Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/05/2006 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM May 5, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager SUBJECT: General Information 1. The response to the opening at the Park at River Walk has been extraordinarily positive. We continue to receive numerous comments of appreciation from the community. The estimated attendance at the Fab Four concert was 6,000 and 5,000 per day at the Saturday and Sunday events. The Recreation and Parks staff is, again, to be congratulated for their hard work, as was evidenced by the overwhelmingly successful opening. 2. The annual population estimates from the State Department of Finance were released this week. As the media has already reported, Bakersfield's population is rounded off at 312,000, a 4.7% increase. We are the 11th largest city and may make the top ten list in three to four years, as we are likely to pass Anaheim and Santa Ana. The report from the Governor's office is enclosed. 3. As you are aware, the U.S. Corps of Engineers has some concerns about the design integrity of the Auxiliary Dam at Lake Isabella. The Corps has been performing studies, which they estimate will take approximately 3 more years, and then several more years to make repairs, if their determinations warrant that need. In the meantime, as a cautionary measure, the Corps has taken action to reduce the water level of the Isabella Reservoir. They have been incrementally increasing the outflow to the Kern River and will monitor to limit damages to high flow areas and minimize the loss of water supply to the area. At the higher flow rates, the Kern River interests will be unable to use the additional water, meaning it will flow out of the county in the flood channel to the Tulare Lake bed or will enter the California Aqueduct via an intertie near Taft Highway and the river channel. The Corps actions are precautionary in nature and are not intended to alarm the community. They assure us there is no immediate danger of dam failure. While the Corps is in control of the reservoir outflow, it is likely the City will lose water that we would have normally stored in the reservoir and delivered to our contractors later in the year. At this point, we have no way of knowing what the impacts will be to us this year or how our carryover storage will be affected. We may have less water at our disposal next year, especially if 2007 turns dry. As decisions are made, we hope to have more information to give you as to the short and long-term impacts on our water supply and to the Water Department budget. Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2006 Page 2 4. Staff will present a proposal to the Budget and Finance committee for consideration of a phased fee increase of sewer connection fees to assist with the financing of the expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant #3. Attached is the report from Finance Director Nelson Smith, including the draft resolution and proposed fee schedule to be discussed in committee. 5. The Kern Veterans' Memorial Foundation held a special ceremony today to kick off Veterans' Memorial Month in May. Information is attached, including their fund raising goals, which they hope to achieve this month. 6. A status report on the Thomas Roads Improvement Projects (TRIP) is enclosed for your review. 7. The April activity report from Recreation and Parks Director Dianne Hoover is enclosed. 8. The Streets Division work schedule for the week of May 8t" is attached. 9. There is an article from the May 5t" Sacramento Times enclosed regarding the projected State revenues for the 2006-07 budget. The writer cautions that the windfall of monies should be used prudently, as to not experience a repeat of the State's financial woes in recent years. 10. Staff is beginning discussions with SMG on the potential extension of our agreement with them to manage the arena, theatre, convention center and ice rink. The contract gives us an option to renew for five years. As the current agreement moves closer to expiration, it becomes a problem to book shops which will take place after the contract expires, since the agents do not know who they will be dealing with when the show occurs. 11. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows: Councilmember Carson • Status of abandoned vehicle behind a church near the MILK Center; Councilmember Benham • Police actions to address narcotics sales at 1400 Kern Street; • Installation of a disabled access ramp on Truxtun Avenue near church; • Status of various road repairs on: Alley corridor on California Avenue, Durham Court, Buena Vista Street, Bakers Street; • Status on meeting to be scheduled to brief the Sunset-Oleander Preservation Committee regarding the proposed Centennial Corridor; Vice-Mayor Maqqard • Status of negotiation meetings with the private trash haulers; Honorable Mayor and City Council May 5, 2006 Page 3 Councilmember Couch • Contact with concerned citizen regarding graffiti issues and the use of video surveillance for enforcement; • Maps of the TRIP projects and Alternative 15 to provide to the Board of Realtors; • Status on providing information on developing alternatives for the remaining connection options for the Westside Parkway and Highway 178 and the alternatives available since the route through BHS is not viable; Councilmember Scrivner • Speeding and traffic enforcement concerns in the Castleford Street neighborhood; • Status report on the installation of a flashing beacon on Benton Street and radar enforcement (Police and Public Works reports enclosed. AT:rs cc: Department Heads Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk W 1111 d DEPARTMENT OF ZL ` i ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR -,%,, E1;kt"V EA\.l 91 S L STREET 0 SACRAMENTO CA t 9581 Y-3'70r6 0 www.00S .CA.Gnv REPORT: STATE ADDS 444.000 IN 2005; 2006 POPULATION NEARS 37.2 MILLION FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Daniel Sheya (City Estimates) May 1, 2006 Linda Gage (County&State Estimates) (916)323-4086 H.D. Palmer (916)323-0648 SACRAMENTO—California's population grew in 2005 by 444,000 residents–a 1.2-percent growth rate –to total nearly 37.2 million persons as of January 1, 2006, according to new population estimates released today by the state Department of Finance. The new report shows preliminary January 2006 population data, as well as revised January 2005 data, for the state, cities, and counties. Highlights include: California Cities: • The 2006 report lists 478 California cities, of which 357 gained population, eight experienced no change, and the remaining 113 lost population. Compared to Finance's previous two reports, more cities lost population and fewer cities gained population, reflecting the slowdown in the state's population growth. • The city of Lincoln in Placer County experienced the state's fastest growth rate at 22.6 percent. Lincoln gained 2,927 housing units primarily from new construction, and now has a total population of 33,589. • Other fast-growing cities grew because of substantial numbers of new housing units and some cities annexed existing housing units as well. These include Beaumont in Riverside County(21.1 percent), Patterson in Stanislaus County(19.0 percent), Greenfield in Monterey County(15.6 percent), Temecula and Coachella in Riverside County(14.7 and 13.7 percent respectively), and Lathrop in San Joaquin County(13.5 percent). Beaumont, Patterson, Temecula, and Lathrop also annexed existing housing units. • California's largest city—Los Angeles–had the largest numeric increase of 41,357. Los Angeles added 12,680 housing units and has a total population of 3,976,071. • Other large numeric increases include Bakersfield in Kern County(13,979), San Jose in Santa Clara County(12,563), Temecula in Riverside County(12,002), San Diego in San Diego County (10,819), and Irvine in Orange County(10,328). • Over the last six years since the April 1, 2000 census, the top four fastest growing cities were Lincoln in Placer County(199.8 percent), Murrieta and Beaumont in Riverside County(109.9 and 103.3 percent respectively), and Brentwood in Contra Costa County(96.9 percent). • Bakersfield in Kern County passed 300,000 in population, giving California 11 cities that exceed 300,000 in population. -MORE - -2- California Counties: • California's fifty-eight counties range in population from 1,241 in Alpine (east of Sacramento on the Nevada border)to over 10.2 million in Los Angeles. • Compared to the state, twenty-one counties grew more rapidly, thirty-four grew more slowly, and three counties(Alpine, Inyo, and Sierra)experienced minor population decreases. • The ranking of the state's ten most populated counties is the same since January 2004: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, Santa Clara,Alameda, Sacramento, Contra Costa, and Fresno. All but Fresno have over one million residents, Orange and San Diego have over three million each, and Los Angeles County is home to over 10 million people. • Los Angeles County, the most populous county in the nation, accounts for over twenty-seven percent of the state's population. Only seven states have more population than Los Angeles County. It is over three times larger than California's second ranked county, Orange. Almost half of the state's population resides in four counties: Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, and San Bernardino. • Most of the ten counties attracting the largest number of new residents in 2005 were also among the top ten in total population. In the Bay Area, Alameda and Contra Costa counties, ranked 7th and 9 h respectively in total population,were not among the state's fastest growers—even though each county added over 10,000 new residents. In the Central Valley, Kern and San Joaquin counties placed in the top ten category for the number of people gained during the year. • Yuba, Riverside, and Imperial counties each grew by three percent or more during 2005. Kern, Placer, Madera, Colusa, Sutter, Merced, Tulare, and San Bernardino counties had growth rates above two percent. The annual population change estimates are used by cities, counties, and special districts as a factor in the calculation of their annual appropriations limit. Cities and counties may also have the latest population numbers certified to the State Controller Office for use in the distribution of subvention funds. Other uses include the distribution of transportation funds, the allocation of liquor licenses, and by various state agencies for evaluation and planning. Changes to the housing stock are used to prepare the annual city population estimates presented in this report. Estimated occupancy of housing units and the number of persons per household further determine population levels. Changes in city housing stocks result from new construction, demolitions, housing unit conversions, and annexations. A variety of summary administrative records is used to produce the state and county population estimates. Birth and death counts, driver's license address changes, total housing units, school enrollment,federal income tax returns, legal immigration data, Medicare, Medi-Cal, and other data are provided by the responsible federal or state agency. Data are reported in summarized data tables that do not disclose any information about individuals. Related population estimates reports are available on the Department's website: http://www.dof.ca.gov/under Demographic Information. Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit Population Estimates for California Cities 10 Largest Cities City Population Percent Change January 1, 2006 2005-06 1. Los Angeles 3,976,071 1.1 2. San Diego 1,311,162 0.8 3. San Jose 953,679 1.3 4. San Francisco 798,680 0.7 5. Long Beach 490,166 0.3 6. Fresno 471,479 1.4 7. Sacramento 457,514 1.2 8. Oakland 411,755 0.3 9. Santa Ana 351,322 0.2 10. Anaheim 342,410 0.2 10 Fastest Growing Cities Based on Percent Change City Population Percent Change January 1, 2006 2005-06 1. Lincoln 33,589 22.6 2. Beaumont 23,145 21.1 3. Patterson 19,269 19.0 4. Greenfield 15,335 15.6 5. Temecula 93,923 14.7 6. Coachella 35,207 13.7 7. Lathrop 14,625 13.5 8. Desert Hot Springs 22,011 12.8 9. Newman 10,140 10.8 10. Kerman 12,633 10.3 10 Fastest Growing Cities Under 300,000 Based on Numeric Population Change City Population Numeric Change January 1, 2006 2005-06 1. Temecula 93,923 12,002 2. Irvine 193,785 10,328 3. Elk Grove 130,874 9,516 4. Victorville 95,145 8,465 5. Rancho Cucamonga 170,479 8,260 6. Moreno Valley 174,565 8,180 7. Murrieta 92,933 7,285 8. Chula Vista 223,423 6,729 9. Lincoln 33,589 6,181 10. Stockton 286,041 5,792 Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit Population Estimates for California Counties 10 Largest Counties County Population Percent Change Percent of January 1, 2006 2005-06 State 1. Los Angeles 10,245,572 0.8 27.6 2. Orange 3,072,336 0.8 8.3 3. San Diego 3,066,820 0.9 8.3 4. San Bernardino 1,991,829 2.1 5.4 5. Riverside 1,953,330 3.4 5.3 6. Santa Clara 1,773,258 1.2 4.8 7. Alameda 1,510,303 0.7 4.1 8. Sacramento 1,385,607 1.4 3.7 9. Contra Costa 1,029,377 1.0 2.8 10. Fresno 899,514 1.8 2.4 10 Fastest Growing Counties Based on Percent Change County Population Percent Change January 1, 2006 2005-06 1. Yuba 69,827 3.6 2. Riverside 1,953,330 3.4 3. Imperial 166,585 3.1 4. Kern 779,869 2.9 5. Placer 316,508 2.6 6. Madera 144,396 2.6 7. Colusa 21,512 2.6 8. Sutter 91,450 2.6 9. Merced 246,751 2.2 10. Tulare 420,619 2.2 10 Fastest Growing Counties Based on Numeric Population Change County Population Numeric Change January 1, 2006 2005-06 1. Los Angeles 10,245,572 79,155 2. Riverside 1,953,330 65,019 3. San Bernardino 1,991,829 41,023 4. San Diego 3,066,820 27,543 5. Orange 3,072,336 25,282 6. Kern 779,869 21,987 7. Santa Clara 1,773,258 20,605 8. Sacramento 1,385,607 18,670 9. Fresno 899,514 15,864 10. San Joaquin 668,265 12,946 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2005 and 2006 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 111/05 111/06 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change CALIFORNIA 36,728,196 37,172,015 1.2 CONTRA COSTA(CONT.) CONCORD 124,720 124,436 -0.2 ALAMEDA 1,500,228 1,510,303 0.7 DANVILLE 43,216 43,052 -0.4 ALAMEDA 74,220 74,405 0.2 EL CERRITO 23,375 23,471 0.4 ALBANY 16,662 16,680 0.1 HERCULES 23,330 23,834 2.2 BERKELEY 104,049 105,385 1.3 LAFAYETTE 24,284 24,191 -0.4 DUBLIN 39,759 41,907 5.4 MARTINEZ 36,770 36,582 -0.5 EMERYVILLE 8,221 8,537 3.8 MORAGA 16,417 16,338 -0.5 FREMONT 209,421 210,158 0.4 OAKLEY 28,228 29,074 3.0 HAYWARD 145,322 146,398 0.7 ORINDA 17,771 17,693 -0.4 LIVERMORE 80,326 81,443 1.4 PINOLE 19,579 19,465 -0.6 NEWARK 43,494 43,486 0.0 PITTSBURG 62,521 62,979 0.7 OAKLAND 410,330 411,755 0.3 PLEASANT HILL 33,594 33,462 -0.4 PIEDMONT 11,002 10,999 0.0 RICHMOND 102,877 103,468 0.6 PLEASANTON 67,321 67,876 0.8 SAN PABLO 31,302 31,216 -0.3 SAN LEANDRO 81,046 81,074 0.0 SAN RAMON 50,958 53,137 4.3 UNION CITY 70,339 71,152 1.2 WALNUT CREEK 66,415 66,111 -0.5 BALANCE OF COUNTY 138,716 139,048 0.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 159,814 163,107 2.1 ALPINE 1,252 1,241 -0.9 DEL NORTE 29,118 29,196 0.3 BALANCE OF COUNTY 1,252 1,241 -0.9 CRESCENT CITY 7,700 7,708 0.1 AMADOR 37,823 38,133 0.8 BALANCE OF COUNTY 21,418 21,488 0.3 AMADOR 218 213 -2.3 ELDORADO 173,511 176,204 1.6 [ONE 7,617 7,613 -0.1 PLACERVILLE 10,228 10,171 -0.6 JACKSON 4,290 4,350 1.4 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 23,778 23,594 -0.8 PLYMOUTH 1,076 1,060 -1.5 BALANCE OF COUNTY 139,505 142,439 2.1 SUTTER CREEK 2,746 2,944 7.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 21,876 21,953 0.4 FRESNO 883,650 899,514 1.8 CLOVIS 86,026 89,924 4.5 BUTTE 215,189 217,209 0.9 COALINGA 17,081 17,147 0.4 BIGGS 1,797 1,780 -0.9 FIREBAUGH 6,741 6,710 -0.5 CHICO 73,918 79,091 7.0 FOWLER 4,730 4,855 2.6 GRIDLEY 5,730 5,949 18 FRESNO 464,784 471,479 1.4 OROVILLE 13,432 13,550 0.9 HURON 7,016 7,344 4.7 PARADISE 26,632 26,516 -0.4 KERMAN 11,457 12,633 10.3 BALANCE OF COUNTY 93,680 90,323 -3.6 KINGSBURG 11,238 11,246 0.1 MENDOTA 8,741 8,777 0.4 CALAVERAS 45,086 45,711 1.4 ORANGE COVE 9,298 9,639 3.7 ANGELS CITY 3,560 3,576 0.4 PARLIER 12,711 12,895 1.4 BALANCE OF COUNTY 41,526 42,135 1.5 REEDLEY 22,601 23,341 3.3 SANGER 22,108 23,322 5.5 COLUSA 20,973 21,512 2.6 SAN JOAQUIN 3,622 3,746 3.4 COLUSA 5,608 5,698 1.6 SELMA 22,413 22,931 2.3 WILLIAMS 4,816 5,087 5.6 BALANCE OF COUNTY 173,083 173,525 0.3 BALANCE OF COUNTY 10,549 10,727 1.7 GLENN 28,271 28,651 1.3 CONTRA COSTA 1,019,101 1,029,377 1.0 ORLAND 6,692 6,992 4.5 ANTIOCH 100,913 100,945 0.0 WILLOWS 6,456 6,432 -0.4 BRENTWOOD 42,050 45,892 9.1 BALANCE OF COUNTY 15,123 15,227 0.7 CLAYTON 10,967 10,924 -0.4 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2005 and 2006 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change HUMBOLDT 132,019 132,526 0.4 LASSEN 35,390 35,452 0.2 ARCATA 17,372 17,294 -0.4 SUSANVILLE 18,301 18,337 0.2 BLUE LAKE 1,184 1,170 -1.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 17,089 17,115 0.2 EUREKA 26,515 27,052 2.0 FERNDALE 1,443 1,437 -0.4 LOS ANGELES 10,166, 10,245,572 0.8 FORTUNA 11,309 11,314 0.0 AGOURA HILLS 23,1191 91 23,231 0. - RIO DELL 3,259 3,254 -0.2 ALHAMBRA 90,032 89,326 0.8 TRINIDAD 324 320 -1.2 ARCADIA 55,988 56,145 0.3 BALANCE OF COUNTY 70,613 70,685 0.1 ARTESIA 17,211 17,496 1.7 AVALON 3,488 3,488 0.0 IMPERIAL 161,621 166,585 3.1 AZUSA 48,241 48,302 0.1 BRAWLEY 24,014 25,488 6.1 BALDWIN PARK 80,744 80,986 0.3 CALEXICO 36,229 36,740 1.4 BELL 38,730 38,821 0.2 CALIPATRIA 7,900 7,828 -0.9 BELLFLOWER 77,052 77,039 0.0 EL CENTRO 40,982 42,002 2.5 BELL GARDENS 46,036 46,044 0.0 HOLTVILLE 5,738 5,846 1.9 BEVERLY HILLS 35,754 35,813 0.2 IMPERIAL 9,555 10,140 6.1 BRADBURY 945 940 -0.5 WESTMORLAND 2,441 2,375 -2.7 BURBANK 106,107 106,879 0.7 BALANCE OF COUNTY 34,762 36,166 4.0 CALABASAS 22,985 23,387 1.7 CARSON 97,747 97,981 0.2 INYO 18,580 18,515 -0.3 CERRITOS 54,746 54,834 0.2 BISHOP 3,641 3,616 -0.7 CLAREMONT 36,448 36,612 0.4 BALANCE OF COUNTY 14,939 14,899 -0.3 COMMERCE 13,425 13,439 0.1 COMPTON 98,215 98,948 0.7 KERN 757,882 779,869 2.9 COVINA 49,272 49,378 0.2 ARVIN 15,064 15,027 -0.2 CUDAHY 25,691 25,655 -0.1 BAKERSFIELD 297,845 311,824 4.7 CULVER CITY 40,630 40,669 0.1 CALIFORNIA CITY 11,563 12,048 4.2 DIAMOND BAR 59,595 59,722 0.2 DELANO 45,317 49,359 8.9 DOWNEY 112,938 113,063 0.1 MARICOPA 1,155 1,137 -1.6 DUARTE 22,701 23,000 1.3 MCFARLAND 12,254 12,538 2.3 EL MONTE 125,086 125,352 0.2 RIDGECREST 26,666 26,515 -0.6 EL SEGUNDO 16,923 16,965 0.2 SHAFTER 14,210 14,501 2.0 GARDENA 61,062 61,513 0.7 TAFT 9,093 9,147 0.6 GLENDALE 205,785 206,308 0.3 TEHACHAPI 11,954 12,610 5.5 GLENDORA 52,066 52,199 0.3 WASCO 23,824 24,288 1.9 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 15,777 15,849 0.5 BALANCE OF COUNTY 288,937 290,875 0.7 HAWTHORNE 88,262 88,458 0.2 HERMOSA BEACH 19,491 19,435 -0.3 KINGS 145,110 147,729 1.8 HIDDEN HILLS 2,026 2,035 0.4 AVENAL 16,214 16,349 0.8 HUNTINGTON PARK 64,540 64,607 0.1 CORCORAN 22,561 23,448 3.9 INDUSTRY 800 801 0.1 HANFORD 48,215 49,048 1.7 INGLEWOOD 117,466 118,112 0.5 LEMOORE 22,579 23,388 3.6 IRWINDALE 1,493 1,559 4.4 BALANCE OF COUNTY 35,541 35,496 -0.1 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 21,479 21,311 -0.8 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 6,156 6,109 -0.8 LAKE 63,717 64,105 0.6 LAKEWOOD 83,175 83,287 0.1 CLEARLAKE 13,912 13,921 0.1 LA MIRADA 50,188 49,793 -0.8 LAKEPORT 5,145 5,125 -0.4 LANCASTER 132,951 138,392 4.1 BALANCE OF COUNTY 44,660 45,059 0.9 LA PUENTE 43,099 43,164 0.2 LA VERNE 33,285 33,310 0.1 LAWNDALE 33,260 33,343 0.2 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2005 and 2006 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1105 1/1/06 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change LOS ANGELES(CONT.) MARIN 251,820 253,341 0.6 LOMITA 21,064 21,064 0.0 BELVEDERE 2,126 2,136 0.5 LONG BEACH 488,688 490,166 0.3 CORTE MADERA 9,353 9,399 0.5 LOS ANGELES 3,934,714 3,976,071 1.1 FAIRFAX 7,289 7,326 0.5 LYNWOOD 72,787 73,044 0.4 LARKSPUR 11,980 12,040 0.5 MALIBU 13,624 13,662 0.3 MILL VALLEY 13,650 13,735 0.6 MANHATTAN BEACH 36,623 36,503 -0.3 NOVATO 50,448 51,130 1.4 MAYWOOD 29,419 29,543 0.4 ROSS 2,343 2,357 0.6 MONROVIA 38,915 39,006 0.2 SAN ANSELMO 12,352 12,418 0.5 MONTEBELLO 65,282 65,423 0.2 SAN RAFAEL 57,072 57,349 0.5 MONTEREY PARK 64,230 64,387 0.2 SAUSALITO 7,355 7,394 0.5 NORWALK 109,532 109,681 0.1 TIBURON 8,750 8,818 0.8 PALMDALE 135,834 141,012 3.8 BALANCE OF COUNTY 69,102 69,239 0.2 PALOS VERDES ESTATES 14,125 14,041 -0.6 PARAMOUNT 57,762 57,805 0.1 MARIPOSA 18,091 18,216 0.7 PASADENA 145,314 146,138 0.6 BALANCE OF COUNTY 18,091 18,216 0.7 PICO RIVERA 66,887 66,980 0.1 POMONA 159,855 161,850 1.2 MENDOCINO 90,275 90,445 0.2 RANCHO PALOS VERDES 43,269 42,991 -0.6 FORT BRAGG 6,985 6,963 -0.3 REDONDO BEACH 66,925 67,112 0.3 POINT ARENA 497 501 0.8 ROLLING HILLS 1,973 1,966 -0.4 UKIAH 16,010 15,955 -0.3 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES 8,142 8,076 -0.8 WILLITS 5,087 5,077 -0.2 ROSEMEAD 56,851 57,144 0.5 BALANCE OF COUNTY 61,696 61,949 0.4 SAN DIMAS 36,791 36,864 0.2 SAN FERNANDO 24,809 25,035 0.9 MERCED 241,464 246,751 2.2 SAN GABRIEL 42,125 42,320 0.5 ATWATER 26,832 27,307 1.8 SAN MARINO 13,593 13,482 -0.8 DOS PALOS 4,882 4,955 1.5 SANTA CLARITA 166,958 167,412 0.3 GUSTINE 5,340 5,261 -1.5 SANTA FE SPRINGS 17,761 17,780 0.1 LIVINGSTON 12,411 12,614 1.6 SANTA MONICA 90,678 90,750 0.1 LOS BANOS 32,558 34,223 5.1 SIERRA MADRE 11,080 11,010 -0.6 MERCED 74,010 76,225 3.0 SIGNAL HILL 10,883 11,089 1.9 BALANCE OF COUNTY 85,431 86,166 0.9 SOUTH EL MONTE 22,285 22,309 0.1 SOUTH GATE 101,557 101,647 0.1 MODOC 9,827 9,836 0.1 SOUTH PASADENA 25,634 25,674 0.2 ALTURAS 2,876 2,866 -0.3 TEMPLE CITY 35,437 35,469 0.1 BALANCE OF COUNTY 6,951 6,970 0.3 TORRANCE 146,532 147,108 0.4 VERNON 95 95 0.0 MONO 13,537 13,597 0.4 WALNUT 31,710 32,148 1.4 MAMMOTH LAKES 7,602 7,717 1.5 WEST COVINA 111,748 112,459 0.6 BALANCE OF COUNTY 5,935 5,880 -0.9 WEST HOLLYWOOD 37,811 37,545 -0.7 WESTLAKE VILLAGE 8,852 8,862 0.1 MONTEREY 423,754 424,842 0.3 WHITTIER 86,736 86,841 0,1 CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 4,064 4,038 -0.6 BALANCE OF COUNTY 1,079,245 1,092,908 1.3 DEL REY OAKS 1,635 1,622 -0.8 GONZALES 8,344 8,455 1.3 MADERA 140,747 144,396 2.6 GREENFIELD 13,270 15,335 15.6 CHOWCHILLA 16,049 17,089 6.5 KING CITY 11,359 11,333 -0.2 MADERA 50,742 52,584 3.6 MARINA 18,929 18,824 -0.6 BALANCE OF COUNTY 73,956 74,723 1.0 MONTEREY 30,399 30,161 -0.8 PACIFIC GROVE 15,429 15,305 -0.8 SALINAS 148,759 148,350 -0.3 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2005 and 2006 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/05 1/1106 Change JURISDICTION 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change MONTEREY(CONT.) ORANGE(CONT.) SAND CITY 300 300 0.0 TUSTIN 70,617 71,767 1.6 SEASIDE 34,809 34,454 -1.0 VILLA PARK 6,208 6,218 0.2 SOLEDAD 27,266 28,075 3.0 WESTMINSTER 91,939 92,408 0.5 BALANCE OF COUNTY 109,191 108,590 -0.6 YORBA LINDA 65,382 66,794 2.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 118,257 120,174 1.6 NAPA 132,990 134,444 1.1 AMERICAN CANYON 14,271 14,961 4.8 PLACER 308,431 316,508 2.6 CALISTOGA 5,211 5,258 0.9 AUBURN 12,972 12,975 0.0 NAPA 76,167 76,705 0.7 COLFAX 1,840 1,825 -0.8 ST HELENA 5,992 5,989 -0.1 LINCOLN 27,408 33,589 22.6 YOUNTVILLE 3,252 3,264 0.4 LOOMIS 6,335 6,480 2.3 BALANCE OF COUNTY 28,097 28,267 0.6 ROCKLIN 50,989 50,920 -0.1 ROSEVILLE 103,185 104,655 1.4 NEVADA 99,510 100,066 0:6 BALANCE OF COUNTY 105,702 106,064 0.3 GRASS VALLEY 13,079 13,031 -0.4 NEVADA CITY 3,069 3,088 0.6 PLUMAS 21,439 21,444 0.0 TRUCKEE 15,746 15,915 1.1 PORTOLA 2,190 2,150 -1.8 BALANCE OF COUNTY 67,616 68,032 0.6 BALANCE OF COUNTY 19,249 19,294 0.2 ORANGE 3,047,054 3,072,336 0.8 RIVERSIDE 1,888,311 1,953,330 3.4 ALISO VIEJO 44,854 44,924 0.2 BANNING 28,130 28,128 0.0 ANAHEIM 341,808 342,410 0.2 BEAUMONT 19,105 23,145 21.1 BREA 39,441 39,560 0.3 BLYTHE 22,089 22,179 0.4 BUENA PARK 80,778 81,349 0.7 CALIMESA 7,482 7,415 -0.9 COSTA MESA 113,042 113,134 0.1 CANYON LAKE 10,981 10,939 -0.4 CYPRESS 48,687 48,854 0.3 CATHEDRAL CITY 50,957 51,081 0.2 DANA POINT 36,633 36,669 0.1 COACHELLA 30,964 35,207 13.7 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 57,149 57,405 0.4 CORONA 144,992 144,661 -0.2 FULLERTON 135,194 136,428 0.9 DESERT HOT SPRINGS 19,507 22,011 12.8 GARDEN GROVE 171,430 171,765 0.2 HEMET 66,873 69,544 4.0 HUNTINGTON BEACH 200,023 201,000 0.5 INDIAN WELLS 4,810 4,865 1.1 IRVINE 183,457 193,785 5.6 INDIO 66,539 71,654 7.7 LAGUNA BEACH 24,879 24,963 0.3 LAKE ELSINORE 38,289 40,985 7.0 LAGUNA HILLS 33,135 33,225 0.3 LA QUINTA 36,377 38,340 5.4 LAGUNA NIGUEL 65,888 66,178 0.4 MORENO VALLEY 166,385 174,565 4.9 LAGUNA WOODS 18,305 18,334 0.2 MURRIETA 85,648 92,933 8.5 LA HABRA 61,551 61,789 0.4 NORCO 26,846 27,263 1.6 LAKE FOREST 77,741 77,859 0.2 PALM DESERT 49,595 49,539 -0.1 LA PALMA 16,056 16,081 0.2 PALM SPRINGS 46,000 46,437 1.0 LOS ALAMITOS 11,960 12,004 0.4 PERRIS 44,880 47,139 5.0 MISSION VIEJO 97,848 97,997 0.2 RANCHO MIRAGE 16,520 16,672 0.9 NEWPORT BEACH 82,825 83,361 0.6 RIVERSIDE 287,321 287,820 0.2 ORANGE 137,329 137,801 0.3 SAN JACINTO 28,618 31,066 8.6 PLACENTIA 50,142 51,236 2.2 TEMECULA 81,921 93,923 14.7 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA 49,071 49,130 0.1 BALANCE OF COUNTY 507,482 515,819 1.6 SAN CLEMENTE 65,103 66,280 1.8 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 35,950 36,073 0.3 SACRAMENTO 1,366,937 1,385,607 1.4 SANTA ANA 350,455 351,322 0.2 CITRUS HEIGHTS 87,370 86,883 -0.6 SEAL BEACH 25,244 25,298 0.2 ELK GROVE 121,358 130,874 7.8 STANTON 38,673 38,761 0.2 FOLSOM 67,906 69,445 2.3 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2005 and 2006 Total Population Percent Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1105 1/1/06 Change JURISDICTION 1/1105 1/1/06 Change SACRAMENTO(CONT.) SAN DIEGO(CONT.) GALT 22,758 22,982 1.0 OCEANSIDE 174,404 174,925 0.3 ISLETON 819 813 -0.7 POWAY 50,477 50,542 0.1 RANCHO CORDOVA 55,032 56,355 2.4 SAN DIEGO 1,300,343 1,311,162 0.8 SACRAMENTO 452,050 457,514 1.2 SAN MARCOS 72,768 76,725 5.4 BALANCE OF COUNTY 559,644 560,741 0.2 SANTEE 54,267 54,709 0.8 SOLANA BEACH 13,347 13,327 -0.1 SAN BENITO 57,350 57,627 0.5 VISTA 93,746 94,440 0.7 HOLLISTER 37,020 37,083 0.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 463,992 465,553 0.3 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA 1,723 1,726 0.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 18,607 18,818 1.1 SAN FRANCISCO 792,952 798,680 0.7 SAN FRANCISCO 792,952 798,680 0.7 SAN BERNARDINO 1,950,806 1,991,829 2.1 ADELANTO 23,432 24,880 6.2 SAN JOAQUIN 655,319 668,265 2.0 APPLE VALLEY 64,009 67,507 5.5 ESCALON 6,931 7,044 1.6 BARSTOW 23,604 23,599 0.0 LATHROP 12,884 14,625 13.5 BIG BEAR LAKE 6,164 6,182 0.3 LODI 62,632 62,817 0.3 CHINO 76,233 78,055 2.4 MANTECA 62,091 63,703 2.6 CHINO HILLS 78,011 77,969 -0.1 RIPON 13,276 13,908 4.8 COLTON 51,756 51,781 0.0 STOCKTON 280,249 286,041 2.1 FONTANA 160,409 165,462 3.2 TRACY 78,516 80,461 2.5 GRAND TERRACE 12,421 12,380 -0.3 BALANCE OF COUNTY 138,740 139,666 0.7 HESPERIA 76,298 80,268 5.2 HIGHLAND 50,984 51,489 1.0 SAN LUIS OBISPO 261,310 263,242 0.7 LOMA LINDA 21,643 21,912 1.2 ARROYO GRANDE 16,577 16,599 0.1 MONTCLAIR 35,617 35,648 0.1 ATASCADERO 27,658 27,658 0.0 NEEDLES 5,566 5,681 2.1 EL PASO DE ROBLES 28,030 28,969 3.3 ONTARIO 170,790 171,113 0.2 GROVER BEACH 13,259 13,213 -0.3 RANCHO CUCAMONGA 162,219 170,479 5.1 MORRO BAY 10,535 10,491 -0.4 REDLANDS 70,490 71,086 0.8 PISMO BEACH 8,662 8,617 -0.5 RIALTO 99,483 99,189 -0.3 SAN LUIS OBISPO 44,619 44,439 -0.4 SAN BERNARDINO 200,280 201,823 0.8 BALANCE OF COUNTY 111,970 113,256 1.1 TWENTYNINE PALMS 27,387 27,498 0.4 UPLAND 73,876 74,099 0.3 SAN MATEO 719,655 724,104 0.6 VICTORVILLE 86,680 95,145 9.8 ATHERTON 7,227 7,262 0.5 YUCAIPA 49,506 50,553 2.1 BELMONT 25,364 25,648 1.1 YUCCA VALLEY 19,774 20,537 3.9 BRISBANE 3,710 3,744 0.9 BALANCE OF COUNTY 304,174 307,494 1.1 BURLINGAME 28,162 28,322 0.6 COLMA 1,560 1,575 1.0 SAN DIEGO 3,039,277 3,066,820 0.9 DALY CITY 104,223 104,820 0.6 CARLSBAD 94,776 98,607 4.0 EAST PALO ALTO 32,057 32,083 0.1 CHULA VISTA 216,694 223,423 3.1 FOSTER CITY 29,749 29,900 0.5 CORONADO 26,902 26,248 -2.4 HALF MOON BAY 12,639 12,739 0.8 DEL MAR 4,524 4,524 0.0 HILLSBOROUGH 10,937 10,965 0.3 EL CAJON 97,331 96,867 -0.5 MENLO PARK 30,520 30,750 0.8 ENCINITAS 62,530 62,815 0.5 MILLBRAE 20,622 20,735 0.5 ESCONDIDO 140,803 140,766 0.0 PACIFICA 38,515 38,739 0.6 IMPERIAL BEACH 27,604 27,563 -0.1 PORTOLA VALLEY 4,520 4,553 0.7 LA MESA 55,766 55,724 -0.1 REDWOOD CITY 75,671 76,087 0.5 LEMON GROVE 25,434 25,363 -0.3 SAN BRUNO 41,272 41,515 0.6 NATIONAL CITY 63,569 63,537 -0.1 SAN CARLOS 28,071 28,265 0.7 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2005 and 2006 Total Population Percent JURISDICTION 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change JURISDICTION Total Population Percent 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change SAN MATEO(CONT.) SISKIYOU 45,976 46,146 0.4 SAN MATEO 93,818 94,315 0.5 DORRIS 893 888 -0.6 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 61,400 61,824 0.7 DUNSMUIR 1,904 1,888 -0.8 WOODSIDE 5,474 5,507 0.6 ETNA 780 776 -0.5 BALANCE OF COUNTY 64,144 64,756 1.0 FORT JONES 675 675 0.0 MONTAGUE 1,512 1,523 0.7 SANTA BARBARA 417,988 421,625 0.9 MOUNT SHASTA 3,718 3,698 -0.5 BUELLTON 4,539 4,548 0.2 TULELAKE 1,012 1,004 -0.8 CARPINTERIA 14,295 14,172 -0.9 WEED 3,000 2,954 -1.5 GOLETA 30,580 30,290 -0.9 YREKA 7,408 7,338 -0.9 GUADALUPE 6,276 6,423 2.3 BALANCE OF COUNTY 25,074 25,402 1.3 LOMPOC 42,197 41,915 -0.7 SANTA BARBARA 90,238 89,548 -0.8 SOLANO 420,307 422,848 0.6 SANTA MARIA 88,521 90,204 1.9 BENICIA 27,209 27,319 0.4 SOLVANG 5,413 5,369 -0.8 DIXON 17,107 17,574 2.7 BALANCE OF COUNTY 135,929 139,156 2.4 FAIRFIELD 105,247 105,601 0.3 RIO VISTA 6,809 7,376 8.3 SANTA CLARA 1,752,653 1,773,258 1.2 SUISUN CITY 27,601 27,748 0.5 CAMPBELL 38,262 38,408 0.4 VACAVILLE 96,371 96,395 0.0 CUPERTINO 53,238 53,840 1.1 VALLEJO 120,724 121,099 0.3 GILROY 47,482 48,527 2.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 19,239 19,736 2.6 LOS ALTOS 27,505 27,608 0.4 LOS ALTOS HILLS 8,417 8,482 0.8 SONOMA 477,697 479,929 0.5 LOS GATOS 28,863 28,989 0.4 CLOVERDALE 8,228 8,454 2.7 MILPITAS 64,751 65,276 0.8 COTATI 7,324 7,381 0.8 MONTE SERENO 3,491 3,512 0.6 HEALDSBURG 11,693 11,704 0.1 MORGAN HILL 36,279 37,091 2.2 PETALUMA 56,542 56,727 0.3 MOUNTAIN VIEW 71,747 71,995 0.3 ROHNERT PARK 42,380 43,027 1.5 PALO ALTO 61,431 62,148 1.2 SANTA ROSA 156,028 157,145 0.7 SAN JOSE 941,116 953,679 1.3 SEBASTOPOL 7,782 7,753 -0.4 SANTA CLARA 108,680 110,771 1.9 SONOMA 9,819 9,893 0.8 SARATOGA 30,729 30,835 0.3 WINDSOR 25,434 26,011 2.3 SUNNYVALE 132,555 133,544 0.7 BALANCE OF COUNTY 152,467 151,834 -0.4 BALANCE OF COUNTY 98,107 98,553 0.5 STANISLAUS 505,352 514,370 1.8 SANTA CRUZ 260,339 262,351 0.8 CERES 38,881 40,943 5.3 CAPITOLA 9,927 9,945 0.2 HUGHSON 5,955 6,127 2.9 SANTA CRUZ 56,470 56,925 0.8 MODESTO 207,987 208,107 0.1 SCOTTS VALLEY 11,576 11,606 0.3 NEWMAN 9,150 10,140 10.8 WATSONVILLE 49,619 50,211 1.2 OAKDALE 17,468 17,856 2.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 132,747 133,664 0.7 PATTERSON 16,187 19,269 19.0 RIVERBANK 20,022 21,215 6.0 SHASTA 179,692 181,483 1.0 TURLOCK ANDERSON 67,124 67,876 1.1 10,529 10,677 1.4 WATERFORD 7,911 8,216 3.9 REDDING 89,193 89,973 0.9 BALANCE OF COUNTY 114,667 114,621 0.0 SHASTA LAKE 10,291 10,325 0.3 BALANCE OF COUNTY 69,679 70,508 1.2 SUTTER 89,170 91,450 2.6 LIVE OAK 6,803 7,475 9.9 SIERRA 3,528 3,501 -0.8 YUBA CITY 58,516 60,507 3.4 LOYALTON 884 883 -0.1 BALANCE OF COUNTY 23,851 23,468 -1.6 BALANCE OF COUNTY 2,644 2,618 -1.0 E-1: City/County/State Population Estimates with Annual Percent Change January 1, 2005 and 2006 JURISDICTION Total Population Percent 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change JURISDICTION Total Population Percent 1/1/05 1/1/06 Change TEHAMA 60,720 61,533 1.3 VENTURA CORNING 810,763 817,346 0.8 7,110 7,220 1.5 CAMARILLO 62,570 64,034 2.3 RED BLUFF 13,867 13,650 -1.6 FILLMORE TEHAMA 15,182 15,180 0.0 441 438 -0.7 MOORPARK 35,717 35,801 0.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 39,302 40,225 2.3 OJAI 8,132 8,156 0.3 OXNARD 188,333 189,990 0.9 TRINITY 13,908 14,024 0.8 PORT HUENEME 22,388 22,388 0.0 BALANCE OF COUNTY 13,908 14,024 0.8 SAN BUENAVENTURA 105,812 106,710 0.8 SANTA PAULA 29,201 29,133 -0.2 TULARE 411,701 420,619 2.2 SIMI VALLEY DINUBA 121,096 122,708 1.3 19,352 19,578 1.2 THOUSAND OAKS 126,770 127,644 0.7 EXETER 10,405 10,634 2.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY FARMERSVILLE 95,562 95,602 0.0 10,286 10,416 1.3 LINDSAY 11,081 11,185 0.9 YOLO PORTERVILLE 187,575 190,344 1.5 44,694 45,220 1.2 DAVIS A 64,338 64,585 0.4 VIS ALIA 49,703 51,477 3.6 WEST SACRAMENTO IS 40,164 43,183 7.5 108,042 111,168 2.9 WINTERS 6972 WOODLAKE 6,867 -1.5 7,221 7,305 1.2 WOODLAND 53,345 52,972 -0.7 BALANCE OF COUNTY 150,917 153,636 1.8 BALANCE OF COUNTY 22,756 22,737 -0.1 TUOLUMNE 57,639 58,231 1.0 YUBA SONORA 67,394 69,827 3.6 4,702 4,804 2.2 MARYSVILLE 12,750 12,591 -1.2 BALANCE OF COUNTY 52,937 53,427 0.9 WHEATLAND 3,466 3,465 0.0 BALANCE OF COUNTY 51,178 53,771 5.1 /;�L 0 B A K E R S F I E L D MEMORANDUM May 5, 2006 TO: Alan Tandy, Citv Manager FROM: Florn Core, Water Resources Manager SUBJECT: Kern River & Isabella Reservoir On Thursday April 27, 2006, the runoff forecasting branch of the State of California updated its yield estimate on the snowpack of the Kern River to be 155% of normal for the April-July period of 2006. This follows the 169% of normal we experienced in 2005. Normally good news. This forecast usually means a full Isabella Reservoir through the summer, a big carryover in the reservoir into 2007 and a river channel at full run through Bakersfield all summer. On Friday the 28th, the good news changed. On that Friday, City staff and the Kern River Interests attended a hastily called meeting to listen to a presentation by the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps"). The Corps operates Isabella Dam and Reservoir. The Corps has a routine ongoing study, called a "Dam Safety Assurance Program" that periodically looks at the original design criteria for Corps projects, including Isabella Dam. Preliminary findings have led the Corps to believe that some of the criteria should be revised due to new information. The basis for the re- evaluation of the Isabella project is new seismic concerns and new hydrology. Also, the Corps noted an increase in water pressure at one piezometer(a vertical pipe or PVC tube installed similar to a water well), out of 25 installed, at a site just south of what is known as the Borel Canal outlet in the Auxiliary Dam and they are concerned this reading may be related to the reservoir level. The Isabella project consists of two separate structures, the Main Dam and the Auxiliary Dam. There is no concern with the Main Dam. These early, tentative and preliminary findings were presented to a panel of experts from the Corps and California Division of Dams and Safety and the panel suggested a cautionary stance by the Corps, until further studies are completed. The Corps indicated that they are pursuing additional field information by drilling more piezometers, stepping-up inspections, contracting with experts in dam construction and experts in evaluating the data being gathered. They estimate 3 more years of study to find the problem, then potentially several more years to repair, if needed. As of April 28th, Isabella Reservoir was over 378,000 (af) and climbing with the snowmelt underway and the inflow rising. The Corps took over operation of Isabella the same day and will continue their operation until late June at which time the Kern River consumers demand should exceed the inflow to the lake. The outflow was step-increased from the dam beginning the next day, with total outflow increased from 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 2,500 cfs over the weekend. Continued outflow increases in 500 cfs increments to 4,000 cfs will occur by Saturday May 6th. The Corps has indicated that upon assessment of the ability to safely handle these flows downstream, limit damages to high flow areas and minimize the loss of water supply to the area, that further increases may be scheduled the week of May 8th to reach an outflow of 5,000 cfs. At these rates of flow, the Kern River interests will be unable to put the water to beneficial use and water will be lost to the area. Lost to the area means river water either flows out of the county in the flood channel to Tulare Lake bed or enters the California Aqueduct via an intertie located near Taft Highway and the river channel. The Corps action will have short term and possibly long term negative effects on the City. Of immediate concern is the "fear factor" in the community. The Corps has assured us that is no immediate danger of dam failure and the actions they are taking are precautionary and no cause for alarm. They indicated they want to minimize any risk to Bakersfield from flooding and public safety was first priority. Remember, the Corps is still reeling from the Katrina disaster criticism and is being overly cautious as a consequence. The flows that are scheduled for the river channel through the City in the next few months will not be unusual for a high runoff year on the Kern River. In fact, in 1998, Isabella outflows were above 4,000 cfs for two months and approached 5,000 for nearly a month. 1983 flows exceeded 4,000 cfs for almost 4 months, with flows at or above 7,000 cfs for 45 days that year. What is unusual is the circumstances which dictates the Isabella releases this year. Short-term impacts on City water supplies have not been fully evaluated. During the period that the Corps is in control of the reservoir outflow, the City will continue to deliver to its contractors, will receive credit for recharging the groundwateraquifer via the river channel through Bakersfield and will bank at maximum capacity in the "2800 Acres". However, it is highly probable the City will lose water through the Kern River/California Aqueduct Intertie or out the westside flood channel. This would be water that the City would have normally stored in Isabella and delivered later in the year. We also do not know how or to what extent that our Isabella carryover storage will be affected. We (the Kern River Interests) carried 245,000 of from last year and, until this problem came up, we were targeting the same for this fall. Any reduction will mean less water we will have at our disposal next year, especially if 2007 turns dry. We are assuming a lowered carryover this winter but at this time we do not know what to expect. A lowered carryover will also mean we have to move more water from the reservoir this fall into facilities that may have reduced absorption capacity, creating the possibility of losing additional water. A long-term effect could be this scenario is repeated during each above-average year we have on the river. There is a probable negative impact in the Water Resources Department budget and fiscal bottom line. Certain City contracts have clauses that suspend the payment for water during periods of Corps operation of the reservoir. The final fiscal impact will depend on how long 2 the Corps remains in control of the outflow. Multiple years of the storage restriction could have longer term negative fiscal effects by eliminating or severely reducing our spot sales programs. plan on bringing to the Water Board at the May 17,2006 meeting, a resolution addressed to the Corps, calling for the Corps to expeditiously pursue actions towards a solution to the problem at Isabella, to design and implement repairs as soon as possible and call to their attention that the City requires all of our contracted storage space in the project to conserve and best utilize the limited Kern River supply. The resolution will be forwarded to the City Council for approval. As more information is received or decisions are made concerning this issue, status reports will be forwarded. The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the problem and estimate potential impact upon the City. Attached is a photo of the Isabella project. The view is looking east, the north fork of the Kern River and the Wofford Heights community is on the upper left. At the mid-point of the Auxiliary Dam are the control tower and the outlet for the Borel Canal. S:2006Memos/KR&Isy 3 _ v f �4 s" n r� N y 0 y,�pxroe�re CIS U d MEMORANDUM MAY -3 2006 N OR���' CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE., TO: Budget and Finance Committee Members FROM: Nelson K. Smith, Finance Director DATE: May 2, 2006 SUBJECT- Proposed Increase to Sewer Connection Fees to Facilitate Financing of Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion The City has been developing a financing plan for the expansion of Wastewater Plant #3. The City's bond consultant presented an extensive multi-city fee survey and an overview of the draft financing plan to the committee at the March 8, 2006 Budget and Finance meeting. Part of the financing plan includes the raising of Sewer Connection Fee charges to assist in the repayment of the debt service on the impending plant expansion. While all sewer revenues will be pledged against any debt incurred for the project, the City has historically attempted to cover the annual debt service requirements with connection fee revenues, so to match the cost of plant expansion with the associated new development growth that is driving the need for the plant expansion. Staff is proposing a "phased" approach to the fee increases to provide developer-, with a kncwn plan for this fee to assist in their forecasting anc:.i planning processes. The current fee for a single family residence is $2,500. The proposed fee schedule, which is designed to provide adequate debt service coverage for the proposed bond issue, will raise the fee $300 per year for the next five years, with the single family fee reaching $4,000 in July 2010. A draft resolution and fee schedule is attached for your review. The last time that the City Council took action to raise the sewer connection fee was back in 1997, when they adopted a multi-year "phased" approach to raising the fee up to the current $2,500 amount. This action was associated with a debt financing plan to expand Sewer Plant # 3. Staff is requesting a motion from the Committee to recommend adoption of the resolution to the full City Council at their June 7, 2006 meeting. If the resolution is approved, the first fee increase is subject to a 60 day waiting period associated with development fees. The first increase would be effective August 15, 2006, cc: v Alan Tandy, City Manager Raul Rojas, Public Works Director Attachment — Draft Resolution and proposed fee schedule File name: nks:/p:/bond issuesimemo-sewer expan bud and fin may 2006.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEWER CONNECTION FEES PURSUANT TO SECTION 14.12.380 OF THE BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE. WHEREAS, Section 14.12.380 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) authorizes the establishment each fiscal year of sewer connection fees sufficient for the City to recover the reasonable costs of providing sewer connection services, which include the costs associated with and necessitated by the upgrading and expansion of sewer facilities; and WHEREAS, the City plans to upgrade and expand Sewer Treatment Plant #3 from 16 MGD capacity (mgd = million gallons daily) to 32 MGD capacity and finance the improvements, in whole or in part, with Sewer Revenue Bonds; and WHEREAS, City staff have computed the reasonable cost of providing sewer connection service through fiscal year 2010-2011; and WHEREAS, the sewer connection fees set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein, do not exceed the reasonable estimated cost of providing the services for which the fees are charged; and WHEREAS, the fees shall be due and payable upon application for a building permit or permit to connect an existing building to the City sewer system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows. 1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct; 2. The Sewer Connection Fees under Section 14.12.380 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code are hereby adopted and shall become effective on the dates and in the amounts set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto. Page 1 of 3 HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER CARSON, BENHAM, MAGGARD, COUCH,HANSON, SULLIVAN,SCRIVNER NOES: AGENCYMEMBER ABSTAIN: AGENCYMEMBER ABSENT: AGENCYMEMBER CITY CLERK and EX OFFICIO of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED: HARVEY — HALL, MAYOR CITY OF BAKERSFIELD APPROVED AS TO FORM: VIRGINIA GENNARO CITY ATTORNEY By: JANICE SCANLAN Assistant City Attorney Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" I• CONNECTION CHARGES All new connections or new fixture units connected to the City sewer system will require payment of a sewer connection charge. Any individual, firm, company or corporation making such connection shall pay the charge at the time the building permit is issued in accordance with the following: Dwellings Per Fixture Single Multiple with 14 or Unit for Family Family Less Fixture Commercial or Effective Date n%A/,=I I i nri s Dwellin s Units A Industrial B Au . 15, 2006 $2,800 $2,106 $1,782 $127 July 1, 2007 $3,100 $2,232 $1,973 $141 July 1, 2008 $3,400 $2,448 $2,164 $155 July 1, 2009 $3,700 $2,664 $2,355 $168 July 1, 2010 $4,000 $2,880 $2,545 $182 (A) Single family dwellings or units in multiple family dwellings with 14 or less fixture units (including shared fixtures in multiple unit complexes) as per Uniform Building Code and with two (2) bedrooms or less. (B) Equivalency factor shall be 1.0 for all uses excepting markets, mortuaries, restaurants/coffee shops, food service shops and bakeries which uses shall have an equivalency factor of 2.0. To determine the total connection charge, multiply the number of fixture units (as per Uniform Plumbing Code) by the per fixture charge and that answer by the equivalency multiplier. The equivalency multiplier adjusts for loadings greater or less than the residential loadings. II. TIMING AND BASIS The sewer connection charge is to be paid prior to issuance of a building permit, and will be based on the current adopted charges at the time of issuance of the permit. Fixture Units shall be as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code. File name:p;nks;bond issues;resolution sewer connection fees 2006.doc Page 3 of 3 "I am proud to be an American Rhere at least I know I'm ree, forget the men who died Who gave that right to me Lee Greenwood-Artist Veteran's Memorial Month Ceremony May S, 2006 11:30am — 12:06pm 11:30am Opening Comments— George Martin 11:35am Welcome -Honorable Harvey Hall 11:40am Kern County City Council Proclamation — City Council Member Sue Benham, Ward 2 11:45am Kern County Board of Supervisors Proclamation —Supervisor Michael J. Rubio, District 5 11:50am Introduction of Committee Members— George Martin KVMF Board Members Building Projects Andy Wahrenbrock Leon Thomas Wendell "Gus" Gustin KVMFArchitect & Designer John Cohrs, Ordiz-Melby Architects, Inc. KVMF Builder & Project Manager Jason Weller, Colombo Construction Company, Inc. O'KVMF Fundraising Committee Members Joe Colombo— Team Fundraising Coordinator Al Sandrini- Spare Change Drive for the Vets at all Kern County Elementary Schools & High Schools Chaplain George Fraser— Churches James Whitehead—Service Clubs Tom Fallgatter— Unions BHS Students — Thomas Benham & Blake Keathley History of Heroes — Karen Norton 12:06pm Closing Ceremony with "Big Bang"— George Martin — Gary Harper, WWII Tank The tank will proceed, with police escort, west along Truxtun and turn right onto Chester proceeding north to Pioneer Village, the site of History of Heroes, A;�VMF Fact,sl17eet Purpose: The KVMF Ceremony is to inform the public that we are planning to raise the remaining funds for the memorial during the month of May. • The amount we need to raise: o $1,000,000 Memorial Cost o $300,000 As an endowment for the maintenance of the memorial o $1,300,000 Total Funds Required • Funds raised: • The Kern Veterans Memorial Foundation has requested $500,000 from the Kern County Board of Supervisors $500,000 • To date we have commitments in excess of$300,000 from private donors who attended an event held at Barbara Grimm's home on November 9, 2005. Dick Rutan was the guest speaker $300,000 Sub-Total $800,000 o Additional Funds Needed $500,000 Total $1,300,000 Upcoming Fundraising activities: 1. "A History of Heroes" Event May 6—7, 2006 2. Spare Change for the Vets at all Kern County May 22—26, 2006 Elementary Schools 3. Kern County High School Fundraising Event May 22—26, 2006 4. Churches May 28, 2006 5. Actively solicit local service clubs, unions, professional associations, and Kern County community at large 6. Informing the public of the Memorial and the events through television and newspapers Tnonss Rosos ImprmemesrProprsm STATUS REPORT Connactieg Bakers�EQ� City of Bakersfield Thomas Roads Improvement Program May 5, 2006 Trip Program Office, Bakersfield Program Status • The project team office has been established at the Borton-Petrini Building at 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Suite 300. Many of the staff positions have been filled and the Project Team includes planning and engineering staff from the City's Public Works Department, the County's Roads Department, Caltrans District 6 and Parsons, the Program Management Consultant. Eleven full-time employees are currently based in the project office and more are soon being added. • A Program Delivery/Strategic Plan is being developed to determine project elements, costs and schedules for the individual corridors in the program. • The Westside Parkway Environmental Document was approved for circulation by FHWA, and the 45-day public review and comment period for the document ends on May 5th. There have also been two public hearings held during this period, on April 19th and 20th. One of the Public Hearings was a four hour open-house type of format, and the other was a hearing held in front of the Planning Commission. There were approximately 20 people that attended the open-house meeting, of which 4 provided comments regarding the project. Two people spoke at the Planning Commission Public Hearing. The review/comment period will end on May 5, 2006. • Aerial mapping and survey work for the various project corridors is underway. This survey data will be provided to the consultants preparing the initial preliminary engineering and environmental documents on the individual projects. • Industry Outreach Meetings with engineering design and environmental firms were held in Newport Beach on April 4, 2006 and San Francisco on April 6, 2006. One hundred and twenty-five people attended the meetings and there was considerable interest from the consultant community. Design and environmental consultants for individual projects will be hired over the summer. • A Request for Qualifications is being issued for consultants to design the Westside Parkway, Mohawk Street and Seventh Standard Road projects. These are the first projects to start final design. • Representatives of the TRIP team and Congressman Thomas' office visited the Federal highway Administration in Washington, D.C. to explain the TRIP program and to establish a working relationship with FHWA Headquarters staff. The presentation was well received by the FHWA staff, and staff contacts that will be beneficial to the program were developed. RED;EKED L!Y -5 2006 • CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE B A K E R S F I E L D Department of Recreation and Parks Date: May 4, 2006 To: Alan andy From: Dia oover Subject: April Monthly Report ADMINISTRATION • Sheri Horn-Bunk started her job as Special Events Manager on April 10 and was thrown into the planning of the Grand Opening events at the Park at River Walk and the Bright House Networks Amphitheatre. • Successful grand opening weekend included a free concert by the Fab Four, and a Bit of Bakersfield on Saturday and Sunday, April 28, 29 and 30th. Estimated crowd size for Friday night's concert was over 6,000, and each weekend day was at least 5,000 throughout the day. The Recreation and Parks staff were dedicated and committed to an excellent event for everyone. • Hosted a visit by the state grants administrators for our $3.2 million dollar grant request for a new outdoor learning lab along the bikeway near the Calloway Weir, behind the Kern County Museum. We are a finalist for this request, and we should be notified in July if we are a recipient. Several other departments including Water Resources, Public Works, Planning and Economic Development were involved in developing this grant. • Continued working on an agreement with Southwest Baseball association; should be final soon. • Worked with the Tree Foundation for an agreement to manage the Commemorative Grove once it is completed in June. • Met with Bright House Networks to further discuss the possibility of internet access at the Park at River Walk. PARKS • Security cameras are being installed at the Park at River Walk, as well as a Bird-X system designed to detract birds from nesting in the Bright House Networks Amphitheatre. • Two new reservable picnic areas were installed at Patriots Park. Due to years of complaints from neighbors on the east side of the park, the picnic areas were moved more toward the center of the park and away from homes. This should reduce complaints substantially. • A new shade awning was made for McMurtrey and will be installed in May, providing much needed shade for the concession area. • Last minute preparations for the Park at River Walk were done such as signing, seeding and sodding. • Craftwokers reduced the number of service request tickets from 80 to 20 by working overtime. • Several other projects included roadways irrigation, roofing restrooms and median island repairs. • Urban Forestry is working on completing the city's tree inventory. During the month of April urban forestry pruned 79 trees, removed 21, planted 17, and delivered 70 loads of green waste. • Staff is working with the Seimon Park neighborhood to resolve a park parking issue. AQUATICS • Total attendance for McMurtrey was 4044, which is more than 800 more than last April at 3209. • The 100 mile club is very successful, with over 111 people involved in this incentive program. • One Aquatic Safety Awareness program was conducted for 12 families with the Community Action Partnership. • Lifeguard training programs are in full swing at McMurtrey and Jefferson pools with 108 in attendance. • High schools continue to swim at MLK, Jefferson, Silver Creek and McMurtrey. • Received the Guinness Book of World Records plaque for the Largest Underwater wedding on April 5. • The McMurtrey Spring Carnival was held on April 23rd. It was a cool, rainy day with 64 attendees. SILVER CREEK • The after school program continues to have 31 daily attendance. • The center was rented three times in April for an attendance of about 320. • Attendance for classes was 1,083 onsite and 172 in other locations. • The summer brochure was mailed to 95,500 households, and over 5,000 more were distributed at events and the centers. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. CENTER • Total monthy attendance was 3,838. • Started a new circuit training program in the fitness room due to a donation of equipment. • Spring Camp King was a new program offered during spring break for 8 — 12 year olds. Fifteen attended this first year, with more expected in future years. • Over 100 kids attended the Easter Egg Hunt on April 15, sponsored by the Charles "Chop" Lodge #325 and NE Plus Ultra Temple. • Received a $500.00 mini grant from the Jim Burke Ford Education Foundation for computer software in the computer lab. ATHLETICS • A total of 99 adult softball teams were registered for spring, and over 90 games had to be rescheduled due to rain. • Approximately 2,800 players and spectators attend weekly. • Bit of Bakersfield was organized by recreation staff, and included set up, take down, and conducting programs over the three day event. • Registrations have started for summer softball and several day camps which include a football camp with the Blitz, a youth wrestling camp, a pee wee sports camp, and a soccer camp. PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION • Accepted about .5 acres of new streetscapes, including 30 trees and 108 shrubs. • Entered into a one year maintenance period for 2.7 acres, with 141 trees and 667 shrubs. PUBLIC WORKS STREETS DIVISION — WORK SCHEDULE WEEK OF MAY 8, 2006 — MAY 12, 2006 Continue preparation of streets for resurfacing in the area west of River Boulevard, south of Panorama Drive. Street reconstruction project (CDBG FUNDED) in the area east of Old Stine Road, north of Wilson Road. Continue constructing a turn pocket on Rosedale Highway, east of Calloway Drive. Assisting the railroad company in repairing the railroad crossing on Baker Street between Jackson Street and Sumner Street. AREA SWEEPING SCHEDULE Monday, May 8, 2006 Area between Ming Avenue & Wilson Road from Hughes Lane to So. "H" Street. Wednesday, May 10, 2006 Area between Sundale Avenue & Ming Avenue from New Stine Road to Ashe Road. Thursday, May 11 2006 Area between California Avenue & Brundage Lane from Oak Street to "H" Street. Friday May 12 2006 Area between Coffee Road & Patton Way fropm Hageman Road to the north city limit. Tuesday May 9, 2006, Sweeper Operators are on their regular sweeping routes. Dan Walters: Revenue windfall is good news, but it also can become bad news - The Sacr... Page 1 of 2 r 1'h S >rarsas[rTr This story is taken from Politics at sacbee.com. Dan Walters: Revenue windfall is good news, but it also can become bad news By Dan Walters -- Bee Columnist Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, May 5, 2006 The good news is that a roaring economy is filling the state's coffers with billions of unanticipated dollars, but it may be bad news because, as Californians have learned the hard way, having lots of extra tax money can be just as perilous as not having enough. The politics of plenty are a mirror image of the politics of penury and it's been that way in California for decades, leading to a boom-bust cycle that's gotten steadily worse. When the treasury is flush, conservatives demand tax cuts and liberals demand more spending. When the economy cools and revenue slows, conservatives refuse to raise taxes and liberals refuse to cut spending. And since budgets and tax bills require two-thirds legislative votes, both factions can enforce their demands. California has been running multibillion-dollar budget deficits for the past half-decade because then-Gov. Gray Davis and lawmakers of both parties couldn't resist the temptation posed by a $12 billion one-time windfall of income taxes in 2000. They squandered most of it on permanent tax cuts and program spending and thus created what's called a "structural deficit" when revenue returned to normal growth levels. Exactly how much extra money California may have to finance the 2006-07 budget is still not certain, but the state could wind up the current fiscal year on June 30 with $4 billion more than previous estimates, and 2006-07 revenue forecasts are being ratcheted upward by billions more. Next week, the Schwarzenegger administration will release a revised version of next year's budget that will contain new revenue numbers. Whatever it is, it's a significant amount - perhaps even enough to close, at least temporarily, the state's chronic budget gap. Politically, dealing with the extra money in an election year is tricky business because there's no shortage of demands. It could, moreover, affect the campaign for governor because fiscal issues loom large in the duel between the two Democratic candidates, Phil Angelides and Steve Westly, and will certainly play a major role in the contest between the primary winner and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in the fall. Angelides has been trumpeting a multibillion-dollar tax increase - albeit without specifics -to close the budget gap and finance a liberal agenda of increases in spending on schools and health care, while Westly advocates a go-slow approach. With billions of extra dollars rolling into the treasury, it takes a lot of steam out of the tax increase argument. The new money, meanwhile, gives Schwarzenegger the wherewithal to finance some of the infrastructure improvements he's been touting, either directly or through bonds, and even more importantly from a political standpoint, provides the cash to settle his long-running feud with educators over school financing. The school folks -the California Teachers Association, most vociferously - have complained that Schwarzenegger reneged on his pledge to restore education financing after persuading them to go along with a one-time $2 billion reduction two years ago. The amount in dispute is $3.2 billion, and the CTA has used it with telling effect on Schwarzenegger, especially during last year's fight over his ballot measures. http://www.sacbee.COm/content/politics/v-print/story/14251832p-15068104c.html 5/5/2006 Dan Walters: Revenue windfall is good news, but it also can become bad news - The Sacr... Page 2 of 2 This is one of those very rare occasions when good politics can make for good public policy. Schwarzenegger could give the schools the$3.2 billion and thus eliminate an issue that the CTA and the Democratic candidate for governor would use as a hammer. This one-time injection of money would also be good policy because it would not be a permanent commitment of new financing and thus its appropriation would remove some of the temptation to blow the windfall as Davis and lawmakers did in 2000. Whatever was left over could be directed into closing the operational gap, placed into reserves as a hedge against future shortfalls or spent on critical infrastructure needs. That's the prudent approach that Davis publicly advocated in May 2000 but that he abjectly failed to implement in the following weeks. Had Davis done what he said he'd do, the state would not have plunged into a fiscal abyss, and he, rather than Schwarzenegger, would be governor today. It should be a lesson. About the writer: • Reach Dan Walters at(916) 321-1195 or dwalters(a)sacbee com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/walters. Go to: Sacbee/ Back t__.o.story This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use. The Sacramento Bee,2100 Q St.,P.O.Box 15779,Sacramento,CA 95852 Phone:(916)321-1000 Coovrioht©The Sacramento Bee,(916)321-1000 http://www.Sacbee.com/content/politics/v-print/story/14251832p-15068104c.html 5/5/2006 I ` BAY r, O``NGORPORAT�f rs�Ll a BAKERSFIELD POLICE MEMORANDUM Ca"IFOR, TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: W. R. RECTOR, CHIEF OF POLICE DATE: MAY 4, 2006 SUBJECT: ABANDONED VEHICLE NEAR MLK Council Referral No. 1469 (Ward 1) Council Member Carson asked staff to investigate an abandoned vehicle behind the church near the MLK Center. The area of the MLK center encompasses several churches. Lt. Jay Borton surveyed the area during the week of April 10`h and did not observe any abandoned vehicles. JCB/vrf �13AKFj Q� r,Oft?o,�TE.Cf r6 BAKERSFIELD POLICE RY 11, C MEMORANDUM a� FUR TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: W. R. RECTOR, CHIEF OF POLICEL '� DATE: MAY 4, 2006 SUBJECT: NARCOTICS AT 1400 KERN STREET Council Referral No. 1476 (Ward 2) Council Member Benham requested staff address concerns by a citizen regarding drugs being sold to adults and children at 1400 Kern Street, Apartment #2. Staff has been working on the problems occurring at the apartment complex at 1400 Kern Street for quite some time. We have assigned several different units (SRO, SEU, Patrol, Traffic and Footbeat Officers) to address the problems. We have recently been in contact with the apartment manager and are attempting to get her some training through our Crime Free Multi-Housing Program. She has some loose controls in place and tenants receiving Section 8 assistance are allowing their boyfriends with gang ties into their apartments. We are in the process of putting the property owners on notice and advising him/her that if strict controls are not put into place they are subject to having the property abated through our "Drug-Related Nuisance Abatement Program." TDT/vrf S A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT r- MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager MAY -4 2006 FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: May 4, 2006 SUBJECT: HANDICAP ACCESS AT CHURCH Referral No. 1475 F MBER BENHAM REQUESTED STAFF RESPOND TO A REQUEST FROM ST. EEK ORTHODOX CHURCH REGARDING ACCESS FOR THE DISABLED ON VENUE. The requested Wheelchair Ramps that are needed on the south side of Truxtun Avenue between "V" Street and "R" Street will be installed in approximately the middle of June 2006. C:\DOCUME-1\Iskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\Ref#1475Handicap Access 1.doc S A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager C V FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director MAY -4 2006 DATE: May 4, 2006 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE SUBJECT: REPAIR OF VARIOUS ROADS Referral No. 1477 COUNCILMEMBER BENHAM REQUESTED STAFF ADDRESS ROAD REPAIRS AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: ALLEY AT 4101-5441 CALIFORNIA AVENUE, CITIZEN CONTACT IS MARY DANFORD AT 323-3641 (SEE CORRESPONDENCE ATTACHED); DURHAM COURT, CITIZEN CONTACT IS CLIVE HAMLIN AT 323-9025; BUENA VISTA ST., CITIZEN CONTACT IS DON SCHUETT AT 323-2745; AND BAKER STREET, CITIZEN CONTACT IS MARIA LOPEZ AT 322-1320 (SEE E-MAIL ATTACHED). Alley at 4101-5441 California Avenue is scheduled to be resurfaced in October 2006. In the meantime, the potholes will be patched. Ms. Mary Danford was contacted (5-2-06) and informed of the resurfacing schedule. Durham Court is scheduled to be reconstructed in August, 2006. Mr. Clive Hamlin was contacted (5-3-06) and informed of the street reconstruction schedule. Mr. Don Schuett was contacted (5-3-06) and he reported that there were several potholes on Buena Vista Street between "A" Street and Olive Street. Staff assured Mr. Schuett that the potholes would be patched the week of May 9, 2006. Mr. Schuett was satisfied with staff's response. Ms. Maria Lopez was contacted (5-2-06) and Ms. Lopez informed staff that her concerns, which was potholes in the alley behind her residence, had been addressed. Ms. Lopez stated that the potholes were patched Thursday, April 27, 2006. Staff also informed Ms. Lopez that during the week of May 8, 2006 a crew would be assigned to patch potholes on Baker Street between Bernard Street and Kentucky Street. C:\DOCUME-1\Iskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\Ref#1477 Street Repair.doc RECEDED B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MAY 2006 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FR.'-FROM: ul Rows, Public Works Director DATE: May 4, 2006 SUBJECT: CENTENNIAL CORRIDOR Referral No. 1459 COUNCILMEMBER BENHAM REQUESTED STAFF BRIEF MEMBERS OF THE SUNSET- OLEANDER PRESERVATION COMMITTEE REGARDING THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED CENTENNIAL CORRIDOR. Staff is setting up a meeting with the Committee to discuss the Centennial Corridor, and will coordinate the meeting date/time/location with Councilmember Benham. C:\DOCUME-1\lskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\Ref#1459 Centennial Corridor.doc RECENED MAY -2 2006 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: May 1, 2006 SUBJECT: NEGOTIATIONS WITH PRIVATE TRASH HAULERS Referral No. 1485 F DUAL REFERRAL TO BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE (LEAD) AND PUBLIC ORKS DEPARTMENT*** CE-MAYOR MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE AN UPDATE AT THE NEXT DGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING REGARDING THE STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE CITY AND PRIVATE TRASH HAULERS. Staff has met with the haulers to negotiate the requested contract time extension, and is waiting for a reply to the City's February 24th letter. However, since the separate issue of mandatory curbside recycling came up at the February 27th joint City/County meeting, the haulers have stated that the contract time negotiation answer will depend on how the curbside recycling issue comes out. More meetings are pending, and staff will update the Budget and Finance Committee at the next meeting. The May 1, 2006 Budget and Finance Committee meeting was cancelled. C:\DOCUME-1\lskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\Ref#1485 Private Haulers.doc 113 A I,( GORPORATF4 Ste, 1 a BAKERSFIELD POLICE ., MEMORANDUM , CSI IF OR��P TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: W. R. RECTOR, CHIEF OF POLICE DATE: MAY 4, 2006 SUBJECT: Marty Coyne — Graffiti and Videos Council Referral No. 1487 (Ward 4) Council member Couch requested staff contact Marty Coyne regarding his ideas for graffiti and the use of video for enforcement. On May 2, 2006, Captain Bivens contacted Mr. Coyne about the cameras; although he was informed we have researched and tested surveillance cameras for the past year. Captain Bivens informed him that photos of suspects committing graffiti crimes need to be of courtroom value for prosecution purposes. He asked us to do stings which we have conducted over the past year and also reverse psychology by covering up graffiti with our own fake moniker and lay in wait for the vandals to return, we have done this also. Mr. Coyne would like the Greenfield School District to move their junior high bus stop from his street at Springfield and Walton because there is a city sump located there and the kids throw bikes, trash and vandalize the fence slates. Under the direction of Captain Bivens, the assigned school resource officer will take a look at the area and contact Greenfield for some assistance. Mr. Coyne was advised to call the 32-erase number to report graffiti, and that we will continue to seek out technological advancements related to graffiti identification and prosecution. WRR/RB/vrf B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD _ PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RE"">VED MEMORANDUM TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager MAY -5 2006 FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: May 4, 2006 SUBJECT: PROVIDE MAPS TO BOARD OF REALTORS Referral No. 1488 COUNCILMEMBER COUCH HAS REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE A SET OF MAPS OF THOMAS ROADS AND ALTERNATE 15 TO HIM. HE'LL DISTRIBUTE TO SHELIA HENDERSON. The requested maps are attached. G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\04-26\Ref#1488 Maps.doc as gum R {�SQb %VSIM! v 1 n g zo l $ M � 3 t f z ;P07 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: i v- May 4, 2006 SUBJECT: WESTSIDE PARKWAY AND HWY 178 Referral No. 1481 ***REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT*** COUNCILMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE INFORMATION, AERIALS AND DIAGRAMS REGARDING THE REMAINING CONNECTION OPTIONS OF THE WESTSIDE PARKWAY AND HWY 178. REVISED TO INCLUDE: COUNCILMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED STAFF TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE IF THE ROUTE THROUGH BHS IS NOT VIABLE. Public Works staff and personnel from Parsons Transportation Group, the consultant firm hired to help manage the Thomas Roads program, are working on developing alternatives for this alignment. The original option was to place a facility along the north side of the BN&SF railroad tracks (south of 16th Street) and then cross over to the south side of the railroad east of BHS and follow the railroad to around Union Avenue where it would turn north and tie in to SR 178. Other ideas are being discussed and if appear feasible, will be pursued further. G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\04-26\Ref#1481 Westside Parkway.doc X1000 B A K E R S F I E L D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM May 5, 2006 TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager FROM: Alan Christensen, Assistant City Manager/+ �f' SUBJECT: Castleford St. Neighborhood Concerns Referral #001484 Councilmember Scrivner requested staff address the concerns with speeding and traffic enforcement in the Castleford Street neighborhood. The Police Department spoke with a Mr. Jim Stout who lives on Castleford Street. They informed him of our recent efforts to calm the speeding. Lt. Borton's memo on that subject is attached. Police promised they would get back out there and work his end of the block. He's adamant that a stop sign will eliminate the problem. The Police will make a best effort to issue tickets when speeding is observed. I personally spoke to another resident last week, Kim Kelly, about the neighborhood problems she's experiencing. She explained that speeding is a continual problem. The speeding is done primarily by minors. Loitering and suspicious behavior is coming from two residences in the neighborhood. The police department has been notified of the exact location of the "problem homes" and will be monitoring as best they can. Traffic Engineering Staff had scheduled a speed study for this week to get data for the Police Department's enforcement effort on speeding and to use in our grant application. We also have scheduled this month to collect the other data (vehicle counts, pedestrian student counts and other data) needed to complete the application for the Safe Route To School grant funding for a school flashing beacon. The application period for these grants is in June with notification of awards a few months later. We will keep you posted on the grant status as we have information. O� BAKE �ppPPORATg��nr� d BAKERSFIELD POLICE MEMORANDUM Cf RY 1% gLIFO TO: Chief W. R. Rector FROM: Lt. Jay C Borton, Traffic DATE: April 25, 2006 SUBJECT: Speeding on Castleford In regard to Council Member Scrivner's request for radar enforcement on Castleford we have done the following thus far: Radar Enforcement: Officers have been assigned to this location (6000- 6400) on three occasions. As of this date no citations have been issued for speed violations. Due to calls for service, the assigned officers may not have been able to remain on scene for an extended period of time. Senior Officer Blaine Smith and his trainee were scheduled for enforcement in this area again today (4/25), and their efforts resulted in one ticket and impound of the vehicle. I regret I cannot provide you exact dates of deployment to this area. This is due to calls for service and availability of officers to set up for enforcement. SMART Trailer: The SMART trailer was deployed on Castleford once in the past two weeks and is scheduled to be placed there again in the next week. The trailer had been placed in the 6400 block of Castleford, near the apartments indicated in Mr. Scrivner's first communication with me. Please see below for clarification of the location of the problem. Decoy Vehicle: I have parked the decoy patrol vehicle in the 6300 block of Castleford once (4/17). It remained there for 5 hours. The purpose of this was to give the appearance of a police presence in the area. I spoke with Kim Kelly by telephone at 1600 hours on 4/25/06. Mrs. Kelly told me that there are some traffic problems on Castleford that appear to stem from vehicles using Castleford as a way to bypass controlled intersections. She said the bulk of the neighborhood problems are from two addresses on Castleford: 5909 and 6005. Mrs. Kelly said the residents of these homes create problems throughout the neighborhood ranging from driving to possible narcotics activity. We spoke for about 20 minutes regarding these two addresses and I told Mrs. Kelly I would contact our Crime Prevention staff as well as notify the West Operations Captain of the situation. I also told her we would continue our traffic enforcement efforts in the area. B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM RECE D TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager J MAY -4 2006 FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director r r CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DATE: May 4, 2006 SUBJECT: FLASHING BEACON AND RADAR ENFORCEMENT Referral No. 1483 ***DUAL REFERRAL TO PUBLIC WORKS (LEAD) AND POLICE DEPARTMENT*** COUNCILMEMBER SCRIVNER REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE AN UPDATE REGARDING A FLASHING BEACON IN THE BENTON STREET NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR FRANK WEST SCHOOL, AND PROVIDE THE RESULTS OF RADAR ENFORCEMENT IN THAT AREA. Public Works Response: Traffic Engineering Staff had scheduled a speed study for the first week of May to get data for the Police Department's enforcement effort on speeding. Staff is scheduled to collect the other data (vehicle counts, pedestrian student counts and other data), in addition to the speed study data, needed to complete the application for the "Safe Route To School" grant funding for a school flashing beacon. The application period for these grants is in June with notification of awards expected a few months later. Staff will update the grant status as information is received. C:\DOCUME-1\lskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\Ref#1483 Flashing Beacon.doc o�a3AKE��. *` BAKERSFIELD POLICE MEMORANDUM ` ' Yit.� FO TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: W. R. RECTOR, CHIEF OF POLICE DATE: May 4, 2006 SUBJECT: Flashing Beacon and Radar Enforcement Council Referral No.1483 (Ward 7) Council Member Scrivner requested staff provide an update regarding a flashing beacon in the Benton Street neighborhood near Frank West School, and provide the results of radar enforcement in that area. The Police Department has conducted radar enforcement on Benton Street since 2002. Officers have not observed many speeding violations, thus have written few citations. Our School Resource Officers also conduct radar enforcement around their assigned schools and have not reported a problem at Frank West School. We have also tried to educate drivers about their speed on Benton Street by posting our radar trailers along the street. TDT/vrf