HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/30/2006 S A K E R S F I E L D
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
June 30, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager
SUBJECT: General Information
1. Please find attached the communication that Mayor Hall received from Shafter
regarding our request for a meeting with representatives from both City Councils.
At this time, we still have not gotten a meeting date. Please call if you have
questions or comments.
2. There was a lively discussion at the Tuesday, June 27th LAFCO meeting regarding
an annexation application for 100 acres in southeast Bakersfield. The Executive
Director recommended denial because it created "strips", which have not been
defined. Staff can not recall if this rationale has ever been used to recommend
denial of an annexation. By a 4-3 vote, the item was eventually approved. Thanks
go to Councilmember Couch, as the City representative on the Board, for his
leadership in getting it passed.
3. We anticipate having the Convention and Visitors' Bureau contract on the Council
agenda for July 19th. We have been working with the CVB Board on the renewal
agreement, and believe we are good to go. Please call if you have any questions
or concerns.
4. The Army Corps of Engineers has turned control of the Isabella Dam outflow back
to us. Even though we are not at the magic 360,000 acre-foot level, staff has
presented a plan that will bring the reservoir down past that mark on a steady draw
down. Outflow was cut to 3,200 cfs on Monday, June 26th. Inflow is steadily
dropping, and it is below 3,000. Once we get comfortable with water demands, the
outflow will probably drop another 200-300 cfs. The lake level on Monday was
around 385,000.
The river channel operations through town will change, in that there will be less
water in the channel, but it is not going dry. As we back out with Kern River water,
the KCWA will go in with state water. The channel will eventually look similar to
last year, not quite bank to bank. We are pleased that the Corps has adopted a
more moderate view of the situation.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 30, 2006
Page 2
5. The quarterly sales tax numbers are in, and there is good news and some not as
good. The "not as good" is that the growth rates are tapering off. While it is still up
10.41% over the same quarter last year, that is way off the 20+% that we
experienced for a time. The good news is that, in preparing for the budget, we
anticipated that this would happen. We termed it as not budgeting to a revenue
"spike". Therefore, our budget status is just fine.
6. The Fire Department issued the enclosed press release today to announce the
establishment of a temporary Hotline (868-6070) to report the use of illegal
fireworks from July 1St through 4t"
7. We have hired a new Risk Manager, Ralph Korn. He will be starting on July 7t"
Mr. Korn comes to us from the County of Kern, where he had been employed as
their Risk Manager.
8. A response to a question posed by Councilmember Hanson at the June 5t"
department budget presentations regarding the cost of leasing vehicles versus the
interest earned by investing the capital funds is enclosed.
9. The "Anderson Initiative" has qualified for the November ballot. The attached
update from the California Redevelopment Association reports that the measure
not only impacts redevelopment activities, but would impose new restrictions and
costs on all state and local agencies' ability to enact and enforce land-use
planning, zoning, environmental, consumer and other laws and regulations. It is
important that we stay abreast of this issue as it moves forward. Also included with
the CRA report is a fact sheet and information on how you can properly stay
informed on this issue.
10. July is Recreation and Parks month. In recognizing the theme, staff has
prepared the enclosed special calendar of events. There are recreational activities
available every day of the month!
11. Our grant request to the state for an outdoor learning lab along the Kern River and
bike path, unfortunately, did not make it through the last round of consideration.
There were over 100 applications, and only 25 were funded. Staff gave it a good
effort; if we have a chance to apply again in the next cycle, we will try again.
12. Responses to Council requests are enclosed, as follows:
Councilmember Carson
• Time frame for repair of restrooms at MLK Park;
• Graffiti abatement at MLK Park in the area of the spray playground;
Honorable Mayor and City Council
June 30, 2006
Page 3
Councilmember Benham
• Status on preparation of report regarding the feasibility of changing the City
logo and cost analysis related to relocating or construction a new north entry
monument sign;
Vice-Mayor Maggard
• Update to citizen regarding the catch basins around the lake in the Riverlakes
community,
Councilmember Couch
• Request to CalTrans requesting their assistance in getting Pacific Bell to
expedite raising the manholes along Rosedale Highway to pavement level;
• Status on the County's Verdugo (Brimhall and Shellabarger) and Knuckle
project;
• Report on road access to properties on Snow Road;
Councilmember Hanson
• Citizen concerns regarding drainage on Montalvo Drive at Dos Rios Way;
• Citizen concerns regarding possible traffic issues at Brimhall, Harvest Creek
and Coffee Road.
Councilmember Scrivner
• Feasibility of installing a traffic signal at Panama and Dennen.
AT:rs
cc: Department Heads
Pamela McCarthy, City Clerk
a
336 Pacific Avenue Shafter,California 93263
June 22,2006
Honorable Harvey L. Hall
Mayor,City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield,California 93301
Dear Mayor Hall:
Thank you for your letter dated June 14,2006 suggesting the Bakersfield Water Board meet with a
group from Shafter to discuss water related matters in the area north of Seventh Standard Road. I
appreciate your desire to provide a positive,non-litigious resolution to our differences as we desire
the same.
I know you are aware that the provision of water in the area north of Seventh Standard Road involves
both the North Kern Water Storage District and Oildale Mutual Water Company in addition to the
City of Shafter. Shafter City Manager John Guinn has been working with these two entities as well
as developers in this area and others to explore options. We do not feel we can reach any agreements
as they might pertain to the 1952 agreement without the consideration of North Kern and,as Oildale
Mutual will be the purveyor in that area they must be willing to support any decision or agreements
reached. In short,this is not just a matter for the City of Shafter to consider.
Mr. Guinn contacted Mr. Tandy on June 22"' and suggested that the staffs of Bakersfield, Shafter,
North Kern Water Storage District and Oildale Mutual Water Company first meet to explore options
before meeting with Council members. I attempted to contact you last Friday and I was told you
were out until yesterday. Unfortunately,we were unable to discuss this matter until today.
I am very disappointed that you are unwilling to support allowing our respective staffs to meet on
this matter prior to council committee meetings. Unfortunately,we are unable to meet on any of the
days suggested in your June 14"' letter due to conflicts. I have asked Mr. Guimi to find three or four
new dates in July to offer as alternatives. We will e-mail you those dates sometime next week. I
continue to believe options are available which are good for all parties and I look forward to
exploring those options.
Respec ully yours,
Fran Floret
Mayor
cc: Shafter City Council
John Guinn, City Manager
Alan Tandy, City Manager
City manager;(661)746-6365!Fax(661)746.0607 -Finance;(661)746.6361 1 fax(661)746.1007
Planning/Building/Engineering:(661)746-20651 Fax(661)746-9125 ,www.shafter.com
B A 1 {E�s.�
d
MEMORANDUM
c`�LIF OR��A
TO: John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager
FROM. Nelson K. Smith, Finance Director ��
DATE: June 21, 2006
SUBJECT: Response to Budget Question # 18 — Cost of Leasing vs. Investing
Councilmember Hanson requested an analysis looking at the difference between the cost
of leasing vehicles and the interest earned if the capital funds were invested, to see if
money could be saved.
Response: We have selected two example scenarios in attempting to answer the above
question. The first example is the leasing of police sedans and the second example is
the leasing of one-half ton pickup trucks. The attachment compares the estimated cost of
leasing each type of vehicle to the estimated investment returns if the cash price were
invested at current rates. The end result of the comparison is that the City would not
save any money by leasing vehicles rather than purchasing them.
In talking with various municipal leasing company representatives, their general
consensus was that cities choose to lease only when their need for equipment outweighs
their available cash flow. A possible exception to that general practice may apply to
technological equipment such as computers or file servers, where technological
advances dictate that equipment must be replaced every two or three years simply to
keep up with other hardware or software changes. However, even with high tech
equipment, there is still a cost associated with the financing, and negotiating a cash price
for computer equipment is likely to be less expensive, especially with bulk purchases.
Municipal lease agreements are generally structured as lease-purchase agreements.
They are made up of a series of one year agreements and include a "non-appropriation"
clause in case the municipality cannot budget for the lease payments in a future year.
There are potentially several issues associated with a municipal lease that make the
lease option less attractive than a straight purchase. These issues include additional
insurance requirements and limitations on the City's ability to alter the vehicles to suit our
specific needs.
Additionally, in order to obtain preferred tax exempt interest rates on the lease (such as
this example), the City may have to covenant that we would not issue any tax exempt
bonds exceeding a certain amount during the term of the lease, so as not to trigger any
type of arbitrage liability issues with the tax exempt lease financing.
Attachments
File name: nks:/p:/memo-budget question lease vs buy 2006a.doc
Cost of Leasing vs. Interest earned if funds invested
Investing Cost of Purchase over the period of Lease to estimate any net savings/( cost) of financing
Cost of Purchase ; 30 patrol cars @$20,000 ea = $600,000
Interest Rate (LAIF on May 31, 2006) = 4.563%
Term of Investment= term of lease = 36 months
Monthly cash needs for lease payment= $ 18,020.11
Beginning Interest Less Lease Ending
Month Balance Earned Payment Balance
1 600,000.00 2,281.50 (18,020.11) 584,261.39
2 584,261.39 2,221.65 (18,020.11) 568,462.93
3 568,462.93 2,161.58 (18,020.11) 552,604.40
4 552,604.40 2,101.28 (18,020.11) 536,685.57
5 536,685.57 2,040.75 (18,020.11) 520,706.21
6 520,706.21 1,979.99 (18,020.11) 504,666.08
7 504,666.08 1,918.99 (18,020.11) 488,564.97
8 488,564.97 1,857.77 (18,020.11) 472,402.63
9 472,402.63 1,796.31 (18,020.11) 456,178.83
10 456,178.83 1,734.62 (18,020.11) 439,893.34
11 439,893.34 1,672.69 (18,020.11) 423,545.92
12 423,545.92 1,610.53 (18,020.11) 407,136.34
13 407,136.34 1,548.14 (18,020.11) 390,664.37
14 390,664.37 1,485.50 (18,020.11) 374,129.76
15 374,129.76 1,422.63 (18,020.11) 357,532.28
16 357,532.28 1,359.52 (18,020.11) 340,871.69
17 340,871.69 1,296.16 (18,020.11) 324,147.74
18 324,147.74 1,232.57 (18,020.11) 307,360.20
19 307,360.20 1,168.74 (18,020.11) 290,508.83
20 290,508.83 1,104.66 (18,020.11) 273,593.38
21 273,593.38 1,040.34 (18,020.11) 256,613.61
22 256,613.61 975.77 (18,020.11) 239,569.27
23 239,569.27 910.96 (18,020.11) 222,460.12
24 222,460.12 845.90 (18,020.11) 205,285.92
25 205,285.92 780.60 (18,020.11) 188,046.41
26 188,046.41 715.05 (18,020.11) 170,741.35
27 170,741.35 649.24 (18,020.11) 153,370.48
28 153,370.48 583.19 (18,020.11) 135,933.56
29 135,933.56 516.89 (18,020.11) 118,430.34
30 118,430.34 450.33 (18,020.11) 100,860.56
31 100,860.56 383.52 (18,020.11) 83,223.97
32 83,223.97 316.46 (18,020.11) 65,520.32
33 65,520.32 249.14 (18,020.11) 47,749.35
34 47,749.35 181.57 (18,020.11) 29,910.81
35 29,910.81 113.74 (18,020.11) 12,004.43
36 12,004.43 45.65 (18,020.11) (5,970.03)
PAMisc Analysis\lease vs purchase june 2006.xispolice car 6/21/20064:10 PM
Cost of Leasing vs. Interest earned if funds invested
Investing Cost of Purchase over the period of Lease to estimate any net savings/(cost)of financing
Cost of Purchase ; 10 pickup trucks (1/2 ton) @$15,000 ea = $150,000
Interest Rate (LAIF on May 31, 2006) _
4.563%
Term of Investment= term of lease -
- 36 months
Monthly cash needs for lease payment= $4,516.06
Beginning Interest Less Lease Ending
Month Balance Earned Payment Balance
1 150,000.00 570.38 (4,516.06) 146,054.32
2 146,054.32 555.37 (4,516.06) 142,093.63
3 142,093.63 540.31 (4,516.06) 138,117.88
4 138,117.88 525.19 (4,516.06) 134,127.01
5 134,127.01 510.02 (4,516.06) 130,120.97
6 130,120.97 494.78 (4,516.06) 126,099.69
7 126,099.69 479.49 (4,516.06) 122,063.13
8 122,063.13 464.15 (4,516.06) 118,011.21
9 118,011.21 448.74 (4,516.06) 113,943.89
10 113,943.89 433.27 (4,516.06) 109,861.10
11 109,861.10 417.75 (4,516.06) 105,762.79
12 105,762.79 402.16
13 101,648.89 (4,516.06) 101,648.89
14 386.52 (4,516.06) 97,519.35
97,519.35 370.82 (4,516.06) 93,374.11
15 93,374.11 355.06 (4,516.06) 89,213.10
16 89,213.10 339.23 (4,516.06) 85,036.28
17 85,036.28 323.35 (4,516.06) 80,843.57
18 80,843.57 307.41 (4,516.06) 76,634.92
19 76,634.92 291.40 (4,516.06) 72,410.26
20 72,410.26 275.34 (4,516.06) 68,169.54
21 68,169.54 259.21
22 63,912.69 (4,516.06) 63,912.69
243.03 (4,516.06) 59,639.66
23 59,639.66 226.78
24 55,350.38 (4,516.06) 55,350.38
25 210.47 (4,516.06) 51,044.79
51,044.79 194.10 (4,516.06) 46,722.83
26 46,722.83 177.66 (4,516.06) 42,384.43
27 42,384.43
28 161.17 (4,516.06) 38,029.54
38,029.54 144.61 (4,516.06) 33,658.09
29 33,658.09 127.98 (4,516.06) 29,270.01
30 29,270.01 111.30
31 24,865.25 (4,516.06) 24,865.25
32 94.55 (4,516.06) 20,443.74
20,443.74 77.74 (4,516.06) 16,005.42
33 16,005.42 60.86
34 11,550.22 (4,516.06) 11,550.22
43.92 (4,516.06) 7,078.08
35 7,078.08 26.91 (4,516.06) 2,588.93
36 2,588.93
9.84 (4,516-06) (1,917.28)
PAMisc Analysis\lease vs purchase june 2006.xlspickup truck 6/21/20064:15 PM
0
Ford Motor Credit Company The American Road
P.O.Box 1739
Dearborn,Michigan 48121-1739
June 21,2006
Nelson Smith
City of Bakersfield,CA
Re:Ford Municipal Finance Program-Quotation for City of Bakersfield,CA Bid Number:47344
Dear Mr.Smith:
Thank you for your request for quote. Please review the following finance quote for City of Bakersfield. Rates and payment factors
are applicable for total amounts funded from$300,000-$1 Mil.
The quote is eood until 09/30/2006 Vehicle delivery must take place and all required documentation and V pavment (if
required) must be received by this date. After 09/30/2006,rates and pavments are subiect to chanee.
This finance proposal applies to:
uantity Description Price
30 2007 Ford Cr.Vic.Police w/Tax&Tire Fee Est.$600,000.00
A Documentation Fee of $350 is required per transaction--not Reer unit--that can be paid at delivery or funded over the term
(included below).
(Range) Number of Payment Payment
Total Amount Funded Payments Payment Timing A.P.R. Factor Amount
Est. $600,350.00 36 MON in Adv 5.4% 0.030016 $18,020.11
• Pavments are calculated by multiylvine total amount financed times the payment factor.
The Ford Municipal lease-purchase finance plan requires no security deposit,has no prepayment penalty,no mileage penalty,or hidden
fees. At inception, the new equipment title/registration indicates the municipality as Registered Owner, and designates Ford Motor
Credit Company,P.O.Box 1739, Dearborn,MI 48121-1739,as First Lienholder. At term end the municipality buys the equipment for
Please note: Ford Credit's financing is subject to: 1) completed Municipal Finance Application;2)review and approval of the
Municipality's most recent audited financial statement;and 3)mutually acceptable documentation.
If you need additional information,please contact me at 1-800-241-4199,and press 1. Thank you for your interest in Ford municipal
financing.
Sincerely,
Barbara Lyons
Marketing Coordinator
Attachment
Schedule SAMPLE
Lease
Lease Lease Payment Schedule Number: SAMPLE
Payment Payment Lease Interest
Number Principal Concluding
Date Payment Portion Portion Payment
1 6 / 0 / 2006 18,020.11
0.00 18,020.11 582,329.89
2 7 / 0 / 2006 18,020.11 2, 620.48 15,399.63 566, 930.26
3 8 / 0 / 2006 18,020.11 2,551.19 15,468.92 551,461.34
4 9 / 0 / 2006 18,020.11 2,481.58 15,538.53 535,922.81
5 10 / 0 / 2006 18,020.11 2,411.65 15, 608.46 520,314.35
6 11 / 0 / 2006 18,020.11 2,341.41 15, 678.70 504, 635.65
7 12 / 0 / 2006 18,020.11 2,270.86 15,749.25 488,886.40
8 1 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 2,199.99 15,820.12 473,066.28
9 2 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 2,128.80 15,891.31 457,174.97
10 3 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 2,057.29 15, 962.82 441,212.15
11 4 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1, 985.45 16,034.66 425,177.49
12 5 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1, 913.30 16, 106.81 409,070.68
13 6 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1,840.82 16, 179.29 392,891.39
14 7 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1,768.01 16,252.10 376, 639.29
15 8 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1, 694.88 16,325.23 360,314.06
16 9 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1, 621.41 16,398.70 343, 915.36
17 10 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1,547.62 16,472.49 327,442.87
18 11 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1,473.49 16,546.62 310,896.25
19 12 / 0 / 2007 18,020.11 1,399.03 16,621.08 294,275.17
20 1 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 1,324.24 16,695.87 277,579.30
21 2 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 1,249.11 16,771.00 260,808.30
22 3 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 1,173.64 16,846.47 243, 961.83
23 4 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 1,097.83 16, 922.28 227,039.55
24 5 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 1,021.68 16,998.43 210,041.12
25 6 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 945.19 17,074.92 192, 966.20
26 7 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 868.35 17,151.76 175,814.44
27 8 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 791.16 17,228.95 158,585.49
28 9 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 713.63 17,306.48 141,279.01
29 10 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 635.76 17,384.35 123,894.66
30 11 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 557.53 17,462.58 106,432.08
31 12 / 0 / 2008 18,020.11 478.94 17,541.17 88,890.91
32 1 / 0 / 2009 18,020.11 400.01 17, 620.10 71,270.81
33 2 / 0 / 2009 18,020.11 320.72 17, 699.39 53,571.42
34 3 / 0 / 2009 18,020.11 241.07 17,779.04 35,792.38
35 4 / 0 / 2009 18,020.11 161.07 17,859.04 17,933.34
36 5 / 0 / 2009 18,014.04 80.70 17,933.34 1.00
TOTALS 648,717.89 48,367.89 600,350.00
MUi
Ford Motor Credit Company The American Road
P.O.Box 1739
Dearborn,Michigan 48121-1739
June 21,2006
Nelson Smith
City of Bakersfield,CA
Re:Ford Municipal Finance Program-Quotation for City of Bakersfield,CA Bid Number:47344
Dear Mr.Smith:
Thank you for your request for quote. Please review the following finance quote for City of Bakersfield. Rates and payment factors
are applicable for total amounts funded from$150,000-$299,999.
The quote is rood until 09/30/2006 Vehicle delivery must take place and all required documentation and 1` payment (if
required) must be received by this date After 09/30/2006 rates and pavments are subiect to chance.
This finance proposal applies to:
Ouantity Description Price
10 2007 Ford F150 Pickup w/Tax&Tire Fee Est.$150,000.00
A Documentation Fee of $350 is required per transaction--not per unit--that can be paid at delivery or funded over the term
(included below).
(Range) Number of Payment Payment
Total Amount Funded Payments Pavment Timing A.P.R. Factor Amount
Est.$150,350.00 36 MON in Adv 5.45% 0.030037 $4,516.06
• Payments are calculated by multiplvin2 total amount financed times the payment factor.
The Ford Municipal lease-purchase finance plan requires no security deposit, has no prepayment penalty,no mileage penalty,or hidden
fees. At inception, the new equipment title/registration indicates the municipality as Registered Owner, and designates Ford Motor
Credit Company,P.O. Box 1739,Dearborn,MI 48121-1739,as First Lienholder. At term end, the municipality buys the equipment for
Please note: Ford Credit's financing is subject to: 1)completed Municipal Finance Application;2)review and approval of the
Municipality's most recent audited fmancial statement;and 3)mutually acceptable documentation.
If you need additional information,please contact me at 1-800-241-4199,and press 1. Thank you for your interest in Ford municipal
financing.
Sincerely,
ax�rixrc*n6
Barbara Lyons
Attachment Marketing Coordinator
Schedule SAMPLE
Lease
Lease Lease Payment Schedule Number: SAMPLE
Payment Payment Lease Interest
Number Principal Concluding
Date Payment Portion
1 Portion Payment
6 / 0 / 2006 4,516.06 0.00 4,516.06 145, 833.94
2 7 / 0 / 2006 4, 516.06 662.33 3, 853.73 141, 980.21
3 8 / 0 / 2006 4,516.06 644.83
4 3, 871.23 138, 108.98
9 / 0 / 2006 4,516.06 627.24
5 3, 888.82 134,220.16
10 / 0 / 2006 4, 516.06 609.58 3, 906.48 130,313.68
6 11 / 0 / 2006 4,516.06 591.84 3, 924.22 126,389.46
7 12 / 0 / 2006 4, 516.06 574.02 3, 942.04 122, 447.42
8 1 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 556.12
9 3, 959.94 118,487.48
2 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 538.13
10 3 / 0 3, 977.93 114, 509.55
/ 2007 4,516.06 520.06 3, 996.00 110,513.55
11 4 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 501.92 4,014.14 106,499.41
12 5 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 483.68 4, 032.38 102,467.03
13 6 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 465.37
14 4, 050.69 98,416.34
7 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 446.97
15 4, 069.09 94,347.25
8 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 428.49
16 4,087.57 90,259.68
9 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 409.93 4, 106.13 86, 153.55
17 10 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 391.28 4, 124.78 82, 028.77
18 11 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 372.55
19 4, 143.51 77, 885.26
12 / 0 / 2007 4,516.06 353.73 4, 162.33 73, 722.93
20 1 / 0 / 2008 4, 516.06 334.82 4,181.24 69, 541.69
21 2 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 315.84 4,200.22 65, 341.47
22 3 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 296.76 4,219.30 61, 122.17
23 4 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 277.60 4,238.46 56, 883.71
24 5 / 0 / 2008 4, 516.06 258.35
25 6 / 0 4,257.71 52, 626.00
/ 2008 4,516.06 239.01 4,277.05 48,348.95
26 7 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 219.58 4,296.48 44,052.47
27 8 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 200.07 4,315.99 39, 736.48
28 9 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 180.47 4,335.59 35, 400.89
29 10 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 160.78 4,355.28 31,045.61
30 11 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 141.00
31 4,375.06 26, 670.55
12 / 0 / 2008 4,516.06 121.13 4,394.93 22,275.62
32 1 / 0 / 2009 4,516.06 101.17 4,414.89 17, 860.73
33 2 / 0 / 2009 4, 516.06
81.12 4,434.94 13,425.79
34 3 / 0 / 2009 4,516.06
60.98 4,455.08 8, 970.71
35 4 / 0 2009 4,516.06
40.74 4,475.32 4,495.39
36 5 / 0 ! 2009 4,515.81 20.42
4,495.39 1.00
TOTALS 162,577.91 12,227.91 150,350.00
SAMPLE DOCUMENTS ONLY- CALIFORNIA
SCHEDULE «LeaseNo» - MASTER EQUIPMENT LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Lease No. «SchedNo»00
AMENDMENT
That certain Master Equipment Lease-Purchase Agreement, Lease No. «SchedNo»00, by
and between Ford Motor Credit Company ("Lessor") and «Municipality» ("Lessee"), dated as of
<<Month» «ContrDay», «ContrYr» (the "Lease") is hereby amended as follows:
Lessee has not issued, and reasonably anticipates that it and its subordinate
entities will not issue, tax-exempt obligations (including this Lease) in the
amount of more than $10,000,000 during the current calendar year; hereby
designates this Lease as a "qualified tax-exempt obligation"within the
meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, ("Code"); and agrees that it and its subordinate entities will not
designate more than $10,000,000 of their obligations as "qualified tax-
exempt obligations"during the current calendar year.
Except as amended hereby, the Lease shall otherwise remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the
ContrDay»«DaySuffix» day of«Month», «ContrYr».
LESSEE: «Municipality» LESSOR: Ford Motor Credit Company
«LesDept>>
By:
«LesFirstName» «LesLastName» By.
Title: «LesTitleD Frank Mastrella
Title: Operations Manager, Municipal Finance
January 2001-Cafynia Previous eWons may NOT be used
Page 1 of
Rhonda Smiley - Fwd: Executive Director's Legislative Update
From: Alan Tandy
To: Rhonda Smiley
Date: 6/27/2006 2:44 PM
Subject: Fwd: Executive Director's Legislative Update
>>> "California Redevelopment Association" <jfreitas @calredevelop.org> 6/27/06 2:25 PM >>>
California Redevelopment Association
Executive Director's Legislative Update
FROM: John F. Shirey, Executive Director
6/26/07
ANDERSON TO BE ON NOVEMBER 2006 BALLOT
Today the Secretary of State announced that the "Anderson Initiative" has qualified
for the November 2006 ballot. As previously reported, this initiative not only impacts
redevelopment activities, but would impose new restrictions and costs on all state
and local agencies' ability to enact and enforce land-use planning, zoning,
environmental, consumer and other laws and regulations. In its official analysis, the
State Attorney General has said that the measure would also likely impact a wide
variety of property acquisitions and public works projects including schools, roads and
highways, dams, levees, and affordable housing. The Legislative Analyst's Office
says these costs are "unknown, but potentially significant".
CRA and the League of California Cities are part of a committee formed to oppose the
measure, the Coalition to Protect California. CPC is building a coalition of
stakeholders to oppose this measure.
If you would like to stay informed and get involved in these efforts, please provide us
with a private email address. As you know, it is unlawful to use public resources for
campaign purposes. To the extent you would like to be involved, please do so on
private time, and send us your personal email address.
In the meantime, CRA members can find a fact sheet on the Anderson Initiative on
the CRA website, www.calredevelop.ora. A list of campaign "dos and don'ts" for
public officials is also posted on the CRA website.
If you have questions, please contact Lillian Henegar at (916) 448-8760 or
Ihenegar @calredevelop.org.
Page 2 of
To receive the legislative updates please contact Lillian Henegar at
Ihenegarcalredev_elop_org or (916) 448-8760
We apologize if you have received this email by mistake,
click=here and we will take you off our list
Address : 1400 K Street Suite 204 City: Sacramento St: California Zip: 96814-3916
Powered by Benchmarkemail
REPORT ABUSE
fiJe:J/C:1Doeuments and SettingsVsmileylLocal SettingslTemplGW}00001.HTM 6/27/2001
The Anderson Initiative
Official ballot title: GovernmentAcquisition,Regulation ofPrivate
Property. Initiative Constitutiona]Amendment.
Petitions were filed on May 15 with county elections offices to qualify a constitutional
amendment for the November 2006 or June 2008 ballot. This measure, dubbed "the
Anderson Initiative" after its sponsor,Anita S. Anderson, deals with the use of eminent
domain and regulatory takings. The counties and the Secretary of State are in the process
of verifying the signatures on the petitions to determine if enough valid signatures (598,105)
have been submitted. Because the petitions were submitted relatively late, this initiative
may qualify for the November 2006 ballot or it may be held until the June 2008 election.
Initiative Facts at a Glance
• Constitutional amendment would apply to all public agencies and utilities, and all state
and local government property acquisitions.
• Would likely impact a wide variety of public projects including schools, roads and
highways, dams, levees, and affordable housing.
• Would limit government's ability to adopt certain land use, housing, consumer,
environmental and workplace laws and regulations, except when necessary to preserve
public health or safety.
• The State's Legislative Analyst says the measure would have the following fiscal
impacts:
• Unknown, but potentially significant future costs for state and local governments to
pay damages and/or modify regulatory or other policies to conform to the measure's
provisions
• Unknown, but potentially significant changes in governmental costs to acquire
property for public purposes.
• If passed by voters, it could only be changed by another initiative.
Initiative Provisions
• Prohibits use of eminent domain unless the property acquired is owned and occupied
by a governmental agency.
• Redefines "just compensation"—Redefines "just compensation" as the sum of money
necessary to place the property owner in the same position monetarily, as if the
property had never been taken. It is unclear what would be included to make the
property owner whole, but presumably things such as lost income, relocation costs, and
more. Redefines "fair market value" as the highest and best use the property would
bring on the open market.
■ Changes requirements for property valuation—If a property taken by the government
is to be put to use at a higher value after acquisition,the property owner must be paid
at the fair market value in accordance with the government's use. For example, if a city
uses eminent domain to acquire agricultural land for a municipal airport(from which
the city would receive revenues from commercial leases, for example),then the owner
must be paid fair market value in accordance with the city's use. The owners would be
paid this higher amount regardless of whether or not they could have achieved such a
use under the applicable zoning, and regardless of whether other laws would have
required them to dedicate a portion of the land.
Distributed by the California Redevelopment Association
/JLlnra 1
Initiative Provisions(continued)
• Redefines "damage"to include many types of regulatory takings—Redefines
"damage" to include government actions that result in economic loss to private
property, including many zoning practices such as down zoning or height
restrictions, environmental regulations, affordable housing covenants, etc. Requires
compensatory payment of these damages by implementing agency.
• Requires blight determinations on a parcel-by-parcel basis—Would require that
blight findings be made on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Current law requires that a
project area be declared blighted before eminent domain can be used, but it does
not require every parcel in the area to be blighted.
• Voids unpublished eminent domain court decisions—Would annul judgments in
every eminent domain action that does not result in a published appellate opinion.
Currently, most eminent domain decisions are not published because they are
settled in Superior Courts, which never publish decisions. Only appellate decisions
are published and even then they are not published in every case.
• Pending eminent domain proceedings immediately subject to provisions—
Provisions of this initiative would take effect the day following the election and
would apply to any eminent domain proceedings in which no final court judgment
has been obtained. It is unclear how the provisions relating to damages would apply
to regulations in effect at the time of enactment.
Distributed by the California Rede velopment Association
DO'S AND DON'TS
FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PUBLIC EMPLOYEES WHEN WORKING
ON INITIATIVE CAMPAIGNS
There are two simple, but very important rules California local public officials and employees
should follow when involved in campaign activities.
1. Don't use public funds or resources. All contributions to the campaign of your time
and resources must be made with non-public funds. That means no public facilities or
equipment (phones, computers, email accounts, vehicles, copy machines or any other
equipment) may be used to plan or promote campaign activities, including fundraising.
No public funds or resources may be used in support of your campaign activities.
2. Campaign on your own time. Keep good records. Track time and your use of
private equipment utilized in ballot measure activities, so you are able to document that
no public funds were used.
The Don'ts. Public officials and public employees may NOT:
• Distribute campaign literature through the government's internal mail system.
• Place campaign literature on employee bulletin boards, on the government's web page,
or elsewhere on government premises.
• Make public appearances speaking about the initiative/campaign during compensated
work hours.
• Make telephone calls about the campaign during compensated work hours.
• Walk precincts, draft campaign ads, or perform other campaign tasks during
compensated work hours, or assign subordinates to do same.
• Add a link from a government website to a campaign website.
• Send or receive campaign-related emails on government computers.
• Urge other employees to vote a certain way during compensated work hours.
• Use government copy machines, telephones, fax machines, computers, stationery, etc.
for campaign purposes.
The Do's. Public officials and public employees MAY:
• Work on the campaign during their personal time, including lunch hours, coffee breaks,
vacations, etc.
• Make a campaign contribution to the campaign committee using personal funds, and/or
attend a campaign fundraiser during personal time.
• Make public appearances for the campaign during personal time.
Paid for by Coalition to Protect California,a committee of taxpayers,environmentalists,business, local government
and public safety,League of California Cities(Non-Public Funds)and California State Association of Counties
(Non-Public Funds)
COD U)Oro —M
r. Y o cd
o
Cd „ 3 o a o as U as as ?� LL.
CM
N
cn
CZ V 0 S Y w a o y bq py - a>i
CL w � ¢ z ° z — � y z °' z
OZwa w w Uaw
w 5
o ca
x Y A N N
a 2 a
_ 19 °� a
to
U w
C d
G F: a > >� - A � 0 0.
w Q
i •O ` q.o y
to
L Opm �
■�cc
v a W N W A W G� ,� F w
A E.: U
y �x N
o •a ti U >
U -
N
4 � r
a°, too. A
¢ wE� `a `i' c ¢ 3A� 3 W � aa
�I/ • � N M
Cd to
° � x
I
JUN 2 8 2006
i
B A K E R S F I E L D
Department of Recreation and Parks
Date: June 27, 2006
To: Ala? Tandy, City Manager
From: i ne`V'b ver, Director of Recreation & Parks
Subject: Restroom Issues at MLK
Referral # 001542—Ward 1
Councilmember Carson requested staff address the restroom issues at MLK Park,
including Graffiti.
The Recreation and Parks Department will replace the missing partitions, sand blast and
paint the restrooms at Martin Luther King Park.
The cost of these repairs would be about $12,000.00 and will begin in late August or
early September.
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD !UN 2 9 2006
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: June 26, 2006
SUBJECT: RESTROOM ISSUES AT MLK
Referral No. 1542
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON REQUESTED STAFF ADDRESS THE RESTROOM
ISSUES AT MLK PARK, INCLUDING GRAFFITI.
General Service's Anti-Graffiti crews worked with the Parks Department crews and
removed graffiti from the restrooms at MLK Park on 6/27/06 and 6/28/06.
G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\06-21\Ref#1542 Restroom Issue.doc
.a�
JUN 2 9 2006
B A K E R S F I E L ID
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: June 26, 2006
SUBJECT: GRAFFITI AT MLK PARK
Referral No. 1541
COUNCILMEMBER CARSON REQUESTED STAFF ABATE GRAFFITI AT MLK PARK
IN THE AREA OF THE SPRAY PARK.
General Services staff cleared the graffiti from the MLK Park Wet Play Area on 6/27/06
and 6/28/06.
G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\06-21\Ref#1541 Graffiti.doc
JUN 2 9 2006
A 1K F R S F f F. 1: D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: June 29, 2006
SUBJECT: CHANGING CITY LOGO
Referral No. 1534
***DUAL REFERRAL TO COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE AND PUBLIC
WORKS***
COUNCILMEMBER BENHAM REQUESTED THE COMMITTEE REVIEW THE
FEASIBILITY OF CHANGING THE CITY'S LOGO TO BAKERSFIELD-LIFE AS IT
SHOULD BE.
PUBLIC WORKS IS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE TO THE COMMITTEE A COST
ANALYSIS OF MOVING THE EXISTING NORTH SIGN, VERSUS THE COST AND
RELATED ISSUES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SIGN AND PLEASE
INCLUDE COST AND HISTORY REGARDING THE CURRENT SIGNS.
Public Works staff is currently preparing an analysis of the costs to move and modifying
the existing north sign compared to cost of constructing of new north sign. We are also
estimating the costs to modify the existing south sign at its current location. A report on
that analysis, with the history and costs of the current signs, will be provided to
Community Services Committee at their next meeting.
G:\GROUPDAT1Referrals\2006\06-21\Ref#1534 Logo.doc
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD JUN 2 9 200"
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: June 28, 2006
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE BASINS AT RIVERLAKES
Referral No. 1544
COUNCILMEMBER MAGGARD REQUESTED STAFF CONTACT MR. STANTON AND
PROVIDE AN UPDATE REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CATCH BASINS AND A
VACUUMING PROCESS AROUND THE LAKE IN RIVERLAKES. ALSO, ANALYZE
THE FEASIBILITY OF THE CITY COORDINATING VACUUMING OF THE LAKE WITH
THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.
Public Works staff has met with Mr. Stanton who informed staff that the Riverlakes
Ranch Master Association requests that the City participate in the expense of periodic
cleaning of the filtering systems that are part of the privately owned and maintained
lake.
These filtering systems, constructed as part of this private lake in the early 1990's,
remove sediment and debris from the water that comes to the lake off of the streets
around the lake. The topography of the lake and the surrounding streets was
intentionally designed to capture that water to supplement the water supply to the lake;
that was the desire of the developer. Knowing that this water would have sediment and
debris in it, the lake designers included these filtering systems to help improve the water
quality in the lake. The Riverlakes Ranch Master Association was delegated the
responsibility of the on-going maintenance of these filtering systems via the developer's
creation of this homeowner's association.
The Riverlakes Ranch Master Association is now requesting that the City participate in
the expense of cleaning those filters. The Association claims that the City should
participate in that expense because the debris comes from the landscaping that is along
the public streets which then direct surface runoff into the lake. The Association
requests that the City either pays the Association $2,000 for each cleaning of each
filtering system, or has City crews, when they are cleaning the storm drain systems in
the public streets, also clean the filtering systems which are within the boundaries of this
private lake.
G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\06-21\Ref#1544 Drainage Basins.doc Page 1 of 2
June 28, 2006
Alan Tandy, City Manager
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE BASINS AT RIVERLAKES
Referral No. 1544
There are five filtering systems, which are cleaned once or twice a year. Under the first
option, the City's payment to the Association could be as much as $20,000 per year.
It is Public Works staff's recommendation that the City not take on either of the above
described responsibilities associated with these privately owned filtering systems and
lake. The developer of Riverlakes Ranch desired to capture the surface runoff from the
public streets to supplement the water supply for the lake. He knew that water quality
would be issue. So he appropriately included the filtering systems in the lake and
appropriately assigned the responsibility of maintaining those systems to the
homeowners association since they are the beneficiaries of this lake.
There are other homeowner association-born costs around town, some of which, we
can safely assume, would like the City to bear rather than themselves. Setting a new
precedent could be very costly.
G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\06-21\Ref#1544 Drainage Basins.doc
Page 2 of 2
JUN 2 9 2006
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: June 26, 2006
SUBJECT: MANHOLE COVERS ALONG ROSEDALE
Referral No. 1535
COUNCILMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE AND UPDATE
REGARDING THE STATUS OF PAC BELL RAISING THE MANHOLES TO
PAVEMENT LEVEL AND THE RE-PAVING ALONG ROSEDALE.
City staff responded by way of a letter to CalTrans (copy attached).
G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\06-21\Ref#1535 Manhole covers.doc
/0
B A K E R S F I E L D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1541 TRUXTUN AVENUE
June 28, 20106 BAKEUFWA.D.CALIFORNIA 93341
(661) 3263724
RAUL K RWAS DBU C rM*C[1'Y'E
Alan McCuen
Acting District Director
District 6
855 V Street, Second Floor(Tower Bldg)
Fresno, CA 93721-2716
Subject: Manhole covers along Rosedale Highway
Bakersfield, California (Council Referral No.1535)
Dear Mr. McCuen:
This letter is to inform you that the City of Bakersfield has been receiving
complaints from the public in regards to the Pac Bell manholes on Rosedale
Highway west of Coffee Road. At a recent Council meeting, Public Works staff
was requested to provide an update regarding the status of Pac Bell raising the
manholes to pavement level along Rosedale Highway.
When Rosedale Highway was resurfaced the second time around, the Pac Bell
manholes were not raised to the new pavement grade. We understand that Pac
Bell is going to raise the manholes as their schedule permits. However, we
would greatly appreciate your assistance in having Pac Bell expedite the project
of raising their manholes as a safety concern.
If you have any questions please call me at (661) 326-3596.
Sincerely,
RAUL M. ROJAS
Public Works Director
lap
c. David R. Couch. Councilmember-ward 4
Alan Tandy, City Manager
Luis Peralez, streets Maintenance Superintendent
G:tGROUPDATRReferralsi2006ti06-21\Ref#1535 Manhole Covers_Letter to Cattrans.doc
-.0000ell
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT _ ......_ _
MEMORANDUM RECE,�1
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
JUN 2s zoos
FROM: aul Rojas, Public Works Director
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
DATE: June 12, 2006
SUBJECT: UDPATE ON VERDUGO PROJECT
Referral No. 1530
P OUNCILMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED A STATUS UPDATE ON THE VERDUGO
ROJECT BRIMHALL TO SHELLABARGER AND KNUCKLE PROJECT.
The Verdugo Project has been awarded by the County. Construction will begin in July
and will be completed by mid August.
G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\06-19 Couch\Ref#1530 Verdugo Update.doc
JUN 2 9 200t
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: June 28, 2006
SUBJECT: ROAD ACCESS TO PROPERTIES ON SNOW RD
Referral No. 1529
COUNCILMEMBER COUCH REQUESTED STAFF PROVIDE CLARIFICATION AS TO
WHETHER THE CONDITIONS OF GPA/ZC ON PROPERTY NORTH OF SNOW ROAD, ON
EACH SIDE OF FUTURE OLD FARM ROAD, JUST NORTH OF "THE 20 ACRES",
PRECLUDE ACCESS TO A DIRT ROAD USED TO ACCESS NORTHERN ENDS OF
PROPERTIES ON SNOW ROAD.
John Balfanz has the property north of Snow on both sides of Old Farm. His engineer is
Porter Robertson. I believe that the roadway you are referring to is called "Jacquelin
Avenue". It is an unimproved roadway, and was dedicated as an access easement on
the Parcel Maps to the south (recorded in 1975 and 1976). The engineer has shown
their proposed layout and they are treating Jacquelin as an access easement, not a
street. They are not blocking access from Old Farm to the easement
G:\GROUPDAT\Referrals\2006\06-19 Couch\Ref#1529 Snow Road.doc
B A K E R S F I E L ID JUN 2 9 2006
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD -__._____ _-----
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director
DATE: June 26, 2006
SUBJECT: DRAINAGE ISSUE AT MONTALVO & DOS RIOS WAY
Referral No. 1540
F OUNCILMEMBER HANSON REQUESTED STAFF ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
DDRESSED BY MR. DEWEY REGARDING DRAINAGE ON MONTALVO DRIVE AT
OS RIOS WAY.
Prior to reconstructing Montalvo Drive, staff researched the possibility of constructing
catch basins at Montalvo Drive and Dos Rios Way. After the survey (Profile) was done
it was found that due to the underground utilities on Montalvo Drive a storm line could
not be installed. Streets Division staff decided to go ahead and reconstruct Montalvo
Drive, while there were still sufficient funds available.
Staff is still researching the possibility of installing the catch basins and running the
storm line on Dos Rios Way, then through the park and into the drainage sump.
Residential streets are swept once a month and due to the growth of the City even this
schedule is hard to keep. Parks Department staff will be asked if they could assist by
periodically removing the leaves and debris from the gutter adjacent to the park.
C:\DOCUME-1\Iskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\Ref#1540 Drainage Issue 1.doc
;;;r 0
JUN 2 9 2006
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: June 26, 2006
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC CONCERNS AT BRIMHALL & HARVEST CREEK
Referral No. 1539
F NCILMEMBER HANSON REQUESTED STAFF ADDRESS THE CONCERNS ED BY CAROLINE REID REGARDING TRAFFIC AT BRIMHALL, HARVEST K AND COFFEE.
The Traffic Engineer reviewed the roads and intersections addressed in Ms Reid's email
with the following responses.
The development private road does align with White Rock and no problems are
expected. The alignment of the private road may be presenting an optical illusion that it
is offset since the private road is narrower than the public road.
A request for a stop sign at the intersection of White Rock and Sand Creek is a
reasonable request that may help the neighborhood traffic. A traffic sign to stop traffic
on White Rock as it approaches the intersection with Sand Creek will be installed.
The upscale apartments that are being constructed do have access to Brimhall Road
via River Ranch Drive, which abuts the new apartment complex. No additional changes
are needed to avoid intermixing of the upscale apartments and adjacent neighbors.
The Traffic Engineer and his staff work closely with the all the school districts to
promote the safe routes to school. Staff will contact the neighborhood's school when it
reopens for the fall and offer to help them with their required safe route to school
program.
CADOCUME-1\Iskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\Ref#1539 Traffic Concerns.doc
JUN 2 9 2006
S 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: June 26, 2006
SUBJECT: POSSIBLE SIGNAL AT PANAMA AND DENNEN
Referral No. 1538
COUNCILMEMBER SCRIVNER REQUESTED STAFF ADDRESS THE CONCERNS
EXPRESSED BY MRS. DORSEY WITH REGARDS TO THE PLACEMENT OF A
SIGNAL LIGHT AT PANAMA AND DENNEN. ADDITIONALLY, PROVIDE THE
NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN THE AREA AND COPY THE COUNTY SUPERVISOR
FOR THAT AREA MRS. DORSEY'S LETTER AND OUR RESPONSE.
The Traffic Engineer reviewed the requests from Mrs. Dorsey in her letter to
Councilmember Scrivner. Identical letters were sent to Mayor Hall, Caltrans and the
Police Department. Comments from Caltrans and the Police Department were
considered. Per information from the City Manager's office, there are 25 trailer park lots
in the area that are in the City.
A traffic signal for Dennen Street is not recommended due to the close proximity of the
major freeway ramp. The south bound on/off ramp and traffic signal, operated by
CalTrans, are only about 270 feet east of the Dennen intersection. Another signal so
close to the Caltrans ramp traffic signal would degrade the operation and is not
recommended.
Dennen Street dead ends at the south property line of an industrial/commercial
developed property to the north. At the time the commercial property was developed
about 20 years ago, the Dennen residents did not want the street to go through to the
north. Extension of the street at this date does not seem possible.
Caltrans does not wish to sign the traffic signal at the ramp for "no right turn on red" at
this time as it may cause heavy back-up of traffic on the ramp during the peak hours.
The Traffic Engineer recommends that the median opening be closed to left turns out of
Dennen, with a restricted left turn lane for turns into Dennen. This would also close off
the left turn access and conflicts for the cemetery driveway on the south side of Panama
Lane.
C:\DOCUME-1\lskinner\LOCALS-1\Temp\Ref#1538 Possible Signal.doc