HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/01/2007 B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
June 1, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager A
SUBJECT: General Information
1. Staff is taking a serious look at whether we can fund the phase of the West Side
Parkway from the Coffee Interchange (CTC staff recommendation is to fund through that
location) to Calloway. It is $31,000,000 so it is no small item but that link would relieve
much of the right turn congestion from Brimhall onto Coffee and the left turn moves from
Coffee onto Truxtun and it would be of considerable significance. We will let you know
how the analysis goes!
2. We are getting ready to kick off the planning/design of our "Preparing the Way for
Disaster Day" drill in November. We are taking a unique approach this year by giving
everyone a chance to share our scenario along with a date/time to review their own
preparedness plan; even if it's a small business focusing on just one or two issues. City
staff is also coordinating with the Red Cross Disaster Academy in October to help
prepare organizations with a disaster plan.
3. City staff held an annexation information neighborhood meeting for the Kimberly area
south of Olive Drive on Wednesday, May 30. It was a positive meeting with a number of
residents expressing interest in receiving sewer service.
4. Beale Band concerts are back again! First Sunday night concert series starts on June
3rd at 8:00 p.m.
5. Concerts at Silver Creek Park will start on Tuesday, June 5th at 7:30 p.m. with blues
band "Fat Daddy Blues".
6. Aera Energy Family Picnic in the Park will be this Saturday, June 2nd from 10:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. They are now expecting about 1,700 attendees.
7. Kids Fest, sponsored by Channel 17 will be at Yokuts Park June 2nd and 3rd from 9:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
8. All 120 lifeguards are in training June 2nd and 3rd, so all pools will be closed. All pools
will open to the public on Monday, June 4th.
9. Day camps at Martin Luther King, Jr. Center and at Silver Creek start Monday, June 4th.
10. McMurtrey Aquatic Center was open for general swim during Memorial Day weekend for
a total attendance of 1,141.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
May 25, 2007
Page 2
11. The Streets Division work schedule for the week of June 4th is attached.
12. Responses to questions from the May 9th and May 14th budget presentations are
enclosed.
13. Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
Councilmember Hanson
• City of Bakersfield 40% parking lot tree canopy requirement.
AT:rs:rk
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
Roberta Gafford, Assistant City Clerk
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
May 24, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Through Alan Tandy"Wity kAnalger
Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant, —L-7
SUBJECT: Annexation Information
E ember Couch requested staff provide the Mayor and City Council with the rent annexation information documents given to residents interested in n.
Councilmember Couch requested at the May 8, 2007 Legislative & Litigation Committee
meeting that staff provide a copy of the most current information that is given to
residents and property owners interested in annexing to the City of Bakersfield.
Attached is a form letter that is given to a property owner interested in annexation.
Information contained in the letter will identify the property owner, a phone number the
owner can be reached at, as well as the Assessor's Parcel Number and address of the
property to be annexed. The property owner will also be supplied with answers to
frequently asked questions.
City of Bakersfield
Attention: Stanley Grady, Development Services Director
1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Re: Annexation of Property
Dear Mr. Grady:
This letter serves as my formal request to have my property annexed to
the City of Bakersfield. I understand that with my consent to annex to the City, I
may receive City services, at my expense.
My property is identified as Assessor's P umber(s) and Address
below:
Signature
Print Owner Name
Phone Number
Date:
Frequently Asked Questions About Annexation
What is annexation.
Annexation is generally required for any new development or significant
redevelopment projects occurring on unincorporated property. This process
brings the property into the city limits so that the City of Bakersfield may extend
a full range of services already provided to residents of nearby incorporated
areas. As part of the process, the City and County negotiate a property tax split
to determine how much property tax the City will receive and the County will
keep. The entire annexation process can take up to one year to complete with
a final public hearing by the Kern County Local Agency Formation Commission.
You may contact LAFCo at (661) 716-1076 for additional information on its
proceedings.
Myths about annexation•
Myth: Annexation triggers reassessment of ro
Truth: Under Proposition 13, real property i r pr ' d only when a change in
ownership occurs or when new constr on at is normal maintenance)
takes place. A change in jurisdiction, h Oscurs w' annexation, will not
trigger reappraisal or reassessme of your r
Myth: City taxes are much hi her than tax
Truth: The total taxes th reside 'a ert ner would pay if their
property were annexe e rally , ' r hose they are already
paying in the county. In t c es, re i ents e county are likely paying
for a County Se a f street hts), which they would no longer
have to pay if t y anne t
Myth: M ro ert to will be i he i e city than in the county.
Truth: Proposition 13 li 1 prop y t to one percent (1%) of the property's
taxable value regardless e p perty's location in the city or in the county.
Myth: Annexation triggers a re irement to install curbs utters and sidewalks.
Truth: The City of Bakersfield may require curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be
installed only when there is substantial redevelopment of the property.
Myth: Annexation affects School District boundaries.
Truth: Annexation of property from the county into a city has no impact on school
district boundaries or the schools that children in the annexed area attend.
1
Frequently Asked Questions About Annexation
Questions and Answers:
Q: _What changes will I notice on my property tax bill?
A: You may notice a difference in the special taxes, assessment districts (e.g.
County Service Area), or fees normally listed on your property tax bill. Many
of these taxes or fees will be removed or replaced with a charge assessed by
the City of Bakersfield. The most common difference you may notice is the
Central Refuse charge ($184.68) assessed by the County may be replaced
by the City Refuse Fee ($174.48) assessed by the City of Bakersfield.
Q: Will Police protection change after annexation?
A: BPD maintains a well staffed department to provide an urban level of
service in incorporated areas. The County Sheriff provides general law
enforcement and the California Highway Patrol provides traffic enforcement
throughout thousands of miles in Kern County and a number of small islands
surrounded by the city limits of Bakersfield. It is ineff' ient for these officers to
travel through areas served by the Bakersfield P epartment to provide
service. The Bakersfield Police Department ' s both general law and
traffic enforcement with more police officers ' e c" mmediately available
to respond to your area.
Q: Do I have to connect to the city se r imme I r ma air or replace
my septic tank?
A: Annexation makes all of thes ons ilable to you. After
annexation, the City does n uire c n to sewer system as long
as an existing septic tan i o ting p d s not violate health
and building codes. Annex i n t t e City Bak s Id makes the option to
connect to sewer a ' a to if you efer, ou may repair or replace
your septic tank.
Q: Does the City offer fin n o s installation of a sewer hook-up?
A: Yes. The City offers a tion t pre repayment of these costs over 3 to
5 years that will be collec on y r property tax bill. You may contact the
City of Bakersfield Econom' elopment and Community Development
Department to find out if your ea is eligible for federal grant funding that
may pay for the installation of sewer lines.
Q: What_does the City get out of annexation?
A: The City negotiates with the County to determine the portion of the property
tax it will receive. The City will also receive Federal and State monies, such
as road repair funds, based on the increase in population. The City receives
sales tax from commercial transactions within city limits. Overall, the use of
property and sales tax dollars will be more efficiently spent within uniform
boundaries of the City. For example, City road crews will be able to repair
longer stretches of roads without having to omit sections that are in the
county.
2
Frequently Asked Questions About Annexation
Q: Will there be any change in my garbage collection or trash hauler?
A: The standard for garbage collection in incorporated areas is once per week
for normal waste and once per week for recycled waste. The City of
Bakersfield offers one (1) 96 gallon refuse and one (1) 64 gallon greenwaste
container for the basic residential refuse rate of $14.54 per month (rate
effective 7/1/07). The City of Bakersfield offers senior citizens a fifty percent
(50%) rebate off the basic residential refuse rate.
Q: What community services will be provided if annexed to the City?
A: The City provides leaf collection along residential neighborhoods and street
sweeping at least once a month at no char e. The City will assume
responsibility for maintaining the existing str ' hts in your area. Any
additional street lighting installed will be to C' n rds.
Q: Will my Kern County Building Permit be b (,it\/?
A: Yes. Prior to and during the annex pro ess, i u receive a building
permit from the Kern County Building rt nt, it v e honored by the
City. All inspections shall con e to b med b County until
construction is completed. Upon ation, ermits wi e received from
the City.
Q: I have a home based es s. hat e r of me after annexation?
A: Generally, busine wh' ar legal in e Co ty are legal in the City. The
City has a e c a ' ness ' ense provision, which allows
residents to a buss e s t he' The City requires all business
within City limits ave a si lice se and pay a fee according to the
amount of annual g recei t ome business must be conducted so
that the average neig un e n rmal circumstances, would not be aware
of its existence. One t a time will be permitted at the residence
between the hours of 8 a.m. d 10 P.M.
Q: Will annexation affect where my children attend school?
A: No. School districts are not affected by City annexations.
Q: My individual circumstances do not really fit any of the things we have
discussed. Who should I speak with?
A: If you have a question about special circumstances, please contact: Martin
Ortiz, City Planning at (661) 326-3777.
More information about the City of Bakersfield is available on
the City's website @ www.bakersfieldcity us
3
Page 1 of 2
STREETS DIVISION — WORK SCHEDULE
WEEK OF JUNE 4 — JUNE 8, 2007
Resurfacing/Reconstructing streets in the following areas
Resurfacing streets in the area between Real Road and Vaughn Street, White
Lane and Adidas Street.
Resurfacing streets in the area north of Planz Road, east of Stine road.
Miscellaneous Streets Division ro'ects:
Continue working on the storm line installation project on Benton Street, between
Wilson Road and Belvedere Avenue.
Continue installing curb and gutter in the area between Alta Vista Drive and
Baker Street, Flower Street and 178 Highway.
Continue the street improvement project in the area between California Avenue and 4th
Street, Union Avenue and "P" Street.
C:\DOCUME-1\mmuniz\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpwise\Week of June 4,2007.Work Schedule.doc
Page 2 of 2
STREET SWEEPING SCHEDULE
Monday, June 4, 2007
Between Oak Street and "F" Street, 16th Street to Golden State Frontage Road.
Between Bernard Street and Niles Street, Chester Avenue to Alta Vista Drive.
City streets between Jenkins Road and Allen Road, Rosedale Highway to Palm
Avenue.
Between Brimhall Road and Rowland Avenue, Jenkins Road to Rugger Street.
Between Allen Road and Jewetta Avenue, Stockdale Highway north to the canal.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Between California Avenue and Brundage Lane, Oak street to Union Avenue.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
City streets in the area between Panorama Drive and Columbus Street, East
Columbus Street to River Boulevard.
Between Panorama Drive and Bernard Street, Union Avenue to Thelma Drive.
Between West Columbus Street and 34th Street, San Dimas Street to Union Avenue.
Between Coffee Road and Hewlett Street, Truxtun Avenue to Stockdale Highway.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Between Truxtun Avenue and Brundage Lane, Union Avenue and Washington Street.
Between Bernard Street and Niles Street, Alta Vista Drive to Owens Street.
City area between Owens Street and Williams Street, Flower to Kentucky.
Between Kroll Way and Camino Media, Gosford Road to Don Hart Drive.
Between Pacheco Road and Panama Lane, Old River Road to Progress Road.
Friday, June 8, 2007
City streets in the area between New Stine Road and 99 Highway. Belle Terrace to
Adidas Avenue.
Between Watts Drive and Brook Street, Madison Street to Hale Street.
C:\DOCUME-1\mmuniz\LOCALS-1\Temp\XPgrpWse\Week of June 4,2007.Work Schedule.doc
MAY 17 2007
i
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: May 16, 2007
SUBJECT: Budget Workshop on May 9, 2007: Response to Council
Questions
Would like staff to explain the increase in the sewer fees and the status of the
phase in of the state mandated fee increase for hospitals and schools
(Councilmember Couch)
Justification for proposed 14 8% sewer rate increase — Staff proposes a 14.8%
sewer rate Increase. This atypical rate increase is because of the Plant 3
Expansion project which has an estimated cost of$193 million. This $193
million will be financed by the issuance of bonds. The annual debt service
payments on these bonds are included in the proposed rate increase.
Connection fees will not be able to fully fund the anticipated annual debt
payments associated with the bond financing. It is important to note that the
Plant 3 Expansion project does not only include improvements to handle growth.
The project also includes significant costs to upgrade the Plant to meet
environmental regulations mandated by the State Water Resources Water
Control Board, new state of the art odor control to prevent odors from migrating
to surrounding neighbors, and extensive landscaping surrounding the Plant. In
addition, the proposed rate increase will also provide funds to 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.
Phasing in of sewer rates for specific users —As background, sewer user fees
are calculated according to the methodology outlined in the City Council
approved "Revenue Program for the City of Bakersfield". The Revenue Program
was adopted by Council on May 16, 2001. The State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) approved our Program on July 9, 2001. The Revenue Program
GAGROUPDAT\Budget\07-08 Budget\Council Updates\Wastewatendoc
May 17,2007
MEMORANDUM
ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
May 17, 2007
Page 2
must comply with guidelines established by the SWRCB because the City
received a State Revolving loan. The new methodology heavily impacted the
following user groups: hospitals, schools, and day care centers. A phase in
period was approved by Council to minimize the impact. A five year phase in
period, which ended in FY 05/06, was approved for schools and day care
centers. A seven year phase in period, which will end in FY 07/08, was approved
for hospitals. Therefore, hospitals will see an additional increase in their rates
next year, in addition to the proposed 14.8% which would impact all user groups.
The rate for hospitals is proposed to increase from $75.74 to $93.00 (22.8%) per
bed.
G:\GROUPDAT\Budget\07-08 Budget\Council Updates\wastewater.doc
5/17/2007
IeOOA0
--
B A K E R S F I E L D
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
May 16, 2007
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: John W. StinsonVssistant City Manager
Subject: Response to question by Councilmember Couch regarding the change in
Sales Tax as a percentage of the General Fund
At the May 9th Budget Presentation Councilmember Couch asked staff to analyze the change in
Sales Taxes as a percentage of the General Fund. Councilmember Couch observed that it
appeared that Sales Taxes were becoming a smaller portion of total General Fund Revenues,
particularly compared to Property Taxes the next largest General Fund Revenue source.
Councilmember Couch was correct that for fiscal year 2007-08 Sales Taxes are a smaller
portion of the total General Fund than in years past. There are several reasons for that. The
first reason is related to the action taken by the State during FY 2005-06 to capture the City's
Vehicle License Fees and replace them with in lieu payments from property taxes. As the
attached chart shows in FY 2005-06 there was a dramatic decrease in Intergovernmental
revenues (which includes VLF) and a commensurate increase in Property Tax revenues. From Fund
that point forward property taxes make up about 27 to 34 percent of total General
revenues up from about 17 to 19 percent annually. Property Taxes have also grown steadily
over the past few years due to the development of new housing and increases due to sales of
existing homes and properties which resulted in property taxes being paid at a new higher
market value.
Another significant reason for the change in the portion of Sales Taxes as a percentage of the
General Fund is that during that past four years, Beginning Balances were larger than typical for
the General Fund. Several things contributed to this occurrence. First, due to conservative
budget practices during the State capture of City tax revenues, positions were frozen and
remained unfilled, resulting in increased carryover amounts. Then in subsequent years as a
significant number of positions were added back into the budget, they were unfilled for a portion
of the year during the recruitment process and again the beginning balances were greater than
normal. It is anticipated over the next few years when there are fewer vacancies there will be a
commensurate reduction in beginning balances back to more typical levels.
Absent any actions by the State, it is likely Sales Taxes and Property Taxes will remain the two
major significant revenue sources for the General Fund.
S:\07-08BUDPR0\Counci1 Budget Questions\Sales Tax Percentage Analysis 2007-08.doc
City of Bakersfield - General Fund - distribution of revenues analysis
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Sales Tax $ 40,330,000 $ 44,290,000 $ 47,400,000 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Property Tax $ 18,480,000 $ 19,970,000 $ 20,700,000 $ 22,0650,000 $ 22,9100,000 $ 41,090,000 $ 47,30 86,400 $ 63,443,700
Other Taxes $ 7,320,000 $ 8,090,000 $ 8,650,000 $ 9,175,000 $ 10,290,000 $ 11,015,000 $ 11,185,000 $ 12,225,000
Licenses&Permits $ 2,282,000 $ 2,295,000 $ 2,050,000 $ 2,460,000 $ 3,070,000 $ 3,750,000 $ 4,197,590 $ 2,968,900
Intergovernmental $ 13,595,000 $ 15,000,000 $ 17,390,000 $ 17,500,000 $ 18,340,000 $ 4,642,235 $ 7,622,600 $ 3,317,955
Charges for Services $ 9,140,000 $ 9,108,000 $ 9,870,000 $ 10,375,000 $ 12,630,000 $ 14,485,000 $ 17,191,810 $ 19,190,860
Fines&Forfiets $ 600,000 $ 630,000 $ 650,000 $ 675,000 $ 700,000 $ 705,000 $ 704,000 $ 486,000
Miscellaneous $ 1,963,000 $ 620,000 $ 690,000 $ 700,000 $ 185,000 $ 189,765 $ 302,000 $ 438,000
Beginning Balance $ 5,700,000 $ 5,530,000 $ 7,600,000 $ 5,455,000 $ 12,450,000 $ 15,500,000 $ 23,410,000 $ 20,771,310
Transfers In $ 1,600,000 $ 1,050,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 900,000 $ 880,575
1 101,010,000 $ 106,583,000 $ 116,200,000 $ 115,965,000 $ 132,475,000 $ 150,222,000 $ 175,899,400 $ 189,777,800
Note:Amounts shown are Final Budget figures for each year.
VLF in lieu:
increase in Propery Tax&
Decrease in VLF
of Total
Sales Tax 39.93% 41.55% 40.79% 39.1Yo� �
Property Tax 18.30% 18.74% 17.81% 38.42°k 38.51%� 35.82% 34.81%
Other Taxes 19.03% 17.29% 27.35% 26.94%
7.25% 7.59% 7.44% 7,91% 33.44%
Licenses&Permits 2.26% 7.77% 7.33% 6.39% 1.56%
2.15% 1.76% 2.12% 2.32% 2.50% 2.39%
Intergovernmental 13.46% 14.07% 14.97% 15.09% 1.56%
Charges for Services 13.84% 3.09% 4.77% 1.75%
g 9.05% 8.55%
Fines&Forfiets 8.49% 8.95% 9.53% 9.64% o
0.59% 0.59% 0.56% 9.77/0 10.11%
Miscellaneous 194% % 0.58% 0.14% 0.47% 0.17%
0.58/ 0.59% 0.60% 0.26
Beginning Balance 5.64% 0 0.14% 0.32% 0.31% 0.95%
Transfers In 5.19/0 6.54% 4.70°� 9.40%
1.58% 10.67% 13.31%
0.99% 1.03% 10.95
100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.46%
0.00
General Fund Revenues
100°x°
90%
80%
70%
4) 60% rNFines nsfersln
7
Bal
50%y-
&Forfiets 40%
rges for Sew,
30% ■Intergovi.
O Ui.&Permits
20% 0Other Tax
10% CProperty Tax
0 Sales Tax
0%
o0
�� ryoo �� o0 oop ooh oo� o^,
r4 ti ti ry r4p
Fiscal Years
5/16/2007 14:16
ZL
B A K E R S F I E L D
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
May 16, 2007
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: John W. Stinson;"Assistant City Manager
Subject: Councilmember Carson's Question regarding Council Staffing
This memo is in response to Councilmember Carson's questions from the May 14th
budget workshop regarding providing staff to work exclusively for the Council.
The City Charter provides that the City Council shall appoint the City Manager and the
City Attorney. All other employees are appointed by the City Manager, who per the
Charter shall have general supervision and direction of the administrative operation of
the city government. The Mayor and Council cannot direct or control the activities of
any department head or any employee of any city department. To change this condition
would require a voter approved Charter amendment.
The City Clerk's Office and City Manager's Office provide significant staff support to the
City Council. Special efforts have been made to provide administrative, clerical and
other staff support as needed and requested by Councilmembers. Staff from these
offices assist Councilmembers with correspondence, constituent referrals and
responses, meeting scheduling and reservations, providing agendas and meeting
calendars, timely distribution of correspondence and written information, travel
arrangements, expense reimbursement and other duties related to the variety of City
business required of Councilmembers.
Additionally, all 1,611 employees of the City regularly serve the City Council through the
direction of the City Manager to respond to Council referrals, inquiries, and requests for
follow up on various Council concerns. These range from code enforcement, traffic and
public safety concerns, planning and development issues
information, and a multitude of other service delivery issues. providing community
If there are any areas that Council feels are not being adequately addressed, staff
certainly can make modifications to address them.
JWS
Budget Question re. Council Staffing 5-14-07.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 2007
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Rick Kirkwood, Management Assistant
SUBJECT: Councilmember Couch's Question regarding League of California
Cities membership dues
This memo is in response to Councilmember Couch's question from the May 14th
budget workshop regarding membership dues paid to the League of California
Cities.
Staff contacted Kaye Brewer at the League of California Cities to inquire what
amount was paid last year for dues, and what dues will be for the next year. She
informed staff that dues are calculated based on population and are paid for one
calendar year. The dues for the 2007 calendar year totaled $49,170.
The board will rule in November 2007 what the increase will be for the 2008
calendar year dues. Historic trends indicate cities may expect a five percent (5%)
increase. A five percent (5%) increase over the 2007 calendar year dues would total
$51,628.50. Staff has budgeted $52,000 to pay the 2008 calendar year dues.
H
Ln Ln in Ln Ln Ln
oWZ r
h h r h r
V1,n , N In Lf)
O U
N fi7
O O o 0 O O
W o
O� '
O �
N �
� U ,
r
,
i
of Lr) n , u) m n
NQw rr , r rr
r a in Ln in , in in
O 111 L11 In In In
N
,
H �
i
co H
O ,
w r '
F w
oNz 0000WI
W04 Hoo�or�h
NN H V)
cn N(] Ln Ln
3o °,
(14 h W
to In , to to
N W Ln Ln U) i in N in
E
,
a
wu
u
P4 w
H 2 W Ln in Ln u„n
Wz0 w N
a N N i N N N
r W N Ln Ln Ln Ln to
O q O
W � 2U WD x
o w
o H W x U
£p
RC\ w a
� ua PQ r4
w0
Hz El)xo
z�ow\u
H H
OcnHHGw
cn H>ua°
u H Ux
o H �u�omawa
F w oao�
P4 m aHCnU
H
a w E,E,
u ca c� H o a
H �CzUww
m
A �' au°mw
co`n O z8<"'4
M o w a7z�D ox
H QWPO z
U x H
O U cn 0
x o
�+ wxzuwN H H
O N HO W WWH 0, C1
\ O
naN a �z+ n HScnx�(� -H u) O a
roH U Gr�C
� a
H0 Q o� u
4.a a o u i
o
* *
;;f 0
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: May 17, 2007
SUBJECT: Budget Workshop on May 14, 2007: Response to Council Questions
Would like staff to provide an update on the building layout and design plans, as well as
department locations for Borton Petrini & Conran building (Councilmember Couch)
The demolition of the first floor is almost completed with just a few issues to be
resolved. The wall locations will be drawn on the floor next week and the Human
Resources Manager will review the placement of the walls and verify that its needs are
met.
The locations of the departments are as follows
1St floor, Human Resources, conference rooms and customer service counters.
2nd floor, Finance and Treasury
3d floor, EDCD and a portion of Parks
4th floor, Attorney and the remainder of Parks
5th floor, City Manager, City Clerk, Risk Management.
GAGROUPDAT\Budget\07-08 Budget\Council Updates\1600 Truxtun.doc
Cl E) 11
Cl E)
00
CO _--
A
Ell ca
7 -----------------
O OHO --m----- �� -�----x o0 0o O
ct
O
---- ---- ----
STORAGE x
py
P
o 4
>
M >
O
30V801S
FT-1
(n z
0--i
O
M
—T�
F-
zo
o m
X Z cn
74
;00
W c
FTI ----- -----
(J)
-TI
\ 7
) \ q \\\ �/ \
O � )
/ ) . &
12
B A K E R S F I E L D MAY 3 `: 2007
FIRE DEPARTMENT
M E M Q R A N D U M
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: Ron Fraze, Fire Chief
Subject: Council Response for 2007-08 Budget meeting
held May 14, 2007
Date: May 23, 2007
The Fire Administrative salaries and benefits budget increased $240,000 in
2007-08. The proposed increase includes $50,000 for a secretary, $160,000 for
retirement pay-offs, and $30,000 in cost of living allowances.
The City's administrators and policy makers are required to attend National
Incident Management System (NIMS) training in order for the City to receive
FEMA reimbursements, should we suffer from a disaster. This training needs to
be interactive. The training must be completed before September, requires four
hours, and will be grant funded. Staff will be contacting the attendees once the
training is scheduled.
O� 13ahJ,
`NORPORq TF, �S
O
BAKERSFIELD POLICE
a MEMORANDUM
a�,,.� •
c�IIF Q'R
Date: May 22, 2007
To: Alan Tandy, City Manager
From: W. R. Rector, Chief of Police Vv�-
Subject: Response to Budget Presentation Question #8
No. 8 Would like staff to explore options of looking at the budget Councilmember
and supplementing, or raising money to get involved in Carson
neighborhood groups in association with the Joint
City/Col unty Gang Enforcement Plan.
The department is researching potential state and federal grant monies; pertaining to
reducing the impact of gang activity in our community. Most of these proposed monies
have special funding for prevention and intervention; however, we have yet to see any
specific grant guidelines. It is very promising; these grants are on the path to be funded
for the state 07/08 and Federal 08/09 budgets.
MA Y 3 a 2007
B A K E R S F I E L D _.,.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 31, 2007
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Stanley C. Grady, Development Services Director '�
SUBJECT: Ref001760 (40% Tree Canopy Requirement)
In response to a referral by Councilmember Hanson, this memorandum addresses the issues
raised in the attached letter from Lauren Lange dated May 7, 2007, regarding the City's 40% parking lot
tree canopy requirement. In her letter, Ms. Lange states that the 40% shading requirement is not being
met in most parking lots in Bakersfield due in part to the way landowners trim their trees and because
dead parking lot trees are often not replaced.
Bakersfield Parking Lot Shading Requirements/Tree Pruning Guidelines
On July 18, 2001, BMC Chapter 17.61 (Landscape Standards)was amended to increase the
minimum parking lot shade canopy requirement from 30% to 40% and to add tree pruning guidelines,
among other amendments. BMC Section 17.61.030.H. requires landscape plans to demonstrate that the
tree canopy will have the potential to attain shading over 40% of the total area of all parking stalls,
loading areas, drive aisles and maneuvering areas at 15 years maturity, with certain exceptions. BMC
Section 17.61.040.A. requires all plant material to be maintained, including pruning and trimming, in a
reasonably healthy condition and prohibits tree topping except when necessary for the protection of
public safety, property damage or liability. BMC Section 17.61.040.D. specifies that tree pruning should
follow the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) pruning guidelines.
Through the final site plan review and building permit processes, including a field inspection upon
project completion, Planning staff ensures that newly constructed parking lots comply with the City's
shade canopy requirement. In the absence of a complaint or other indication that parking lot trees have
been pruned improperly or that dead trees have not been replaced, no subsequent staff inspections
occur.
Albertson's Shopping Center at Gosford Road and White Lane
In her letter, Ms. Lange identified the Albertson's shopping center at the northeast corner of
Gosford Road and White Lane as an example of improper tree maintenance practices that has likely
resulted in non-attainment of the 40% shading requirement. Because this particular shopping center was
developed prior to the adoption of the 40% shading requirement in 2001, it is subject to the prior shading
standard of 30%. This center, as well as all other parking lots within the City, are subject to the
aforementioned tree pruning guidelines in BMC Section 17.61.040.D. In light of the issues raised by Ms.
Lange, Planning staff will require the shopping center owner(s) to provide an assessment (prepared by a
landscape architect or certified arborist) of the center's compliance with the applicable 30% shading
standard and tree pruning guidelines. If found to be out of compliance with either of these standards,
corrective measures will be required, which could include the replacement of irreparably damaged and/or
dead trees.
Conclusion
There may be developments that over time become out of compliance with the applicable parking
lot shading standard and tree pruning guidelines. When information regarding specific developments
which may be out of compliance becomes available, staff will coordinate with the property owners to
achieve compliance with the applicable parking lot tree shading and pruning standards.
cc: James D. Movius, Planning Director
S:\Tree Canopy CC Referral Memo.doc
-2-
Lauren R. Lange Bakersfield, CA 93311
lauren_mcelwee @yahoo.com
661.858.0176
May 7, 2007
David Paquette, Code Enforcement Officer III
Code Enforcement
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue.
Bakersfield, California 93301
Dear Mr. Paquette,
I have included below, the City ordinance text that requires tree canopy to cover 40% of a
parking lots within 15 years. The reason I am including this and writing this letter is because I
am concerned that this is not happening. This requirement is not being met in most parking lots
around Bakersfield due in most part to the way landowners are having their trees trimmed.
For example, the properties located on the northeast corner of Gosford Road and White Lane
where the Albertson's is located (as well as other stores) is a horrifying example of improper tree
maintenance. I am sure that the developer planted the requisite number and type of trees per the
code and tree list, but they recently "trimmed" those trees. While trimming trees is important,
they butchered these trees. They have cut off the ends of the branches to make the tree more
lollipop shaped and left only a few central branches off which new shoots can come. What this
in effect does is render the tree useless when it comes to shading the parking lot because sun
goes directly through the tree and the branches are not allowed to spread out and cover more
surface area. It also tops the tree so it can never reach its normal height and width. After this
trimming, it then takes a couple of years for it to completely fill back in, get taller and new
branches to spread out beyond the lollipop limit; at which time they "trim" them again. Finally,
the Albertson's was built in 1990, therefore, it has reached its 15 years for canopy spread
requirements. I don't believe that it meets the 40% canopy cover requirement.
And finally, in conjunction with tree maintenance is replacing trees that have died (on private
property). I see this frequently as well. A tree will 'die (most likely because it was trimmed
improperly, therefore stressed and more susceptible to blights and diseases) and then never
replaced. This is an obvious violation of the code because the parking lot no longer meets the 1
tree per every 6 parking spaces.
It has been documented that the City of Bakersfield has in the recent past had an increase in
daytime and nighttime temperatures. This is mainly due to more impermeable surfaces (such as
parking lots) collecting and storing heat from the sun. If we truly want to prevent the City from
becoming any more of heat sink then aggressive enforcement of this ordinance will help
considerably(although I realize it won't solve that issue, but it will help).
9005 Crownin
gsbietd Dr.
Lauren-R. Lange Bakersfield, C7A 93311
lauren_meelwee@_yahoo.com
661.858,0176
The Albertson's example I listed above is only one of the myriad numbers of cases I see
everyday as i drive around town, but it is particularly bad this year. Before the City of
Bakersfield commits to beau€ifying the City by planting more trees, I suggest we take care of the
ones we already have. i ao -want to recognize that the City, when it has control over how the
trimming is completed, has done a good job with the maintenance of City trees- at parks, public
buildings, etc- and I commend the City for that. Perhaps as an extension of that, the City can
enforce their ordinance or provide tree trimming seminars, etc.
One final thought I would 'like to leave you with is......
T a tree shades a car, the car isn't as hot, the person doesn't run their air conditioner as high, the
car doesn't work as hard, hence the car uses less gas, putting off fewer air pollutants.
Sincerely,
Lauren IC. Lange
cc: Harold Hanson, Council Member- Ward 5
Titie 17 ZONING
i hapter 17.61 LANDSCAPE S T AI-TDAt DS
ri. Trees sha" be insta"ea and thereafter maintained th ughout the parking area to ensure that
it w4R be shaded based on calculating the canopy area of each tie at fifteen years from a master
tree list approved by the planning director. The landscape plan required by.Section 17.08.080
shall be drawn to show that the tree canopy will have the potential to attain shading over`"
percent of the total area of all parking stalls, loading areas, drive aisles and maneuvering areas.
Truck loading docks in front of overhead doors, truck maneuvering and parking areas
unconnected to and exclusive of any required vehicle parking areas, freight yards, and surfaced
areas for automobile sales, lumber yards, and vehicle storage are not subject to this shading
requirement.