325.1127 Voice Phone: Fax Notes: Please see attached. Thank you. Date and time of transmission: Friday, April 25, 2008 3:48:30 PM Number of pages including this cover sheet: 02 A.rcc�aaecaaamee�.�e�.,,, °a*mu E A K E R S F I E L D Staff: John W. Stinson Ken Weir, Chair Rick Kirkwood Sue Benham Irma Carson BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council- City of Bakersfield Monday, April 28, 2008— 12:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor-City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT MARCH 31, 2008 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Recycling Issues—Tandy/ Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion regarding Cost Recovery Fees— Smith B. Discussion regarding Transportation Development Act Audit -Rojas 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT -- ALA4811FD55CD91 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 :48 PM 4/25/2008 Transmission Record Sent to: Bernard LeBeau Phone: 661.325.1127 Billing information: " Remote ID: 6613251127 Unique ID: "ALA4811FD55CD91" Elapsed time: 0 minutes, 34 seconds. Used channel 13. No ANI data. No AOC data. Resulting status code (0/339; 0/0) : Success Pages sent: 1 - 2