Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/09_CC_JOINTMTG_PACKETNOTICE OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING _ ;, OF THE ,` BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL ` AND THE KERN COUNTY `" " ` BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Bakersfield City Council and the Kern County Board of Supervisors will hold a Special Joint Meeting on Monday, March 23, 2009, at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. Estimated Start Time 5:30 p.m. 1. INVOCATION by Hayward Cox, Minister at Church of God 2. FLAG SALUTE by Sarah Varela, 5th Grade Student at Olive Knolls Christian School 3. ROLL CALL 4. OPENING REMARKS BY MAYOR HARVEY L. HALL 5. OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN JON MCQUISTON 5:45 p.m. 6. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 7. BUSINESS ITEMS 6:o0p.m. A. Summary Update on Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP) Projects (Joint Agenda Item) -Hear City Staff Presentation by Public Works Director Raul Rojas and County Roads Commissioner Craig Pope. 6:20 p.m. B. Response to Request for Status Report on Traffic Issues at the Intersection of Rosedale Highway and Calloway Drive (County Agenda Item) -Hear County Staff Presentation by Roads Commissioner Craig Pope. 6:40 p.m. C. Update on Metropolitan Transfer Station and Material Recovery Facility (MRF) (County Agenda Item) -Hear County Staff Presentation by Interim Waste Management Director Doug Landon. 7:00 p.m. D. Update on Metropolitan Bakersfield Traffic Impact Fee (Joint Agenda Item) -Hear County Staff Presentation by Roads Commissioner Craig Pope and Public Works Director Raul Rojas. 7:10 p.m. 8. CLOSING COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS ~:2o p.m. 9. CLOSING COMMENTS BY CHAIRMAN JON MCQUISTON 7:30 p.m. 1 O. CLOSING COMMENTS BY MAYOR HARVEY L. HALL 11. ADJOURNMENT Re ully submit a andy City Manager JOINT CITY/COUNTY AGENDA SECTION: Business MEETING DATE: March 23, 2009 ITEM: ~ A , TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and City Council Raul Rojas, Public Works Director March 3, 2009 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER Report on status of the Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP) (Joint Agenda Item) - Hear City Staff Presentation by Public Works Director Raul Rojas. PR VED DEPARTMENT HEAD RECOMMENDATION: Hear staff report. BACKGROUND: The Public Works Director will present a report on the Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP). G:\GROUPOATWDMINRP112009\03-23 Joint Clty-County\TRIP Admin.dx ROADS DEPARTMENT CRAIG M. POPE, P.E., Director 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 400 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2370 Phone: (661) 862-8850 FAX: (661) 862-8851 Toll Free: (800) 552-5376 Option 5 TTY Relay: (800) 735-2929 E-Mail: roads@co.kern.ca.us RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY DAVID PRICE III, RMA DIRECTOR Community 8< Economic Development Department Engineering 8~ Surveying Services Department Environmental Health Services Department Planning Department Roads Department JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 23, 2009 Traffic Issues at the Intersection of Calloway and Rosedale Hw~C By: Craig M. Pope, Roads Director The intersection of Calloway Drive and Rosedale Highway is located within the area of the Greenacres community. It falls under the control of Caltrans and we consider it a border intersection adjoining both the County and City of Bakersfield. Developments occurring in both jurisdictions generate traffic that utilizes this intersection. We do not track the accidents because it is under Caltrans jurisdiction, but we estimate it is one of our top five worst intersections for delay. The leg to the south_is substandard ~ncidth_and_______ needs to be widened. This would improve the traffic flow and lessen the delay that occurs there. In order to improve the southeast corner of the intersection, we would need a project that would impact a mini market (fuel pumps) and approximately 5 homes. The right of way cost alone, would be in the one to two million dollar range. Our recommendation is to include this work with the improvements on Rosedale Highway as part of the TRIP project which goes from this intersection to SR99. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file this report. I:\admin\Board Letten;12009\060_0323_Calloway ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT JOINT CITY /COUNTY AGENDA SECTION: Reports MEETING DATE: March 23, 2009 ITEM: '~ , C , TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director DATE: March 9, 2009 APPROVED DEPARTMENT HEAD CITY ATTORNE CITY MANAGE SUBJECT: Update on a Feasibility Study for Recycling Facilities (All Wards) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the report be received and filed. BACKGROUND: At the May 21, 2008 City Council Meeting, staff was directed to develop a scope of work and budget for a joint City/County consultant study of the cost and advisability of a material recovery facility (MRF) for recycling. It was intended to compare two differing approaches to expansion of the City's recycling program, which are: A. Collection of recyclables separately from refuse, and processing them at a "clean" MRF. B. Sorting of recyclables from raw refuse at a "dirty" MRF, without separate collection. Staff conducted a request for proposals (RFP) and tentatively selected the most qualified and lowest cost proposal in November 2008. However, on December 17, 2008 the City Council decided to forego the study and save the $119,050 consultant cost, based on the following information: 1. Since the May 2008 direction of City Council to perform the study, our national, state, and local economies have gone into crisis. Revenues at all levels are dropping. Global markets for recovered materials have suffered the sharpest decline on record. A full MRF would be tens of millions of dollars plus new annual service fees, making it unaffordable for the community. 2. During the course of obtaining proposals for the study, staff research found that most recycling programs use the "clean" MRF approach, because clean recyclables have greater economic value. Programs using the "dirty" MRF approach sort only part of the commercial refuse, and seldom recycle any of the raw residential refuse. Therefore, the study of a "dirty" MRF is not likely to address the issue of residential recycling. 3. Finally, part of the reason for contemplating a MRF was anticipation of new State law that might increase recycling mandates. While an increased mandate has not come out of the legislature, Senate Bill 1016 has just been enacted to emphasize more program-oriented recycling, which could include separate collection before establishment of a "dirty" MRF. It is first necessary to see how the State will enforce SB 1016 before seeking to develop an expensive MRF. The City is currently on track to comply with the State recycling mandate. kb G:\GROUPDATWDMINRPT\2009\03-23 Joint City-County\MRF Study 3-23-09.doc March 9, 2009, 3:40 PM ~~ J ~~_ ~'~ KERN COUNTS WASTE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Douglas E. Landon, Interim Director 2700 "M" Street, Suite 500 Bakersfield, CA 93301-2372 (661)862-8900 (800) Fax (661)862!8905 http://www.co.kern.ca. us/wmd/ JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS - BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL March 23, 2009 UPDATE ON METROPOLITAN TRANSFER STATION AND MRF By: Doug Landon, Kern County Waste Management Interim Director KERN COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE SYSTEM PLANNING An update was provided at the September 22, 2008 Joint Board/Council meeting explaining that the Waste Management Department was finalizing the scope of work for a Comprehensive Solid Waste System Analysis and that the City would pursue selection of a consultant to study Material Recovery Facility (MRF) options. It was intended that the MRF options study would be provided to the County for inclusion in the County's planning process. Since then, the County has proceeded with the Comprehensive System Analysis. The primary goal of the analysis is to reach a consensus on how much diversion to target in various County regions, how to get it and how to fund it. The Department and its consultant, HF&H Consultants, plan to give an update to the Solid Waste Management Advisory Committee on Friday, March 20, 2009. The update will address work accomplished so far including recycling program options and waste characterization data. We will recommend the formation of a Work Group that will consider alternative diversion programs and develop recommendations for each region of the County. The Work Group will include representatives from the haulers and cities in each region. We plan to have recommendations from the Work Group ready for the Advisory Committee in time for their July meeting and then to the Board of Supervisors some time after that. Since the September 2008 Joint meeting, the City has decided to forego the MRF Options Study due to the poor economy and other reasons that will be spelled out in a separate report provided by City staff regarding this agenda item. We appreciate the reasons given but this will leave an informational void in our planning process for the Central Region of the County. The Department proposes to continue with the Comprehensive Study and find a way to work around the missing information. I:\CLERICAL\BOARD\2009\09_Mar23_Joint Mtg DL-NLE_rsl.doc cc: County Administrative Office Winner of local, state and national awards for innovation and efficienry. JOINT CITY/COUNTY AGENDA SECTION: Business MEETING DATE: March 23, 2009 ITEM: ~! D TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Raul Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD P'~--- DATE: March 9, 2009 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Status of the Joint Adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Phase I r gram (Joint Agenda Item) -Hear City Staff Presentation by Public Works Director Raul R as. RECOMMENDATION: Hear staff report. BACKGROUND: In 2007, after a period of unprecedented growth, City and County staff were instructed to once again update the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee program to address a variety of issues such as increased unit costs, changes in growth patterns, and the need to help fund the required match for the Thomas Roads Improvement Program. The proposed General Plan update addresses growth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area through the year 2035, so this was chosen as the program's horizon year. City and County staff have performed a comprehensive study of the planned growth and have developed a transportation system to try to accommodate this growth and provide a funding mechanism for this transportation network. New facilities that are required to maintain a LOS "C", or not degrade the existing levels of service, have been added to the new Facilities List. Also included in the new Facilities List are the matching funds for transportation projects in the Thomas Roads Improvement Program (TRIP). This proposed fee includes the unfunded portion of the regionally sign cant projects made necessary by new development. There has been a significant amount of public input on this issue. Staff made a presentation of the Transportation Impact Fee update process to the City Council on February 27. Since this presentation, the Planning and Development Committee has met on this item 5 times, and there have been eight meetings with the "stakeholders" -the Home Builders Association, the Board of Realtors, the Chamber of Commerce, and various representatives of the commercial developers and others. A list of the meetings held to date and future scheduled meetings was provided in the General Information memo dated August 29, 2008. To adjust for the concerns expressed by the stakeholders, City staff recommended that the revised full fees be adopted but that, for one year after adoption, an "economic recovery fee" level be put in place with a fee level at 90% of the full amount. It is proposed for both residential and commercial schedules in both the Core and the Non-Core areas. It provides a full year with an incentive to stimulate the economy and bring projects to the building permit issuance stage. It would also be possible for the City Council to add ., n another recovery year if, 12 months after adoption, the economy has yet to recover. The full fee schedules will be implemented, and, absent additional Council action, will go into effect in one year. The Facilities List includes $2 billion in transportation projects. This list has been able to be reduced due to the $630 million earmark from former Congressman Thomas for the TRIP program. For single-family homes, the initial fee presented was $14,490, for both the City and County. The new full fee is now $13,595. The economic stimulus rate for the first year is $12,228. As before, the more built-out nature of the central portion of the City is accounted for by structuring the fee schedule with a Core and Non-Core area, with the Core area responsible for a lower fee. G:\GROUPDATVIDMINRPT12009\03-23 Joint City-County\RTIF IV Admin.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT On September 4, 2008, the City Council's Planning and Development Committee voted to approve the fee. The first reading of the ordinance took place at the September 17, 2008 City Council meeting. The ordinance, the new fee and the facilities list will become effective 60 days after adoption by both jurisdictions. The adoption of this fee will not affect any project, building or subdivision currently being reviewed by the City. The new Phase IV fee will only affect those projects, buildings and subdivisions that are started after the effective date of the fee. Just prior to the County Board of Supervisors hearing for the Phase IV fee in November, the County staff removed the hearing from the agenda in response to a letter from the HBA. Since then, County staff has been reviewing the facilities list costs further. They have made some changes to the facilities list and to the fee schedule. City staff has reviewed these modifications and though they do not result in a significant change to the fee schedule, the City Council will have to re-adopt the Facilities List and Fee Schedule so that both the City and the County are operating the same program. mps G:\GROUPDATIADMINRPT12009\03-23 Joint City-County\RTIF IV Admin.doc ROADS DEPARTMENT CRAIG M. POPE, P.E., Director 2700 "M" STREET, SUITE 400 BAKERSFIELD, CA 93301-2370 Phone: (661) 862-8850 FAX: (661) 862-8851 Toll Free: (800) 552-5376 Option 5 TTY Relay: (800) 735-2929 E-Mail: roads °~co.kem.ca.us RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGENCY DAVID PRICE III, RMA DIRECTOR Community & Economic Development Department Engineering 8 Surveying Services Department Environmental Health Services Department Planning Department Roads Department JOINT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS/BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 23, 2009 Metropolitan Bakersfield Traffic Impact Fee (Phase IV) Update By: Craig M. Pope, Roads Director Staff from Kern County, City of Bakersfield, Kern COG, along with the development community have been working to update the fee program. The major changes to the existing fee program are: The needed infrastructure plan will be based on population through the year 2035. This corresponds to the update of our general plan and is tied to the same assumptions as our general plan. This projects growth as it has historically occurred, growing outward from the core of the city. Developers will not be required to pay the full cost of widening SR 99 and SR 58 because additional capacity is required to accommodate future trips that do not stop in Metro Bakersfield. Additional funding will be necessary to make up this difference. All funding sources for transpo of the TRIP, Federal,) State) and ocaltfund'ing soudrees plans we have had to date. A have been identified and are included in the plan. The new program will be compliant with A63005. This new legislation just came into being this last January. The goal of this legislation is to encourage growth around transit hubs by discounting fees when development is close to these facilities. In our modeling and traffic projections we have added a new category for public facilities. We have assumed 10% of th aased on to newideve opmenptuThis scbecauseed (such as schools) and the cost Is not p is difficult to collect fees for many of these projects. We at the County are planning on going to our board March 31, 2009 to set a hearing date of April 28, 2009. RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file this report. I:\admin\Board Letters\2009\059_0323Metro