HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/30/2007 B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
March 30, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager Rr/,_-
SUBJECT: General Information `"7
1 . According to the Kern County Administrative Officer, we will get something official
from them in a week or two concerning the proposal from Supervisor Maggard to
form a joint committee concerning highway funding issues.
2. Two memorandums are enclosed to inform you of staff's recommendation to adjust
the refuse and sewer rates for FY 2007-08. The proposed refuse rate would
increase .45 cents per month for residential users; the proposed sewer rate would
increase by $1 .67 per month. As noted in the memos, the increases are requested
to cover operation and maintenance costs, as well as improvement and expansion
of facilities. Both requests will be on the June 6t" Council meeting agenda for your
consideration.
3. With reference to the item in last week's report about sales tax receipts showing a
slight decrease for this quarter, attached is a report that shows the details by
category. The only one with a significant drop compared to last year is the building
materials group. New car sales continue to grow at a standard pace, and
department stores did better than the prior year.
4. An article of interest from the Fresno Bee is enclosed. The Fresno City Council
voted this week to approve a "steep" increase in developer fees. They have not
adjusted their fees in 15 years.
5. As approved by the voters in the November election, Proposition 84 and
Proposition 1C will include parks funding of $600 million. $400 million in funding
will be administered by the State Department of Recreation and Parks, with
another $200 million that may be distributed by the Department of Housing and
Community Development. Though not available until 2009-10, we hope there will
be grant opportunities for funding of future park projects. An informational
document prepared by the Legislative Analyst's Office is attached.
6. Recreation and Parks is sponsoring the first "Eggstravaganza" at McMurtrey
Aquatic Center this Saturday, March 31St, at 10:00 a.m. Kids will be able to gather
as many eggs as possible underwater, in the heated pool. It should be interesting!
Honorable Mayor and City Council
March 30, 2007
Page 2
7. Last Saturday, March 24th, McMurtrey hosted its first large swim meet, with over
700 in attendance. The invitational event was hosted by Garces High School and
was very well received.
8. Recreation and Parks Tree Supervisor, Patrick Denny, has resigned to take a
position in the private sector. We appreciate the good work he did for our tree
program and wish him well in his new endeavors. Ed Lazarotti, Park Supervisor II,
will transfer to the Tree Section, starting Monday, April 2 nd.
9. Please mark your calendars for the second annual "Bit of Bakersfield" Festival to
be held at The Park at River Walk on Friday, April 27th and Saturday, April 28tH
Entertainment on two stages, art booths, a boat regatta, children's activities, and
food will be available on both days. It will be a great family event and kicks off our
summer concert season, in conjunction with SMG and other sponsors.
10. With spring upon us, Recreation and Parks will be renovating the following
playgrounds: Patriots, Haggin Oaks, Jefferson, Castle, and Siemon.
11. As mentioned to you earlier this month, the Human Resources Division is holding a
City of Bakersfield "Career Opportunity Day" next Friday, April 6th at the
Convention Center from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The promotional flyer for the event
is attached for your information.
12. A recent Los Angeles Times article is enclosed on the "Quay Valley Ranch"
project, a proposed real estate development that would be located about 50 miles
north of Bakersfield on 1-5 in Kings County. Though touted as a totally solar
powered and self-contained community, it would still be leap frog development
on a very large scale.
13. The Streets Division work schedule for the week of April 2nd is enclosed.
14. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
Councilmember Carson
• Follow up with Kern Minority Contractor's Association regarding TRIP;
Councilmember Weir
• Report on the City's receipt of TRIP Funds and related obligations.
AT:rs
cc� Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
MAR 277007
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 Director
DATE: March 6, 2007
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Refuse Rates - Revised
In accordance with the City's agreement with the refuse haulers, the contract
fees are adjusted annually by the consumer price index (CPI). For FY 2007/08,
this increase is 3.2 percent.
We recommend adjusting the current residential refuse rate by this same
percent. This amount is needed to cover operations and maintenance
associated with refuse service and street sweeping. This proposed increase
would provide approximately $1,800,000 to complete the electrification project at
Mount Vernon Recycling Facility.
The current annual residential rate of$169.08 will increase to $174.48. This
translates to a monthly increase of 45 cents. Since all other residential user fees
are based upon this single family rate, those rates will also increase by the same
percentage.
In order to meet the proposition 218 noticing requirements, staff must start the
noticing process at the end of March. The rate adjustment is scheduled for the
June 6 Council meeting. We will wait for your approval before commencing with
the Prop 218 noticing.
Cc: John Stinson
Nelson Smith
Kevin Barnes
Georgina Lorenzi
GAGROUPDAT\Budget\07-08 Budget\Solid WasteTY 2007-08 Refuse Rate Increase Ldoc
March 26,2007 _
•
MAR 2 l 207
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 Director
Nelson Smith, Finance Director
DATE: March 15, 2007
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2007/08 Proposed Sewer Rate - Revised
Both Finance and Public Works staff reviewed sewer rates for 2007/08 to
determine the adjustment needed to fund the following items:
• Annual operating costs;
• Capital improvement budget for storm water/sewer collection systems
and wastewater treatment plants;
• Establish and replenish sewer reserve funds to adequate
levels to provide certain assurances to bond holders and rating agencies
regarding the financial stability of the enterprise.
• Debt service on bonds to be issued for Plant 3 upgrade and expansion
project. The bond issue will fund both expansion and upgrade projects at
Plants 2 and 3. Connection fees will not be able to fully fund the
anticipated annual debt payments associated with the bond financing.
The user rates must therefore be raised to ensure proper funding levels
are met regarding the future bond debt service requirements.
Both departments recommend adjusting the annual residential user rate for a
single family dwelling from $135 to $155. This translates to a 14.8% increase or
a monthly increase of$1.67. The proposed rate increase is consistent with the
financial model prepared by the City's underwriter for this bond, George K. Baum
& Company. Since all other sewer fees are based upon this single family rate,
those rates will also increase by the same percentage.
In order to meet the proposition 218 noticing requirements for residential
accounts, staff must start the noticing process at the end of March. The
residential rate adjustment is scheduled for the June 6th Council meeting. We will
wait for your approval before commencing with the Prop 218 noticing.
Industrial and commercial sewer service surcharge rates are exempt from Prop
218. Because of the complexity involved in computing these fees, this hearing is
scheduled for the April 25 h Council meeting. This will provide staff enough lead
time to make the revised surcharge rates effective at the beginning of the fiscal
year.
cc: John Stinson, Art Chianello, Georgina Lorenzi
GAGROUPDAT\Budget\07-08 BudgeMastewaterTY 2007-08 Sewer Rate Increase.doc
March 26,2007
BAKE
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Nelson K. Smith, Finance Director
DATE: March 30, 2007
SUBJECT: Sales Tax Quarterly Report by Category
As a follow up to the most recent quarterly sales tax analysis, I am attaching a copy of the most
recent "quarterly report by industry" for your information and review.
In reviewing the "top 10" sales tax categories, new car sales continues to top the list in revenue
generation,and comparing their 4th quarter 2006 to their 4th quarter 2005 their tax revenues grew
by about 6%.
Department stores actually did much better this Christmas season compared to last year, with a
55% growth in sales tax comparing 4th quarter 2006 to 4th quarter 2005 receipts.
The three groups that showed significant declines in tax revenues for this same measurement
period (4th quarter 2006 vs. 4th quarter 2005)were general stores, contractors/wholesalers of
building materials, and building material stores. Sales taxes from General stores for the 4th quarter
of 2006 was about one half(51%) of that generated during the 4th quarter of 2005. Revenues from
the contractor/wholesaler group was about 78%of the prior year level and revenues from building
material stores was about 52% of the prior year receipts.
Let me know if you have any questions regarding the attached report.
Attachment
File name: nks:/p:/memo-sales tax details dec 2006.doc
O O M O
co n M N N O M M C'7 co) M N M (O M 009 M M M N n m M r
0 N CO N N M 00 O M 0 O V (n0 M co W M M N ^ N M M N O m 0
F N (t09 O N N co M
H d n 0 N M m M CO N 0 CO O W m n .�- N O a m 01
w N M n M M M V V M M M M 009 N N N N O N O N On ID m
N M M �V
N A n
F N
V
O F- O N M M �WaMp O O 0 N f0 7 CO n M M n W V' �Y 'C O V 0D a co
U W m M � N M 0 - O 0 n O (O V O Cl)co Go(O N c LQ co O L r COO_ st n
U � m m m n O IOD M c07 m co M M M N N co N N N N r m
Cl) Lu "4 a'
O M O ,MV_ 7 M M M O W N n O v M (OD r N O m m M m M m m N O
~ a 0 (C f M n M M M 0 M N O n M N O r N tD n
U W M (� o) M O 0 n N n M N m n n M N M
O U n 0 M t�0 n M N M Cl) �-- V 'o r r O m
N Cl) M N N N N N N M M
N a'
F- a M N r O O N tq ? N M M CD N M M n N m N W M N n M 01
(O m m m N M 'Q N n M n (O OD O C'[
M n Cl) N m
C7 W 0 m if O O (A n pmj M m m N m Cn (O 0 M O a O M m
m n O 0 N m n N m Cl) M O N N n m 7 0
� w nj Cl) " (h M M N N N N N N N N — � � � � co
M
o F- a M M N r M (O M O O N M N M O Le) ° M O n M 0 N 0
/�y a V c' N M M M C1 O O n O n M 0°] N O M 00 N N m M (n m co
M 0 CO O N
ILLy S w N �- O 7 M M M Cl) M N N N N W N M 'D U) � o) 'T v
VI
M W m N O
0 N N m O
ee}} M m O O
Z U m 000 M m (O OD v ° M N 0 a m O NO N O N M � O M O (G O m
2 w nj O C'9 N M M M Cl) N M N N n co M
W
N ° ~ O? N O o C°O_ OOD N CC j M co W O (no N n M M N R M M N co M 00 O
IL I- a O n n 0 O O ? 1O r O 1� N N N CO 1O to to n O M N O N oo
O 0 w N O N O O OO C09 m M M N M N M N � � N N M M N O N N
a.W N w
d co r O m N N (OO, r N M N O COO W (OD CMO O m O OM O M n n
M N
J V O N M 0 m m M n n a n N Cl) O O n O) Op a O
Lu W N m m 0 co v co M N N N N M N N N N N N N N M O n
d N m m 0 M n N M 0` N N O M O M M n m M 0 M O O 0 a M
U W N M N n M V n O n r N M n (�Ory{ O V N m CO O (O O cli V W Cl! ^ O M V M M N Cl) M M N Cl) M e- N N N N ems- � � .n- N N
X w
Q
Cl) (° m v (n (° n o Lo co M
(n W m N a (O W r °� O 09 (O r (NO (NO V r v m N (o N r n O Lci
W 0 w N n 00 0 M n Cl)0 OOD N co N N N N co C6
r N �L6 e N O M O 0
J
Q
J
a ¢ U
w
0 w z
W ¢ w
z w
> z (n
w
W O U W >
J
O
'a m W a _ K Z O w
LL LL ¢ 3 N W
'--� U W J F- U ¢ J W
= JJlll w 0 0 a' O � Z J N
oC J
°� } X Z W
¢ o w Z a J a m Sz
> H ° w (Wj Q d Z w O wa' S W v)
U a (n O a w O w m ¢ O a5 a w
z w w -a oo w w � z J w a 3 a o a
o m g a u) n o O O w ¢ w ° - w (n
F= w J cD } o a v a U w J m_ w (n
w Q H O Y m p w W w 2 Z w J w QJ F z T (3 0 j w
0 W z H z r O ¢ a' ¢ Z X F- W w N Y x O U z N ¢ 2
a v o w ¢�¢ v w a o (n o p z J Q w ¢ j `� a r
j U Q > z w 0 W J C7 w w w m U ? C7 U F w m O z
p a F F- Z z J J z U U � D z J O U 0 0 ¢ W 5
F= LL O m O W ¢ F= m F- O O a a
? z o wn w a m w i w w o a s Sw w a Q (D o ¢ ¢ W
co n M N M M N
m M m M M M M N co M M M (MD Cl) n N
0 N n (O M
r V N N N •M- N n N co N 17 N b r N N N
Cl co
O W N r O ODD (2o N (M N N O W r N O o W N O N M W M M
a r ^ O r (O W O W N V_ o) r r r (NO I0 a r r N vNi V (Mq_
o U N r W a v o Cl) CNO M M N N N N N N N N
= w
a
0 N N N N W M O M N N N W a W N r O r co O 0 (q N
F- _a o OCT rl:O W N N n O Co W O O N N N Q) 7 N N N W "t N M
O w M rn (l)
W W N Cl)M Cl) r M V M Cl) N v .�- a O Cl)
W ^ N N
M a'
Or � N W O N O O 00D tNO (MO r W M tq O W
F- a r (O W W Co M
M r In V r fD fD (O O W N
O N M O CA W . (o M N m M N 4)
d W - CA r ^ W (o W a N N M co C'J N r N N V N W
❑ W `- N V' N V V' N
N W'
N �N„ n v Cl) (O m co N M N M n � W W m N O r N O O � N co N
N a v (o O O r r (q r In N V; W o) N o) n N N M N N O
r M tq N W M M V M W O M O
F- W W W O m 1( N M tWq Cl) N N N N M M N N cq
n W r
r a'
(q N M M N r W O
n o N r M N M r W M N Cl) ONO N N N N N (q
/"y (3 w •- r r � M N (r0 N a a (q (NO v N N (� O W N d M OD , N
iLLi 2 (Oyi �"' N M (q M M N
co)
O (q W r 00 (q M r
~ a LQ M n W m (oo_ o o N o W ONO_ . a N N m ONi a (re O N r N r
Z o ri
❑ U ` O W v W V N OMO N M N M r-: N M M a L6 & N C
`W
a V m M W N O O (q (q (q M W (q W M M (q (q M
N a N O O (q r o) d) (o M Opp
0 N O M (O N IQ (o N Iq (o OO (q q) 4y
O Q U W co ^ o r (q N (`r') M N M M - N W M N M OM9 - - W W
W N It
d ^( O 'It W O NW N N N N N N N o N M N oO N V
N d U (� M r N K v a N M v (q N N 7i M N N vi 06 d M V O M O
li N
W �
F-
w r M M M W M M
cM')_ o 000_ N N N N m a o 0 M N W m M W W N O O
C'I U N co O N N V N M N V (! N T - co - N N N N r v N W
LX " x
r a loq N d_ M N N N V N W ? M N W W M Or r aO} (q M m p
W r N n M M r (q N V (o O (o M W W 0 M
O m
n M N M W O
W a W v N M N M N M -MT M - - W
CO) M a'
I
U
J
z a
w S
O w
¢ w O
19 J Z
w
Z U)
_O w
o a a
w X O
c w O
a U) W LLI W F- F- ::i F- of
O IL w EE z w O O >
U Z
FO }O O Er w O a w ¢ U
U) a J a � °� 5 U U >
w d °w ¢ w D w U m co x
o > w N m a o ¢ aq -e O
o CO z at ¢ = o w 0 w v w o a w w
2w ea (n U) w Ir W U) W 2 ¢ ¢ w ❑
m o a c) 0 0 U ¢ w O W in 0 a _O
C-) CO w ❑ � U 0 ¢ > w 4 J w ¢ ¢ U ¢ 0 3 Cl)
o > Z or w w z W o v x z z x w o > ai o ° a w
W o z ° 0 Z' > v Q �° ¢ 0 Z 0 0 x 2 a X m w � cn o
O F O °6 z W m � 0 O z a ¢ O = 0 � } W u~i
0 Q OF 0O 0 X I- w U( w U( 0 aU—, U U W N W ~ F- W Q
❑ F- a = 2 ¢ X F- F- O w N F- z > Z K m Q z , o Q ¢
Z (n ¢ 0 0 a m > p a J J O O O O w ¢ ¢ w Q O Q O
W _ ¢ ¢ w W = z 0 2 2 W = a a 0 a U
r 'OT (O N N m r A �2 N r N N N v N n N N N n �
N Q O) N M N N r co O
00 (1)
COO. O � M � O co O O V r
da M M N V a} Of 00
W N r t2 :1 �2 N M M tv 0 0 I- O N (y
U M.. O N N r
= W
N N
to W O
Q
r V Cl) n N N N W N N N N O O IQ O N O U)H d co O t2 O (
W M ^ O Ni O O) M
�}
O w m N O COO N W
x :s N N ? O
N O O
O Fes., ^ N Cl) O O O l0 M n N O N O M N O N n
N 0. M M N N N
Q W N N r (OV O N On MO m N O n N
Z M
N Of eV., �' N V (O
(D W � N O M M U) O O O Q O O O M C-14 v
N CO � O M Oi00_ (O M (v rp f�0 (00 I- (O O co N
('J Lll N O O (O O V co N co M O O O 1� N
N U) cc N m cc O
- U n
(q M O '7 O M
M 0
O O O N (+N) (� M 'OV O O
D. M (C M 0 V c0 OV, if M (p0 (My
W I� V (V (O N N (O (M p� (O (n 00 V (O (O M
U N N N N O V V O N m V O
M
w co N (0 N
V .V.r N N V CLI eq
VI
Q p N O m 0 M O^D W n O 0 0 O O (`1 I- O O O M Cl)
F d 4 N 0) 0) O O V N O 0) f- M
Z N O O O O O M M O O D O N v_ (00 Cl)
U N N N O O n O M Cl)
W O DJ M r
Cl) Q' r N V co
W
1n (n CU V Q) N N O O O W O (0 W
O O m 0 O 0 n O O M O O t0
d oo V M of 10 ^ O) ^ V N N
O n .V-- W O OV_ M (00 O t00
O W M N N O M 00) O N Cl) n O co
d o U
N d' ('� M CV OD V
Wr � M (O
LO W
v lA W
M O O O M r r
V M O O N ^
O d n O O O O V N n Q7 N a 0OV N (`OD N (00
J W N r Q) O) CO I� V N 0 N N N V
W (� LU N v Cl) W OD
r v � O
O M C)
In In Q O H f O O � N O M VN fO O V M O N V M Q
H d M Cl) o') f� O Q) (0 V n N W (VO. (00_ N O (O
Q W N N N r N r n M O O O O p 0 W
= U CN 0) Cl) O OD O r
W r O N
LX V cl m N _ M O
r O F (0 U)
M
d O O O n V N V CO (O tD N
1 N N
N M N N O O (((O
N O W U 0
O (0 (0
J W W n
M e.. .M,.. O Cl) N
V/
U
z
W
U U
W
a Q
(n o
U
Q O W_
F
= a'
z N
W W z
!n W W
W z z0 V w
W M O °6 U d z Z j ul o a (n W z w U z o Q
a W m x J W UO M p ¢ O m
of o W F- N O W 1 Z K W U
U O U O ~ ¢ U U o iL F W _W
W U U O W Q D_ � z O z
¢ o LL z w U o 0
z = w >-Q g y Z Q d Q w d
D m D x O H U o w ~ W w 7 w o p W
o O W x w U o x 2 0 w a z F- o w
D ¢ y ' o
z U (7 0 Q F- W (Wi> j a U m ¢ E5 � o y OU Z �
N `! D1
O N M � N r 0) O
� co
i
Hl er
`retry road fees
Ord in
Fresno
City Council divided,
delays increases sought
for 2008 and 2009.
By Matt Leedy
The Fresno Bee
A split Fresno City Council.
on Tuesday approved steep de-
veloper fee increases to pay for
better roads,but balked at even
higher rates to complete Fres-
no's street system by 2025.
City staffers proposed a three-
year plan they said would raise
nearly$415 million to build new
streets,improve others and pre-
vent bottlenecks.
After four hours of testimony
and debate, the council voted
4-3 for first-year increases that
will start in May.
With those increases,fees for
developments of single-family
homes will be seven times high-
er than current rates, and fees
for stores will be 10 times high-
er.
But those increases alone
will not raise enough money for
Fresno's roads, city officials
said Tuesday. The council sent
city staffers back to the draw.
ing board on hikes proposed for
2008 and 2009.
Development interests lob-
bied hard against the size of the
three-year fee increases,saying
more should be done to lessen
the effect the hikes would have
on business.A council majority
agreed,
City street fees didn't change
for 15 years and didn't generate
enough money to keep up with
the demands development put
on city roads. Long-neglected
fees led to bottlenecks and other
traffic tie-ups.
See FEES,Page Al I
`h'F FRESNO BEE - NEWS « WEDNESrXY, MARCH 28,2007 i PAGE Al 1
Feeq,:-) " tought increases
lt.
Continued from Page Al
"I think this whole problem Fresno's development fee
was created by going 15 years The Fresno City Council on Tuesday raised developer fees needed to pay for new streets and Improve others,
without an increase," Council However,the council backed away from proposed increases for 20M and 2009.
Member Mike Dages said.
Under the citv's old system, Fee Increase Established New growth
street fees cost between$1,100 to approved by the areas areas Graduated fees proposed by My staff,
$3,700 per acre for development council for 2007 Total fee/acre Total fee/acre but spurned by councll
on the city's fringe.Homes typi- Single-family homes $8,361 $27,151 None
cally have lower fees than __-_-
stores. Apartments $15,663 $36,900 2008ftWtg�_ .° `$44,521
Higher fees approved Tues _ 200S*AkMNW. : $52,342
day put the cast to build homes
Retail $20,233 $36,900 2008 � � $53,626
2009 " <;
h :<<
near the city's borders at $70,353
$27,000 per acre for streets.Fees
are much smaller if projects are Office $15,422 $36,900 2008 W,4W_qFM, ., $43,574
built in established areas in 2009 $90,249
Fresno's core. __
fight Industry $3,633 $11,837 i�lone
Fees for apartments, stores
and offices on the city's fringe Heavy Industry $2,541 $8,280 None
will now be $36,900 per acre. Sourm.Tr*city ot Fresno
City staffers said those fees THE FRESNO BEE
should increase again in 2008
and 2009, to about $52,000 per
acre for apartments, about Calhoun said approval of just Z disagree. New developments,
$70,000 per acre for stores and the first-year increase only de- H*hff,feet/ Qp17*dV they say, make additional pub-
about$50,000 per acre for office lays a decision that would fully lic facilities necessary.
buildings. fund the city's street system.A Tuescdat,�i put the cost Currently, city facilities are
Jon Ruiz, an assistant city council vote on comprehensive to i�l�h(tnm near not factored into Fresno's street-
manager and interim public street fees,initially due last Au fee formula.
works director, defended the gust, is seven months behind L a "8 � .8 Commercial developers also
three-year proposal,calling it a schedule. "vY want different fees for different
"reasonable and responsible 'And I'm sick and tired of de- (2t "5'2277',0®0 pee- £CCr@ types of retail projects. Large
plan." lays,"Calhoun said. stores should be charged differ-
But the council told city staff- Jaime Holt, a Fresno plan- fur street'. Fees ently from small stores, they
ers to continue studying street- ping commissioner, also sup- are much maller said.
fee increases and report back in ported the city's three-year Other issues that will be dis-
September with a plan for 2006 plan. �37"ojeca�3° ;• ti/7 iF cussed by city staffers and de-
and 2009. "If we water down our goals velopers include:
Among the issues to be exam- and back down from chaHeng- in ('S'iablished areas 0 How projects that include
ined are how to accommodate es were only going to continue '
no a mix of commercial and resi-
affordable housing,how to pre- to get some mediocre results," in Fres 8 core' dential development should be
vent double-charging develop- said Holt, who added that she - charged.
ers who paid the old fees and was speaking only as an inter- three-year proposal -- pushed 0 A 2% administration fee
how to charge projects that in ix ested Fresnan and not as a plan- the council to approve only the that city officials say is needed
commercial and residential ning commissioner. 2007 increases. to pay staffers to track fees and
uses. Westerlund,who initially sup- Attorney Jeffrey Reid, a make sure developers are reim-
Gauncil members Henry T ported the three-year proposal, former Fresno city manager bursed for street wart:they per-
Perea, Cynthia Sterling, Larry form. Developers say the city
Westerlunrl and Doges voted for said he approved just the 2007 who now represents a group of hasn't made a strong enough
the one-year increase. Council increase Tuesday so city staff- commercial developers, said case to justify the administra.
members Jerry Duncan, Brian ers would have more time to fees for home builders and store tive fee.
Calhoun and Blong Xiong voted come up with a better proposal builders should be nearly the 8 Ensuring that developers
no for 2008 and 2009. same. who paid previous fees, or did
Duncan and Calhoun said "Haste doesn't make good pol- City staffers and their con- previous road work, aren't
they voted against the one-year icy,"he said• sultants said commercial fees charged again.
increase because they support- Westerlund also wants to are higher because stores pro- 9 How to fund fee breaks for
ed the city's full, three-year avoid potential lawsuits from duce far more traffic than developers who build homes
plan.Xiong did not explain his developers. "I don't think any- homes. that are affordable for residents
vote, one wins when you get into liti- Local developers and city offi- who earn 80% or less of the
Duncan said there is no easy gation." cials have met weekly since Au- area's median income -- about
way to make up for a decade and After the meeting,developers gust, when a decision on new $41,000 for a family of four.
a half of neglected fees. No one and their lawyers said they fees initially was due. Dages said the council forced
disputes$415 million is needed haven't threatened to sue the Developers say city facilities, city staffers and developers
in future development fees,Dun, city over street fees. such as parks and fine stations, "back into negotiation."
can said, and builders always Developers led by retail should share the burden of S The reporter can be reached
will lobby to keep increases builders who would pay the building and im proving streets. atmleedy @fresnobee.com
(town. steeoest increases under the City staff, and its consultants, or(559)441-6208.
MAR 2 7 2007
•
B A K E R S F I E L D
Department of Recreation and Parks
Date: March 27, 2007
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: DianA� oover, Director of Recreation & Parks
Subject: Proposition 84
Proposition 84 was passed in November by the California voters.
Among other things, it includes $400 million for local and regional parks, to
be administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The "Housing
bond", Proposition 1C includes $200 million for housing —related local and
regional parks and up to $200 million for park grants to encourage infill
development, out of a total $850 million pot.
The above information is taken from a document I received in Sacramento
during a grants workshop in on March 9. The document is attached for
your review and was compiled by the Legislative Analyst's Office.
The state administration does not plan to make grants available from Prop
84 for local parks until 2009-2010. Proposition 1C does not yet have a
designated state agency that is overseeing the distribution of these grants,
so it is unclear when these will be available.
Hopefully, the attached document will answer some of your questions
about Proposition 84 and 1C as they pertain to Recreation and Parks.
Cc: Donna Kunz
"We create a quality community through people, parks and programs"
LAIDA,,.
r ` 'ZRf
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
March 6, 2007
Proposition 84 Bond Implementation—
Water, Parks and Wildlife Policy/Budget Issues
L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T ' S O F F I C E
Presented To:
Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife
Hon. Lois Wolk, Chair
March 6, 2007
LAO,,:Mk Proposition 84—Summary of Provisions
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
Proposition 84
Uses of Bond Funds
Amounts
on Millions)
Water Quality $1,525
• Integrated regional water management. 1,000
• Safe drinking water. 380
• Delta and agriculture water quality. 145
Protection of Rivers,Lakes,and Streams $928
• Regional conservancies. 279
• Other projects—public access, river parkways, urban stream 189
restoration,California Conservation Corps.
• Delta and coastal fisheries restoration. 180
• Restoration of the San Joaquin River. 100
• Restoration projects related to the Colorado River. 90
• Stormwater pollution prevention. 90
Flood Control $800
• State flood control projects—evaluation,system improvements, 315
flood corridor program.
• Flood control projects in the Delta. 275
• Local flood control subventions(outside the Central Valley flood 180
control system).
• Flood lain mapping and assistance for local land use planning. 30
Sustainable Communities and Climate Change Reduction $580
• Local and regional parks. 400
• Urban water and energy conservation projects. 90
• Incentives for conservation in local planning. 90
Protection of Beaches,Bays,and Coastal Waters $540
• Protection of various coastal areas and watersheds. 360
• Clean Beaches Program. 90
• California Ocean Protection Trust Fund—marine resources, 90
sustainable fisheries,and marine wildlife conservation.
Parks and Natural Education Facilities $500
• State park system—acquisition,development,and restoration. 400
• Nature education and research facilities. 100
Forest and Wildlife Conservation $450
• Wildlife habitat protection. 225
• Forest conservation. 180
• Protection of ranches,farms,and oak woodlands. 45
Statewide Water Planning $65
• Planning for future water needs,water conveyance systems,and 65
flood control projects.
Total $5,388
2
March 6, 2007
LA0A.
ink Prior Resources Bonds Funding History
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
Resources Bond Fund Conditions
(In Millions)
Total Authorization
In Bond Balance Availablea
Proposition 204(b) $995 $270
Proposition 12(c) 2,100 14
Proposition 13(d) 1,970 193
Proposition 40(e) 2,600 12
Proposition 50(t) 3,440 120
Totals $11,105 $609
a Amount available after accounting for prior and proposed appropriations through 2007-08.
b Safe,Clean,Reliable Water Supply Fund,1996.
C Safe Neighborhood Parks,Clean Water,Clean Air,and Coastal Protection Bond Fund,2000.
d Safe Drinking Water,Clean Water,Watershed Protection,and Flood Protection Fund,2000.
e California Clean Water,Clean Air,Safe Neighborhood Parks,and Coastal Protection Fund.2002.
f Water Security,Clean Drinking Water,Coastal and Beach Protection Fund,2002.
Resources Bond Fund Conditionsa
By Programmatic Area
(In Millions)
Total Authorization Balance Available
In Bonds (July 1,2008)
Parks and Recreation $2,746 $11
State Parks (694) (7)
Local Parks (1,812) (4)
Historical and Cultural Resources (240) (—)
Water Quality 1,942 74
Water Management 1,888 110
Land Acquisitions and Restoration 2,793 44
CALFED/Delta-Related 1,686 370
Air Quality 50 —
Totals $11,105 $609
a Includes Propositions 204,12,13,40,and 50.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST' S OFFICE 1
March 6, 2007
LA OA,
X Governors 2007-08 Budget Proposal
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
The 2007-08 Governor's Budget proposes a total of $1.1 billion
from Proposition 84 as follows:
Governor's Budget Proposed Expenditures
Proposition 84
(In Millions)
2007-08
Water Quality
Integrated regional water management $156
Safe drinking water 76
Delta and agriculture water quality 31
Protection of Rivers,Lakes,and Streams
Regional conservancies $105
Other projects 9
Delta and coastal fisheries restoration 60
San Joaquin River 14
Colorado River 41
Stormwater pollution prevention 15
Flood Control
State flood control projects $93
Delta flood control projects 58
Local flood control subventions 100
Floodplain mapping 25
Sustainable Communities and Climate Change Reduction
Local and regional parks $1
Urban greening 11
Incentives for conservation planning 18
Protection of Beaches, Bays,and Coastal Waters
Coastal areas and watersheds $93
Clean Beaches Program 9
Ocean Protection Trust Fund 29
Parks and Natural Education Facilities
State park system $25
Nature education and research facilities —
Forest and Wildlife Conservation
Wildlife habitat protection $50
Forest conservation 35
Protection of ranches,farms,and oak woodlands 33
Statewide Water Planning
Future planning $15
Tota 1 $1,102
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST' S OFFICE 4
March 6, 2007
LAOAdN Proposition 84—
Mk
Summary of Provisions (Continued)
65 YEARS OF SERVICE -
LI New Program Areas:
• San Joaquin River Restoration. In past years, the state has
spent limited funds on studies and some restoration efforts
relating to the San Joaquin River. However, the $100 million
allocated in the bond for restoration activities for purposes of
implementing a court settlement signifies a substantial
increase in the state's efforts in this area.
• Sustainable Communities. The state has previously provid-
ed funding from a variety of sources, including bond funds,
to support water, energy, and natural resource conservation.
However, it has not previously provided resources bond funds
specifically to encourage local/regional land use planning
that will conserve natural resources. Proposition 84 provides
$90 million for this purpose. In addition, Proposition 84
provides another $90 million for urban water and energy
conservation projects, of which at least $20 million is for
urban forestry projects (an existing program).
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST' S OFFICE 3
March 6, 2007
LAO,�.
Issues for Legislative Consideration (Continued)
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
Defining Funding Eligibility
■ Defining Funding Eligibility for New Programs. We rec-
ommend that the Legislature enact implementing legislation
to provide direction for two substantially new programs cre-
ated by Proposition 84—$90 million for urban greening proj-
ects and $90 million for conservation planning incentives. We
note that for both of these programs, the measure does not
specify an implementing agency and provides only very gen-
eral guidance as to the eligible uses of funds. The Legislature
should designate implementing agencies (we recommend the
Secretary for Resources as the lead agency) and establish
program goals and criteria for awarding grants and funding
specific projects under these two programs. We note that the
Governor's budget proposal includes $6.4 million from these
funds in the Department of Conservation for grants to local
agencies for the development of planning documents that
incorporate the characteristics of a "sustainable California
community"—a concept that is vaguely defined in the budget
proposal.
■ Addressing Funding Eligibility of Private Water Compa-
nies. Proposition 84 does not specify whether or not private
water companies (which serve a significant portion of the
state's residents) are eligible for grants and loans for water
quality and water supply projects. We recommend that the
Legislature state its policy position on this matter in imple-
menting legislation, and we recommend that private water
companies be declared eligible for funding.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST ' S OFFICE 6
March 6, 2007
LAOAIIA�
'Y
«� X Issues for Legislative Consideration
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
In our Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill, we recommend a
number of legislative actions to provide for the effective and
timely implementation of Proposition 84 bond programs, consis-
tent with legislative priorities. Our recommendations (excluding
those pertaining to Proposition 84's flood management provi-
sions) are summarized below:
Recommendations to Improve
Proposition 84 Implementation
Defining Funding Eligibility
•Provide legislative direction for new programs funded by Proposition 84.
•Declare private water companies as eligible recipients of Proposition 84
funds.
Being Advised of Federal Funding
•Request administration to advise Legislature at budget hearings of
anticipated federal funding for the San Joaquin River restoration
settlement.
Considering Streamlining Measures to Improve Project Delivery
•Request administration to advise Legislature of statutory action that
could be taken to improve timeliness of project delivery.
Coordinating Local Parks Programs
•Designate Department of Parks and Recreation as primary administrator
for Propositions 1C and 84 local park funds.
V/ Appropriating Bond Funds
•Appropriate all funds through budget bill.
Additional Oversight Measures
•Ensure,during course of budget review,that bond funds are proposed
for capital outlay-related purposes.
•Provide controls on charging administrative costs to bond proceeds.
•Require reporting of bond fund information in Governor's budget.
•Hold joint legislative hearings on bond implementation.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST ' S OFFICE 5
March 6, 2007
LA0A.
Issues for Legislative Consideration (Continued)
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
IJ Being Advised of Federal Funding Uncertainty—Funding
the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement
■ The budget includes $14 million from Proposition 84 (out
of $100 million provided in the bond) to implement a settle-
ment of a lawsuit concerning the San Joaquin River. While
the state is not a party to the lawsuit, the administration has
signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the
settling parties (the federal government, water users, and an
environmental organization), pursuant to which it proposes to
spend state bond funds beginning in the budget year on res-
toration activities. However, we find that Congressional action
necessary to authorize the full federal funding contribution
under the settlement has yet to materialize. We recommend
against appropriating state funds for the restoration until the
federal funding contribution is secured and the Legislature
has been given the opportunity to evaluate the appropriate
role for the state in the restoration.
QCoordinating Local Parks Programs
■ Proposition 84 includes $400 million for local and regional
parks, to be administered by the Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR). In addition, Proposition 1C (the hous-
ing bond) includes $200 million for housing-related local
and regional parks and up to$200 million for park grants to
encourage infill development (out of an $850 million pot).
Proposition 1C does not specify an implementing agency for
these funds; the Governor's budget proposes to appropriate
these funds to the Department of Housing and Community
Development. Given DPR's experience implementing local
parks grant programs, and to recognize efficiencies by con-
solidating like programs, we recommend that the Legislature
designate DPR as the administrator of all local park funds un-
der Propositions 1C and 84. We also recommend the enact-
ment of legislation specifying what portion of the $850 million
in Proposition 1C for infill-related uses should be allocated for
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST' S OFFICE 7
March 6, 2007
LIssues for Legislative Consideration (Continued)
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
local and regional parks, so that these funds can be appropri-
ated to DPR in the future.
Additional Oversight Measures
■ Legislative Appropriations Versus Continuous Appro-
priations. While the majority of Proposition 84 funds are
available for expenditure only upon appropriation by the Leg-
islature (typically done in the budget act), there are certain
sections for which the funding is continuously appropriated.
These include provisions providing funding to the Department
of Water Resources for flood management ($305 million),
and to the Wildlife Conservation Board for (1) forest conser-
vation and protection ($180 million) and (2) habitat protec-
tion and restoration ($135 million). We note, however, that a
continuous appropriation of funding in a bond measure does
not preclude the Legislature from including these funds in the
annual budget act "in lieu" of the continuous appropriation as
a way of increasing legislative oversight of the expenditure
of these funds. We recommend that the Legislature include
such appropriations in the budget act.
■ Ensuring That Bond Funds Are Used for Capital Pur-
poses. Current law (Section 16727 of the Government Code)
essentially provides that general obligation bonds are used
for capital purposes. Without this control, the door would be
opened to expensive debt financing of noncapital expendi-
tures, such as the costs of day-to-day program operations. In
order to ensure that bond funds are not proposed for pur-
poses that are clearly not related to capital outlay, we recom-
mend that the Legislature review the Governor's bond-funded
proposals with the Government Code provision in mind.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST ' S OFFICE 8
March 6, 2007
LAO,�.,
Issues for Legislative Consideration (Continued)
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
In addition to the above issues, in our Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget
Bill we raised a number of issues, pertaining to particular Proposi-
tion 84 budget proposals (that have policy implications). These issues
include:
R1Budget Fails to Address State Parks Deferred Maintenance
Backlog
■ The DPR has identified over $900 million in deferred main-
tenance projects in the state park system. In 2006-07, the
Legislature appropriated $250 million in General Fund for de-
ferred maintenance projects. The Governor's budget, howev-
er, proposes to revert $160 million of this prior appropriation
and provides no alternative funding source for these funds.
We recommend that the Legislature appropriate $160 million
from Proposition 84 to backfill the proposed reversion.
Administration Delays Local Parks Funding Until 2009-10
■ Proposition 84 allocates $400 million for local and regional
parks. While the Governor's budget includes a small amount
of funding for program delivery costs, the administration does
not anticipate making grants for local parks until 2009-10.
While there is likely to be implementing legislation for this
section of Proposition 84 that will provide legislative direction
for grant guidelines that will need to be developed, we think
that there may be opportunities for the department to speed
up the initiation of grant delivery, given its history of imple-
menting local park grant programs.
Lr I Surface Storage Proposals Need Matching Funds
■ Through the end of the current fiscal year, the state and
federal government will have spent over $118 million on sur-
face storage feasibility studies under the CALFED Bay-Delta
Program. The budget proposes $9.8 million in bond funds
($6 million from Proposition 84) to continue feasibility stud-
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST ' S OFFICE 9
March 6, 2007
LAO
Issues for Legislative Consideration (Continued)
65 YEARS OF SERVICE
ies for three surface storage water projects (Sites Reservoir,
Temperance Flat, and Los Vaqueros Reservoir). We find
that the CALFED surface storage program has reached a
point where these feasibility studies cannot practically move
forward unless nonstate entities—parties that would benefit
from the projects being studied—step up to the plate and
share in the costs of studying and developing these projects.
LEGISLATIVE ANALYST' S OFFICE 10
•
B A h E R S F I E L D
City of Bakersfield Career Opportunity Day
Friday, April 6, 2007
9:00 AM — 3:00 PM
to -
Rabobank Convention Center
1001 Truxtun Ave., Bakersfield, CA
Accepting Applications for
Full-Time Regular, Regular Temporary, Temporary Aquatics and other Summer
Program Positions
Explore future career opportunities with City-Wide representatives from all
departments & divisions available to answer questions and share experiences.
Also attend presentations regarding careers in all City Departments including: Police,
Recreation & Parks, Public Works, Fire, Information Technology and other careers with
the City of Bakersfield
Come see what makes the City of Bakersfield
"Employer of 1St Choice"
`t rn"AL
m
t ,
ti
I
For job information visit
www.bakersfieldiobs.us
Or call our Job line at 661-326-8837
Equal Employment Opportunity Employer
Los Angeles Times: For now, it's a city only in his eyes Page 1 of 5
"I MMkagelfs Mmes
htth:-Av�vw.IatI III CS.COTI 11 CW s/10 cal/la-nic-quay26ma1-?6,1,5376383,fuII story'colI–Ia-headlin es-cal iiornia
For now, it's a city only in his eyes
He's never built a thing, but W. Quay Hays aims to turn 12,000 acres of San Joaquin Valley dirt into a model municipality.
By Gary Polakovic
Times Staff Writer
March 26, 2007
Standing in an empty field in southern Kings County facing the horizon, W. Quay Hays enthusiastically surveys the
land— stark and featureless except for two newly planted redwood trees.
This desolate patch of San Joaquin Valley real estate along Interstate 5 is the spot Hays has chosen to pursue his
vision for a new city: a utopia of 150,000 people living in a solar-powered, self-contained community rising from the
dirt flats about 50 miles north of Bakersfield.
"This is perfect," says Hays, a Pacific Palisades entrepreneur turned developer. "It's halfway between two world-
class cities in San Francisco and Los Angeles. It's beside a major highway, it has power lines, and the land" is cheap.
Even in a state built on big development dreams, Hays' proposed Quay Valley Ranch project boggles the mind. It
would be built from scratch on 12,000 acres stretching about five miles along the interstate,just north of the Kern
County line.
About 50,000 houses and condominiums would be constructed in a village-like matrix with parks, offices and retail
centers, and anchored by four "town centers." Houses would be equipped with "smart technology" and new energy-
efficient building materials.
No one would pay electric bills because solar power— including three 100-acre solar arrays—would produce 600
megawatts of power, enough to supply the city and export power to Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for use elsewhere in
California.
People could commute to jobs via water taxi, plying a 300-foot-wide stream meandering about eight miles through
groves and neighborhoods. The community would include a theme park, a convention center, a racetrack, an auto
mall, industrial land, farms, houses, schools and a medical center.
Hays' Kings County Ventures LLC submitted a development application in October and plans to deliver a more
detailed proposal next month. The project would be built in phases over 25 years, financed largely by commercial
and residential developers working as partners and paying as they go.
Costs could reach $25 billion. Hays said building could begin as early as next year, though officials say that seems
ambitious for such a large-scale project that is likely to face strong opposition from environmentalists and others
concerned about increased traffic and pollution in the smoggy valley.
Carol Whiteside, president of the Great Valley Center, a think tank in Modesto, said such massive "leapfrog"
development would only create more sprawl in the San Joaquin Valley, expected to grow from 4 million residents
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-quay26mar26,1,6207712,print.story?toll=la-headlines-califomia 3/26/2007
Los Angeles Times: For now, it's a city only in his eyes Page 2 of 5
today to more than 5.4 million in 2025. She said new development should be concentrated in or near metropolitan
areas, such as Fresno and Bakersfield.
"The issue for the valley is, what's the strategy for growth? Are we going to build in existing cities or make new
cities?" Whiteside said. "We try to do everything at once, we get stalled and the result is we get lots of suburban
cities and not much sustaining economic center."
But Hays is undeterred. He says that what he wants to create is different, a self-sufficient and environmentally
sensitive city, one that manages its own water, provides its own electricity and generates its own jobs.
"I want to see if we can reinvent the way development is done," Hays says. "If we can, we will blaze a path for
everyone who comes after us. A town like this has to happen in California."
Challenges loom
Much of California and the West is built on grandiose dreams of outsized development. Hays is just the latest
visionary.
In Southern California, Los Angeles-area growth is increasingly spreading north into canyon lands, over the
Tehachapi Mountains and into the San Joaquin Valley. Each of those projects has drawn intense opposition from
environmentalists.
Newhall Land and Farming Co.'s plan to build a 20,000-home development north of Santa Clarita was stalled by a
lawsuit over water rights and other issues. The company has modified its plan, won some court battles and plans to
begin building the first phase in 2009.
Farther north, on Tejon Ranch, 23,000 new homes are proposed for a new town called Centennial, near the junction
of I-5 and California 138. An additional 3,450 estate homes and a resort and golf course called Tejon Mountain
Village are planned near Lebec. Environmentalists argue that the two projects imperil wilderness and the California
condor, an endangered species.
John M. Quigley, director of the Housing and Urban Policy program at UC Berkeley, said the task of building a new
city is daunting. He said such projects are rare and tend to work when sustained by abundant natural resources or
when built next to existing urban centers.
"There was a time about 25 years ago when a lot of attention was paid to building new cities in the United States, but
most of them did not succeed," Quigley said. "It's difficult to pull off because the logistical and coordination aspects
are enormous and the capital costs are huge. If I were an investor, I'd look at this very carefully."
One of the biggest challenges facing Quay Valley Ranch is providing enough water to sustain a new city.
Mike Nordstrom, a Corcoran-based attorney hired to examine water supply issues for the ranch project, said it would
require about 22,000 to 25,000 acre-feet of water annually. (An acre-foot is 325,821 gallons, roughly enough water
to supply two families for a year.) He said water rights for at least that amount are available from the adjoining
Liberty Ranch farm, which Kings County Ventures has secured the option to purchase.
He said streams and reservoirs created in the community would allow flexibility to meet water demands. The
developers say conservation measures, including the use of large solar panels to shield ponds and reduce
evaporation, would result in 66% less water consumption than in a typical similar-sized community.
To accomplish his vision, Hays has hired an impressive team of managers and consultants, including Jonathan
http://www.Iatimes.com/news/local/la-me-quay26mar26,1,6207712,print.story?coll=la-headlines-califomia 3/26/2007
Los Angeles Times: For now, it's a city only in his eyes Page 3 of 5
Kieswetter, a partner in Kings County Ventures and president of Orange County real estate finance company Grace
Capital Group; master planner Ken Brindley, who was on the team that built the Orange County planned community
of Rancho Santa Margarita; and Vince Barabba, former director of the U.S. Census Bureau and head of corporate
strategy for General Motors.
Hays and his team have received a favorable reception in Kings County. If the project is completed, it will double
the current population of about 143,000.
County planning director Bill Zumwalt said his office has hired four new contractors to help review the massive
project. The proposal is so new that it's too early to answer questions about potential environmental effects, Zumwalt
said.
"We're talking about going from nothing to a new city," he said. "It's very challenging."
Certainly, Quay Valley Ranch would offer amenities that Kings County officials desire.
Other than farming, the county has three state prisons and Chemical Waste Management Inc.'s hazardous-waste site
near Kettleman Hills. The unemployment rate hovers at 8.3%, nearly twice the statewide average.
Kettleman Hills —population 1,400—is the nearest town, about two miles west of where Quay Valley Ranch
would be built. It's a pit stop on I-5, and a few of the people walking in and out of the town post office recently said
they were excited about Hays' project.
Maurice D'Souza, 58, a gas station manager who lives near Kettleman Hills, gestured to the vast emptiness of the
valley and said: "Look at this. There's no life, it's the end of civilization. I think [Quay Valley Ranch] is great. It will
be good for business."
Hays said Kings County Ventures has reached an agreement with Arizona-based RED Development Inc. to build a
1.8-million-square-foot open-air mall at Quay Valley Ranch. The developers are also talking with Cal State Fresno
about building a satellite campus or research center.
Once the project gets the green light, Hays said, it will be easier to attract businesses and industries.
But Whiteside, of the Great Valley Center, is unconvinced. Sustaining a vision and long-term financing for such an
ambitious project will be extremely difficult, she said.
What kind of community is left if the money runs out? Or if developers tire of the project and move on?
"If the vision fades away, we get subdivisions without jobs and incomplete neighborhoods," Whiteside said. "It
happens all the time."
Promoting his dream
Gazing out at the flatland, Hays, 50, outfitted in leather jacket, alligator skin cowboy boots and jeans braced by an
oversize belt buckle, is enthralled by his dream for the new city— even though he's not a developer and has never
built anything.
Promotions and marketing are his business. And he's good at it.
He came to Los Angeles from Florida in the early 1980s and worked in the marketing department for the Pantages
and Greek concert theaters before moving over to KROQ-FM (106.7) as marketing director.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-quay26mar26,1,6207712,print.story?coll=la-headlines-califomia 3/26/2007
Los Angeles Times: For now, it's a city only in his eyes Page 4 of 5
Hays eventually launched a successful book publishing company, Santa Monica-based General Publishing Group, in
1992.
"I always liked ink on paper," he said. "I saw it as a way to change the world."
Hays saw a niche in the competitive field and rapidly grew his company into one of the most successful book
publishers in the nation during the 1990s. He did it by making slick, coffee-table books featuring Hollywood and
pop culture titles, including: "Frank Sinatra, An American Legend" and "The Playboy Book: Forty Years."
After his book publishing business folded in 1999 due to competition from discount retailers, Hays joined RKO
Pictures and formed Idiom Films and Entertainment, where he worked for a time to secure financing for films.
"I've been in many businesses," he said. "The common thread is business development. I am always looking for a
way to see if we can do something better."
His latest venture into real estate development is no different.
"We've been building homes the same way for a 100 years," Hays said. "I feel that housing development can be
improved, taking everything we know about development and making it better."
The first few spadefuls of dirt have already been turned at the Quay Valley Ranch site. The two large redwood trees
were recently planted next to an excavated pit where a pond is planned beside a new visitors center.
"Nothing like this has been done before," Hays said. "It's not often you get to build a town from the ground up. We
intend to do it right."
gary.polakovic@latimes.com
(INFOBOX BELOW)
Big plans
Developers want to build Quay Valley Ranch, a new town beside Interstate 5 about 50 miles north of Bakersfield.
The vision
150,000 to 200,000 residents
50,000 new homes
12,000 acres
100% solar power
A 42,000-seat stock-car arena
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-quay26mar26,1,6207712,print.story?coll=la-headlines-califomia 3/26/2007
Los Angeles Times: For now, it's a city only in his eyes Page 5 of 5
An auto museum
500 acres of ponds & waterways
$10 billion to $25 billion to complete
Sources: Kings County Ventures; Kings County Planning Department
Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times I Privacy Policy I Terms of Service
Home Delivery I Advertise I Archives I Contact I Site Map I Help
PARTNERS:
kt a: CLU Ike
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-quay26mar26,1,6207712,print.story?coll=la-headlines-califomia 3/26/2007
Page 1 of 2
PUBLIC WORKS
STREETS DIVISION —WORK SCHEDULE
WEEK OF APRIL 2 —APRIL 6, 2007
Resurfacing/Reconstructing streets in the following areas:
Continue working the street reconstruction project in the area between College
Avenue and Hillburn Drive, Fountain Drive to Cerin Way
Continue working on the street reconstruction project in the area south of White
Lane between So. Real Road and Vaughn Way.
Miscellaneous Streets Division projects:
Continue installing curb and gutter in the area between California Avenue and
Chester Lane, east of Oak Street.
Continue working on the sewer installation project at the new Fire Station #5.
Continue working on the storm line installation project on Benton Street, between
Wilson Road and Belvedere Avenue.
C:\DOCUME-1\rsmiley\LOCALS-1\Temp\WeekofApri22007.WorkSchedule.doc
Page 2 of 2
STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE
Monday, April 2, 2007
Between Oak Street & "F" Street, 16th Street to Golden State Frontage Road.
Between Bernard Street & Niles Street, Chester Avenue to Alta Vista Drive.
City streets between Jenkins Road & Allen Road, Rosedale Highway to Palm Avenue.
Between Brimhall Road & Rowland Avenue, Jenkins Road to Rugger Street.
Between Allen Road & Jewetta Avenue, Stockdale Highway north to the canal.
Tuesday, April 3 2007
Between California Avenue & Brundage Lane, Oak street to Union Avenue.
Wednesday, April 4 2007
City streets in the area between Panorama Drive & Columbus Street, East Columbus
Street to River Boulevard.
Between Panorama Drive & Bernard Street, Union Avenue to Thelma Drive.
Between West Columbus Street & 34th Street, San Dimas Street to Union Avenue.
Between Coffee Road & Hewlett Street, Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway.
Thursday, April 5 2007
Between Truxtun Avenue & Brundage Lane, Union Avenue & Washington Street.
Between Bernard Street & Niles Street, Alta Vista Drive to Owens Street.
City area between Owens Street & Williams Street, Flower to Kentucky.
Between Kroll Way & Camino Media, Gosford Road to Don Hart Drive.
Between Pacheco Road & Panama Lane, Old River Road to Progress Road.
Friday, April 6 2007
Between Paladino drive & 178 Highway, Morning Drive to Columbus Street.
City area between 178 Highway & Azalea Avenue, Medio Luna Avenue to Fairfax
Road.
Area between 78 Highway & College Avenue, east and west side of Fairfax Road
Between Ming Avenue & White Lane, Allen Road to Old River Road.
Between Pensinger Road & Panama Lane, Freesia Way to Buena Vista Road.
C:\DOCUME-1\rsmiley\LOCALS-1\Temp\WeekofApri22007.WorkSchedule.doc
S A K E R S F I E L D MAR 2 2007
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: March 19, 2007
SUBJECT: TRIP MEETING WITH MARVIN DEAN
Referral No. 1714
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON REQUESTED STAFF ARRANGE TO MEET WITH
MARVIN DEAN OF KERN MINORITY CONTRACTOR'S ASSOC.; DOCUMENT THE
MEETING; AND, REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL.
Janet Wheeler, TRIP Public Relations/Outreach, met with Mr. Marvin Dean immediately
following his comments to City Council on March 14, 2007. He provided background on
the Kern Minority Contractors Association (KMCA) and expressed a desire to be notified
of upcoming bid requests to allow smaller firms time to prepare bid packages. No
construction bids have been sent out, but Mr. Dean's information has been added to the
database so he will receive updates as they become available,
At Mr. Dean's request, Ms. Wheeler visited the KMCA office on March 16 to tour the
facility and gain additional information. When TRIP construction projects are ready for
bidding, advertisements will be placed in the Minority Construction News Bulletin as a
form of outreach to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) certified contractors.
Mr. Dean hopes KMCA members will be able to participate in TRIP projects. Mr. Dean
said he would follow-up with an email outlining his ideas within a few days. Staff
anticipates further meetings with Mr. Dean.
C:\DOCUME-1\Iskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\Ref#1714 TRIP MTG.doc
B A K E R 000
S F 1 E L D MAR 2 9 2007
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: e Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: March 22, 2007
SUBJECT: TRIP PROCESS
Referral No. 1713
EIDENTIFY MEMBER WEIR REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE A WRITTEN REPORT 1)
G THE PROCESS ON HOW THE CITY OBTAINED THE TRIP FUNDS; 2)
WHAT THE OBLIGATIONS ARE TO RECEIVE THE MONEY; AND 3)
HOW HAS THE CITY OBLIGA TED ITSELF?
1. In early 2003, Congressman Bill Thomas requested that highway infrastructure projects
that would accommodate the area's current and future traffic needs be identified so that
he might include them in the upcoming federal highway bill. The Bakersfield Systems
Study had just recently been completed and Alternative No. 15 had been adopted by the
City Council and the Board of Supervisors, and so it was believed that would be a good
starting point for identifying projects to be included in the bill. The Systems Study was a
two-year, $2 million study that was a joint effort of the City of Bakersfield, County of
Kern, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and Kern Council of
Governments (Kern COG). The study quantified the area's traffic issues and developed
more than 20 alternatives to address these issues.
In addition, existing congested roads in northeast Bakersfield (SR178) and in northwest
Bakersfield (Rosedale Highway) were becoming a major concern to the community, and
it was believed that expansion of these routes would be extremely beneficial to the
community.
In August 2005, President George W. Bush signed the SAFETEA-LU highway bill into
law. The legislation provided $244 billion in guaranteed funding for transportation
projects and represented the largest surface transportation investment in the nation's
history. Included in this legislation was a "windfall"for Bakersfield: Congressman
Thomas earmarked $722 million dollars for local projects— including $630 million for
Metropolitan Bakersfield.
SAFETEA-LU project earmarks in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area include:
Centennial Corridor Loop - $330 million
Bakersfield Beltway System - $140 million
State Route 178 extension - $100 million
Rosedale Highway and 24th Street widening - $60 million
C:\DOCUME—l\lskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\xPgrpvAse\Ref#1713 TRIP.doc
2. SAFETEA-LU dollars are earmarked and must be used on the projects designated
within the legislation. The Federal Highways Administration will distribute the allocation
in phases over a five year period. These federal dollars do not fund 100% of a project;
all earmarked projects are required to provide a non-federal match of up to 20 percent
(The Bakersfield SAFETEA-LU project matches range from 11.47% to 20%).
3. The City of Bakersfield agreed to serve as the lead agency and is responsible for
oversight of the Bakersfield projects listed in SAFETEA-LU.
C:\DOCUME-1\Iskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\Ref#1713 TRIP.doc