Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/86 MINUTES RAMINUTES BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Regular Meeting - June 4, 1986 The regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency was called to order by acting Chairman Childs on Wednesday, June 4, 1986 at 5:05pm in the City Hall Council Chambers. Acting Chairman Childs called upon Mr. Dave Kennon, Economic Development Director regarding a correction to the minutes of May 21, 1986. Dave Kennon, Economic Development Director replied by referring to amended copies of the minutes regarding the motion made by Agency Member Christensen indicating that there was an omission, which is reflected on the corrected copies of the minutes. Agency Member Dickerson made a motion that an executive session be held to discuss personnel matters relative to the minutes. The motion was approved unanimously. The Agency went into executive session at 5:05pm. The Redevelopment Agency was again called to order at 5:50pm. City Attorney Richard Oberholzer reminded Acting Chairman Childs that upon returning from a meeting in which personnel matters are discussed, the Agency must report any action that was taken. Acting Chairman Childs replied that there was no action taken, except that a request of the City Manager was made to give the Agency clarification on the descrepency in the minutes. Agency Member Dickerson indicated that there was no official action taken in the sense of motions passed. Acting Chairman Childs indicated that staff was directed to give the Agency a report. He also asked that the records reflect that the roll was not called prior to the Agency going into executive session. -1- The secretary called the roll as MEMBERS PRESENT: James H. Childs Chris Christensen Mark Dickerson Rollie Moore Mark Salvaggio Pat Smith follows: MEMBER ABSENT: Donald Ratty Agency Member Moore asked that the records show that he will be abstaining from voting on the approval of the minutes as he was absent from the meeting of May 21, 1986 when the minutes were taken. Agency Member Dickerson made a motion that the acceptance of the min- utes be postponed until a report from the City Manager has been received by the Agency. City Attorney Richard Oberholzer indicated to the Agency that he did not hear any direction from the Agency as to what the minutes have to reflect or what changes have to be made to the minutes. Acting Chairman Childs replied that the motion was to delay action on the minutes until the report from the City Manager is turned into the Agency regarding the original descrepencies. City Attorney Oberholzer indicated that if action is taken in a closed door session that deals with a matter to be discussed in open session, the Agency must announce what the action is that is supposed to be done. If the minutes are supposed to be corrected, that is not a matter for closed session, that is a matter for open session. The correction ko the minutes has to be noted, if that is the direction to be given. The closed session can be used for personnel matters to discuss personnel performance, but it can't be used for the purpose of correcting minutes to a meeting, which has to be done in the public session, so the direction will have to come in a public session what those minutes are going to reflect. Acting Chairman Childs replied that the executive session was called for the purpose of directing the City Manager. -2- Agency Member Dickerson made a motion to direct the City Manager to bring back a report to the Agency regarding the May 21, 1986 min- utes and how they were developed prior to the Agency approving the May 21st minutes. This motion is being made at this time to be sure that staff is on notice that the Agency wants a report back prior to accepting the minutes. This motion was approved unanimously. Agency Member Moore and Agency Member Smith both abstained from voting on this motion due to the fact that they were not in attendance at the May 21, 1986 meeting. NEW BUSINESS 1. Archiplan Urban Design Collaboration Contract . !~ Specific Plan for 19th Street Dave Kennon, Economic Development Director, reminded the Agency that several meetings back a presentation was made on the selection process to hire Archiplan to do the 19th Street Specific Plan and that was approved by the Agency. This action approves the agreement to begin work on that project. Agency Member Salvaggio made a motion to approve the contract with Archiplan to develop the 19th Street Specific Plan. This motion was approved by a unanimous vote. 2. Appointment of Independent Accounting Firm for 1985 Financial Audit. Deputy City Manager Mary Strenn made a brief report reminding the Agency that this item had previously been approved by the Council and this is the Agency action to follow. Agency Member Christensen made a motion to appoint Price Waterhouse for 1985-86 financial audit. This motion was approved unanimously. 3. Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency Fixing the Dates of Meetings ~, of the Agency during the Months of July through December 1986. ? Agency Member Moore made a motion to approve the dates of the Redevelopment Agency Meetings. -3- Agency Member Smith indicated that she has a problem with the July 9th date on the calendar proposed, as she will not be in town. Agency Member Salvaggio asked staff how the Agency can approve this resolution when the Council decided at the last meeting to meet every week and the Redevelopment Agency to meet every other week. He asked if this will conflict with that direction. City Attorney Oberholzer indicated that the Redevelopment Agency must adopt its own resolution setting Agency meetings. The City Council will not set those dates for the Redevelopment Agency. Agency Member Moore indicated that on both ordinances that come before the Agency and the Council, the 9th of July appears on both resolutions. He asked if the Redevelopment Agency and the Council would like to change the meeting scheduled for July 9th. City Manager George Caravalho indicated that in light of the upcoming Agenda for the Council where a citizen's agency is being looked at, a report from a committee will also be reviewed in terms of the functioning of the Council, which makes one recommendation, and also the Council will also be looking at a resolution for weekly meet- ings, perhaps this item should be deferred and deal with those issues first and then return to this item. Agency Member Dickerson asked the City Manager if he was recom- mending that this item be deferred until the next scheduled meeting and consider this issue after a decision has been made in front of the Council on what position is being taken. City Manager George Caravalho replied that is a possibility, the recommendation that the citizen agency meet at 2:00 p.m. and if it is decided to do this, it will have a bearing on the schedule. This decision can be made tonight or perhaps at the next meeting. Agency Member Dickerson made a motion that this item be deferred and instead of adjourning tonight, that this meeting be recessed to take this matter up in front of the Council and this evening after conducting City Council business that the Agency meeting be reconvened and by that time a decision will be made. Acting Chairman Childs asked Deputy City Manager Strenn if there was any urgency to this item on the agenda. -4- Deputy City Manager replied that there is no urgency to making a decision tonight. Acting Chairman Childs indicated that if there is no urgency in making a decision, he prefers not to continue this meeting for this purpose. Agency Member Dickerson withdrew his motion. Agency Member Salvaggio made a motion that the "Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency Fixing the Dates of Meetings of the Agency during the Months of July through December" be deferred until the next meeting of the Redevelopment Agency. This motion was approved by unanimous vote. REPORTS 1. Kern County Administrative Facility City Manager George Caravalho made reference to a report dated May 29, 1986 recommending that we proceed with this project. He indicated that in the last few days, staff has worked on this proposal and City and County staff have come to an agreement that we can proceed with the project on the recommended site, across from the Civic Auditorium. The Attorneys will meet on Friday, 6/6/86 to make a determination of the precise construction of the legal aspect of doing this project. The City has made its recommendation as part of the report and would like to proceed with the project. In informal discussions with a couple of members of the Board of Supervisors, they've indicated they are anxious to hear from the City as to what our position in the deve- lopment of the new county seat. Mr. Caravalho indicated that he believes that it would be beneficial not only to the City, but also to redevelopment efforts that we send rather clear signals to the County that we would like them to stay in the downtown and we have a site that now seems to be agreeable and with that perhaps we can get the project underway. It is his recommendation that we proceed with the project. Indicate to the County that we are in favor of the project being on Truxtun and that we think the site is an acceptable site, it would benefit the City through compatibility with the General Plan, it would offer shared use capability for the parking structure. -5- Agency Member Christensen indicated that the Agency has voted sev- eral times, unanimously, that the County building be on Truxtun Avenue. He asked the City Manager to expand on his comment earlier regarding the legal aspects of the County Administration Building. City Manager George Caravalho referred to the recommendation on the report, a suggestion is made that through the Agency's authority and power, that it could enter into an Exclusive Right to Negotiate with a developer. This procedure is proper, however a question has been raised by the County Counsel as to whether in fact that procedure may not provide some difficulties for the County, therefore they have requested that the various attorneys representing the parties, includ- ing our Redevelopment Attorney, Mr. Beatty, meet to explore all the alternatives. Agency Member Christensen asked what difficulties will the attor- neys explore. City Manager Caravalho replied that the real issue is whether in fact the County must go through a bid procedure. When this issue had been discussed, we were operating on the premise that the Redevelopment Agency, through its authority and powers, could actually do this. Most recently they have discussed that it could be a problem and they want to take a closer look at it and see if in fact that mechanism would be the best way to construct or come up with some other mechanism that would be acceptable to the City and the County. Agency Member Moore asked staff if support of a specific project jeopardized either the project itself or the Agency's continued support for the needs of the County Administration Building. City Manager Caravalho indicated that there is a commitment on the part of the County and City staff that we are headed in the right direction. The Board indicated that they feel that we can perhaps have an agreement. They have indicated that they want the Council or the Agency to take a position in light of the Board's current policy, which was to go on Golden State Avenue. They have indicated time is running out. It seems that the last time we had the problem with coming up with three million dollars and that has been taken care of an so now we can indicate to the County that we are supportive of the project given an ability to come up with a legally structured agree- ment that will work -6- Agency Member Moore asked Mr. Caravalho if the memorandum dated May 29, 1986 signed by him and Mr. Geary Taylor, General Services Director, County of Kern, is still a valid document and do they still support it. City Manager Caravalho replied by saying that the report is still intact. He indicated that the specific legal structure may be altered a little, but we want to proceed during a 60 day period to review various aspects of that and when they come back to the Agency they will provide a precise mechanism to accomplish the job of getting the building built. Agency Member Moore asked if discussions had been held within the last 24 hours with Mr. Taylor, and if that is still a joint supported document. City Manager Caravalho replied to the affirmative. Agency Member Moore recognized Mr. Geary Taylor, Director General Services, County of Kern. Mr. Taylor indicated that the County of Kern still stands behind the recommendation as presented to the Agency. The action that the County recommends be taken tonight will be considered by the County's attorneys and the Redevelopment Agency's attorneys on June 6, and will be included in the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for action on Tuesday. At that time they will have 60 days to work out the final contract form. Legally there are ways this can be accomplished. Agency Member Moore made a motion to approve the Carver proposal and direct staff to submit the attached letter to the County Board of Supervisors with the direction that staff begin to work-out the con- tents of the Exclusive Right to Negotiate. -7- Agency Member Christensen mentioned that it appears obstacle that could be placed in front of this would be a Is there going to be a firm dollar figure? He asked for financial firmness of the bid. that the only legal one. the Mr. Caravalho indicated that in terms of the financing, it is his understanding that the proposal is a firm number. The $3.2 million would be an upper limit acquisition of the land. exceed the $3.2 million and would be paid by the Developer for the There is a possibility that the cost might cost because we are dealing with unknowns. We and are dealing with a preliminary appraisal, estimates of relocation, administrative costs. There is no guarantee. Acting Chairman Childs asked when the last time the Redevelopment Agency boundaries were changed. Economic Development Director Dave Kennon daries were last changed in December 1979. Acting Chairman Childs asked if the Carver site was not in the Redevelopment Agency boundaries. Mr. Kennon confirmed that the Carver Development site is not in the Redevelopment Agency boundaries. Acting Chairman Childs asked how long it would take to change the Redevelopment Agency boundaries. Mr. Kennon replied that it would take approximately six months. Acting Chairman Childs indicated that he was of the impression that the Board of Supervisors was ready to go now, because of the budgetary hearing and they have the funds. How would that affect their time frame. replied that these boun- -8- Mr. Kennon indicated that based upon the schedule that has been established, the project amendment could be accomplished within the period of initial planning and design. Agency Member Smith asked that Mr. Geary Taylor be recognized. Mr. Geary Taylor, Director of General Services, County of Kern indicated that the time element that was recommended in this proposal was seventeen (17) months. The acquisition stage of acquiring the property would run concurrently with the design of the facility. It would be a rather speedy process. More than one thing could be done at one time. Acting Chairman Childs asked why there were so many deadlines that was asked of the Agency to meet if there are six months before the boundaries can be changed. Mr. Geary Taylor replied by saying that this process has been worked on for over a year and this is the first time that the County has come to an agreement with a package that can be recommended that seemed to be acceptable to both governing bodies. It has taken one year and they are ready to go to budget hearings to commit funds. That is why the deadline is important, and a decision is needed very quickly. That is why it was asked of the Redevelopment Agency to take action tonight. This will be taken to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday because they already have capital projects coming and they need to know how much money needs to be placed on the budget. Acting Chairman Childs asked why the relocation cost was not included in the $3.2 million dollars. He asked how much it would cost the City to relocate the particular entities. Mr. Dave Kennon indicated that the $3.2 million does include esti- mated relocation, acquisition and administrative costs. In making the budgetary appraisal, a very conservative number was taken on the high side, and in estimating the cost of acquisition, relocation we also took the high side and it was estimated between 20% and 25% for that, so the $3.2 million does include those numbers. City Manager Caravalho replied by saying that he could not guaran- tee the acquisition of the land, relocation and administration expen- ses, based upon only a preliminary analysis. -9- Mr. Tom Anton, Attorney representing Carver report on the Carver proposal and addressed Mr. regarding the $3.2 million. They have reviewed, Development, gave a Childs' question as part of the pro- cess of evaluating and preparing the proposal, a preliminary appraisal that indicated that the value of the property in question is valued between $2.5 and $3.0 million and that includes possible relocation, and the cost of the property. Carver has offered $3.2 million. It is possible that if the appraisal is correct, the City could indeed make a profit. In any case, they have agreed to pay $3.2 million. Acting Chairman Childs asked whether both proposals have been allotted 800 parking spaces, and whether those 800 new parking spaces in association with the new project, and whether we have made arrange- ments for the existing parking spaces that will be lost when this project is developed. Mr. Geary Taylor responded by saying that the 800 spaces provide the parking that would be required per City Ordinances for the struc- ture and replace the parking spaces that would be given up for this site. One of the advantages that has been found was the ability to utilize the parking structure for a number of buildings. One will be able to go the Justice Building or the Administration Building from the parking structure. It will also provide overflow parking for the Civic Auditorium. Acting Chairman Childs indicated that in the McCarthy proposal they contend that they have access to the land or are in the process of developing the land and he understands that there are two parcels that are under contention and that one of them is a parking struc- ture, and does this include the replacement of the existing parking around that area, but does it include the proposed vacant lot that is used for parking in their proposal. Richard Monje, Attorney for McCarthy Co. on this particular pro- ject. He explained that the County indicated they would build a project on Golden State Avenue with 200,000 square foot building for which they needed 800 parking spaces. The McCarthy proposal takes up two blocks, puts up the building and the 800 parking spaces. -10- Agency Member Moore asked staff and Mr. Geary Taylor if when they reviewed the two proposals, was the parking question addressed and did the loss of parking present a problem? Mr. Geary Taylor indicated that County staff has reviewed the pro- posal that was submitted and recommends the Carver proposal site and feels that this is the better site that has been presented. This is the site that County staff plans to recommend to the Board of Supervisors. Agency Member Moore reaffirmed his support for the motion. Agency Member Salvaggio indicated that the City has been working with the County on this project for more than a year and indicated that it is time to make a final decision. Agency Member Dickerson indicated that he cannot support Agency Member Moore's motion. He indicated that he feels it is ridiculous to destroy 500 parking spaces and put 800 parking spaces in for a build- ing that will need the entire 800 spaces. He is also concerned that the $3.2 million acquisition cost is something that may very well be a variable, or turn out to be considerably more. He indicated that to give this project a blank check for relocation and acquisition costs above the $3.2 million is not prudent. On these two points, he cannot support this motion to give an Exclusive Right to Negotiate. Mr. Dickerson made a substitute motion that we take action directing staff to inform the County that we will assist in both pro- posals. He indicated it was our feeling by the direction of the Agency that we wanted the Board of Supervisors to make a choice, whether they wanted the Carver proposal or the Mosesian proposal and have them relate back to us and then we can deal as an Agency with either of those proposals. -11- Agency Member Dickerson asked the City Attorney for assistance with this motion and indicated that previous action has been taken to directing the Agency staff to inform the County that we will assist in both proposals. It was the feeling by the direction of the Agency, that we wanted the Board of Supervisors to make a choice, whether they want the Carver proposal or whether they want the Mosesian proposal and have that relayed back to us and then we can deal as an Agency with either of those proposals. He asked that City Attorney to help him with this in the form of a motion so that we can get that message directed fully to the Board of Supervisors and they can understand what our position is that we want them to make a decision. Mr. Dickerson made a motion to recess the Redevelopment Agency meeting until five minutes after the City Council meeting convenes. Acting Chairman Childs indicated the motion approved. Agency Member Salvaggio asked for a roll call vote on this motion, challenging the decision of the Chairman to recess the meeting. Ayes: Dickerson, Childs Noes: Salvaggio, Smith, Moore, Christensen Abstain: None Absent: Agency Member Ratty Agency Member Smith indicated support of Member Moore's motion of the Carver project and appreciates seeing staff support from the City and the County on one project. This is a message she wants to give the people of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. Acting Chairman Childs indicated that he cannot support this motion. At 6:59 the meeting was recessed until five minutes after the beginning of the Council meeting. Mr. Bob Grebski, architect and senior preconstruction director for McCarthy, representing the McCarthy joint venture gave a brief presen- tation on the McCarthy proposal. -12- Mr. Ralph Wegis, property owner of the Carver site gave a brief presentation on behalf of the Carver proposal. Agency Member Moore suggested that a floor debate between the two developers was not in the best interest to the community or the pro- ject being completed. He indicated that the City Manager and the Director of General Services for the County both signed a memorandum that reaffirmed their position and the proposal that the Agency accept the Carver Development proposal to build the County Administration building. The questions were asked if parking had been addressed, if costs had been addressed and if time had been addressed and the answers to all these questions were in the affirmative. This devel- oper has come before the Agency, after a year and a half of trial and error and trying to put a project together and keep the County Administration building downtown where the financial and governmental center of this community is, they have come to an agreement, they are prepared to march, and Mr. Taylor has indicated that time is critical, he addressed all of the questions that have come before the floor and indicated that time constraints and consideration was a budgetary one and not a completion date and they have to go to press. We show strong support to keep them downtown on one hand and then we turn right around and torpedo it, delay it, frustrate it and cause further delay, further complications, further problems and nothing is hap- pening. They have come to us for the last time saying we have come to an agreement, we have worked out all of the problems, this is our pro- posal and now we can go forward. I would offer that the City Manager's proposal and his recommendation should be adhered to, should be addressed and at this point in time, make a commitment and show that we are strongly in favor of, and endorse the County Administration building remaining downtown in the location that has been jointly approved and supported between the City of Bakersfield and the County of Kern. Mr. Moore asked that the Agency come to a decision and vote. -13- Agency Member Dickerson indicated that when the Agency met on May 19th $3.2 million was shaved off the cost of this project. He indi- cated that he understood that another $1 million may be shaved off this project. He indicated that the County should be the body that ought to determine the developer that will build this project. Mr. Dickerson said that it is his feeling that this proposal should be opened up to everyone, including other developers. He said that he is not ready to give an exclusive agreement when we have a question about shaving costs, when we have a question about additional parking spa- ces. As an alternative, that the Carver Development Co. can agree with the property owners in their proposed site a cost of acquisition and relocation within that $3.2 million figure and present that back to the Agency, then that question will be ended. Agency Member Christensen indicated that based on the citizens, the Carver proposal is favored, and based upon the politicians, they favor the Carver proposal. Mr. Christensen stated that he was con- cerned about the parking and the cost of relocation, but he has found out that the cost of relocation is more or less regulated and not only that but the most that they can ask for their property is a fair mar- ket value, and condemnation could face both sides of the issue, both sides could have a piece of property that could be up for condem- nation, but that would be taken care of eventually. The need for this project being downtown is a great feeling in the community. Mr. Christensen suggested that we should go ahead and make the decision. He called for the question and said that he favored in giving the pro- ject to Carver. Geary Taylor, Director of General Services, County of Kern clari- fied a couple of issues. He indicated that no one has evaluated the two proposals. They were put side by side as submitted. The County has yet to evaluate in detail the proposals submitted by the McCarthy proposal as outlined. The Board of Supervisors has an official policy position that they do not accept unsolicited developer proposals. The -14- proposal that is being considered and recommended to the Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with the City is something that has been worked on for many months. That is why they are in a position to rec- ommend that project. Guidelines have been received by the Board of Supervisors, with what type of project, and the cost that the project should be brought in at. All of the guidelines that the Board has issued have been met. That is why the County staff is in a position to recommend this project along with City staff to the Redevelopment Agency. Acting Chairman asked for a vote for the call for the question. This was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Agency Members Salvaggio, Smith, Moore, Dickerson, Christensen, Childs Noes: None Abstaining: None Absent: Agency Member Ratty Acting Chairman Childs asked for a vote for the substitute motion by Agency Member Dickerson. The motion failed. The secretary again read the motion made by Agency Member Moore as follows: "Approve the Carver proposal and direct staff to submit attached letter to the County Board of Supervisors with the direction that staff begin to work out the contents of the Exclusive Right to Negotiate". The motion was approved by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Agency Members Childs, Christensen, Dickerson, Moore, Smith, Salvaggio Noes: None Abstaining: None Absent: Agency Member Ratty Trena Billington, representative of Carver Development made a brief statement on behalf of Roy Carver, President, Carver Development, thanking the Agency for their decision on the Carver Development and expressed that they look forward to dealing with the County and the City on the County Administration building downtown. -15- CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Claim Vouchers Nos. 248 - 257 totaling $14,263.96. Agency Member Moore made a motion to approve Claim Vouchers tota- ling $14,263.96. The motion was approved unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Agency Member Moore made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. This motion was approved unanimously James H. Childs Acting Chairman Redevelopment Agency /,~r~or~~ecr e tary MIN6- 4.1 -16-