Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/18/93 MINUTES RA MINUTES BAKERSFIELD REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Joint Public Hearing--October 18, 1983 Minutes of a Joint Public Hearing of the Council of the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency, held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 7:00 p.m., October 18, 1983, regarding a Disposition and Development Agreement on the proposed sale of certain real property in the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Project Area by the Redevelopment Agency to the Moreland Corporation (Developer), for development and construction by the Developer of the Truxtun Galleria Office/Retail Complex, bounded by Truxtun Avenue on the south, Chester Avenue on the east, 17th Street on the north and "H" Street on the west, excluding the north half of Block 285 on which the California Republic Bank and adjacent parking structure are located. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell and Agency Chairman Barton, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Mayor Shell. The City Clerk called the roll of the Council, as follows: PRESENT: Mayor Shell, Councilmen Means, Payne, Rockoff, Barton ~ Councilmen Ratty~ Christensen The City Clerk called the roll of the Agency~ as follows: PRESENT: Agency ~embers Barton, Means~ ?a?~.~ Rockoff ABSENT: Agency Members Christensen~ lahty STAFF REPORTS City Manager and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency Kelmar reported that a few weeks ago he indicated that there was some interest on the part of a Developer to remove and rehabili- tate the Hall of Records Building. There have been concerns ex- pressed regarding the historical significance of that building by certain segments of the community. Be met with Mr. Gannon several times and it has been agreed, in principle, on the terms for that transaction. Mr. Gannon plans to move and rehabilitate, at least the exterior, of the }{all of Records Building to the same status it was many years ago. If the Development Agreement is favorably acted on this evening the City Attorney's Office will be directed · to prepare the necessary documents to bring back to the Council and Redevelopment Agency for consideration. in answer to a question by hayor Shell, City tanager and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency Kelmar stated the Hall of Records Building will be moved to a downtown site. Mr. David Beatty, Consulting Attorney for the Redevelop- ment Agency, reported 'that the following technical changes will be [.ade to the Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and ~oreland Corporation: Page 6 First paragraph: Presently states In accordance with and subject to all the terms, covenants and condi- tions of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to sell, and the Redeveloper agrees to purchase and develop, Parcels A and B of the Site for the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) ('the "Parcel A and B Disposition Price~'), however the Agency shall retain the air rights over Parcel B in order to construct additional parking as specified in this Agreement. Corrected to state In accordance with and subject to all the terms, covenants and condi- tions of this Agreement, the Agency agrees to sell, and the Redeveloper agrees to purchase and develop, Parcels A and B of the Site for the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) (the "Parcel A and B Disposition Price"), however the Agency shall retain all the air rights over the parking structure to be built on Parcel B prior to the conveyance of Parcel C. Page 6 - Second paragraph: Comma deleted after the working ONE DOLLAR ($1.00),. Correction of typographical error in the word specified. Page 32 - Paragraph (c): Insert the word or after ~he word Agreement. Page 33 - First full paragraph: First sentence presently states - In the event of termination under subdivisions (a), (b), (d), (e)~ (f) or (i) of hhis Section, the Deposit may be retained by the Agency as liquidated damages an¢~ as its property without any deduction~ offset or recou~ment whatsoever. Corrected to state In the event of termination under subdivisions (a), (b), (d), (e) or (f) of this Section, the Deposit may be retained by 'the Agency as liquidated damages and as its property without any deduction, offset or recoupment whatsoever. Mr. Beatty stated the correction to Page 33 clarifies an ambiguity. If the Agency does not sell the Parking Bonds and the development cannot go forward the Developer will get the "good faith deposih" back, because it is not his fault. Attachment No. 1 Site Plan: Insert a new Site Plan, which clearly deletes from the parcel to be acquired by the Agency and conveyed to the Developer the parking ramp owned by California Republic Bank. Mr. Beatty stated this is the way it was intended and so states in the agreement. In most of the maps it is clearly identified as land that will not be acquired by the Agency. It is still part of the project~ but it is nob land to be acquired by the Agency and conveyed to the Developer. Attachment No. 3 Schedule of Performance: No. 9 - Fill in blank space to read "Within 180 days after execution of this Agreement by the Agency. Attachment No. 5, Page 3 - Method of Financing Section B. - Sale to Tax-Exempt Entity Second Paragraph: Presently states Prior ~O the conveyance of property on Parcels A, B oU C ~o a tax-exempt entity after the Redeveloper receives a Certi- ficate of Completion, the Redeveloper shall - 2 - notify the Agency which shall deter~i~ine whether the conveyance ~ill re61uce hhe property taxes to be received from the Site. If the Agency determines the property taxes will be reduced, the Agency shall also determine whether the remaining property taxes to be received after the reduction are sufficient to pay the Agency's debt service. If the Agency determines that the remaining property taxes are insufficient to pay the Agency's debt service, the Redeveloper shall, prior to the conveyance, either (a) make payments to the Agency in a sufficient amount to reduce the outstanding debt so that the property taxes received by the Agency are sufficient to pay the reduced debt service or (b) in a manner approved by the Agency assure that the purchaser will pay the lesser of either the property taxes which would be paid by an owner which was not tax-exempt or an amount sufficient to enable the Agency to pay its debt service. Corrected to state - Prior to the conveyance of property on Parcels A, B or C to a tax- exempt entity the Redeveloper shall notify the Agency which shall determine whether the con- veyance will reduce the property taxes to )De received from the Site. If the Agency deter- mines the property taxes will be reduced, the Agency shall also determine whether the reulaining property taxes to be received after the reduction are sufficient to pay the Agency's debt service. If the Agency determines that the remaining property taxes are insufficient to pay the Agency's debt service, the Redeveloper shall, prior to the conveyance, either (a) make payments to the Agency in a sufficient amoun~ to reduce the outstanding debt so that the property taxes received by the Agency are sufficient to pay the reduced debt service or (b) in a manner approved by the Agency assure that the purchaser or lessor will pay the lesser of either the property taxes which would be paid by an owner which was not tax- exempt or an amount sufficient to enable the Agency to pay its debt service. For the purposes of this Section (III. B.), the term conveyance shall mean lease, sale or any other transfer of interests in Parcels A, B or C. ~{r. Beatty stated this section is designed to protect the Agency if the property is transferred or sold fro~, the Developer to a tax-exempt entity. Attachment No. 5, Page 4 - Method of Financing B. Adjustment Purchase Price: Presently states - If on the calculation date the average rent of space actually occupied in the office tower constructed on Parcel C is at least $1.30 per square foot of leasable space, as part of the Option Parcel Disposition Price specified in Section 201, the Redeveloper shall pay an additional sum (Adjustment Purchase Price) for the purchase of Parcel C and the air righhs above the parking structure constructed on Parcel B, in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the ownership interest of the developer. - 3 - Corrected to state - If on the calculation date the average rent for the first five years of the lease of space actually occupied in the office tower constructed on Parcel C is at least $1.80 per square foot of leasable space, as part of the Option Parcel Disposition Price specified in Section 201, the Redeveloper shall pay an additional sum (Adjustment Purchase Price) for the purchase of Parcel C and the air rights above the parking structure con- structed on Parcel B, in an amount equal to five percent (5%) of the ownership interest of the developer. Mr. Beatty stated this paragraph determines whether or not the Redeveloper must pay the additional adjusted purchase price on the Phase II parcel. If the rents in the project on Phase II average $1.80 per square foot the adjusted purchase price or in- creased purchase price must be paid. Attachment No. 5, Page 5 - Method of Financing - E. Note and Deed of Trust: Presently states - Prior to the closing of escrow on Parcel C and the air rights on Parcel B, the Redeveloper shall execute a note in the form set forth in Attachment No. 6 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, secured by a deed of trust in the form set forth in Attachment No. 7 attached hereto and incor?orated herein by ~eference which shall secure the obligation of the redeveloper to pay the Adjustment Purchase Price. Corrected to state - Prior to the closing of escrow on Parcel C and the air rights on Parcel B, the Redeveloper shall execute a note substantially in the form set forth in Attach- ment No. 6 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, secu~ed by a deed of trust substantially in the form set forth in Attachment No. 7 attached hereto and incor- porated herein Dy reference which shall secure the obligation of the Redeveloper to pay the Adjustment Purchase Price. ~r. Beatty stated there are documents which will actually be executed a number of months, if not years, from now and, there- fore, it is necessary to be able to make technical changes without having to con~e back and get the Development Agreement amended each time. All of the changes t~at have been itemized have been rev4. ewed with the Developer and he has agreed to 'them. Mr. Calvin Hollis, representing the firm of Katz Hollis, · the Redevelopment Agency's Financial Consultants, stated the Redevelopment Agency has had on file with the City Clerk's Office for the last two weeks two documents entitled "Analysis of the Cost of the Disposition and Development Agreement for the Proposed Truxtun Galleria in the Bakersfield Downtown Redevelopment Project - pursuant to Section 33675 of the~ California Community Redevelopment Law" prepared by Katz Hollis and "Reuse Analysis - [4ulti-Use Office/ Retail Center, Bakersfield, California" prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. These two documents are required by the Health and Safety Code in situations where the Agency is to convey property acquired in whole or in part from tax-increments, which is the case in 'this proposed Develop~ent Agreement. This project is proposed to be a two phase office/retail project. The first phase w~ll consist of an office tower con- taining approximately 14 stories, w4th not less than 150,~00 square - 4 - feet of leasable office space. Par~ of the first phase is a multi-level retail mall of approxi~aaLely 53,000 square feet of leasable space and 19,000 square feet of retail coramon area. The first phase will also contain a combination of subterranean and structured parking of not less than 716 spaces. Under the agreement the Developer has the option to purchase the second phase site within 60 months of completion of the first phase. Although not required by the agreement, Lhe second phase is currently envisioned to be a project of approximately 20 stories with 270,000 square feet of office space, 41,000 square feet of retail space, 19,000 square feet of retail common area and subterranean and structured parking of not less than 682 spaces. The combination of those pa?7~ing spaces are required by the City's codes. The direct cost to the Agency for this agreement is shown on Table I contained in the Analysis of the Cost of the Disposition and Development Agreement. The Agency is required to; assemble the site for the project, relocate any tenants on the site, demolish the structures and some utility responsibilities. The total of those costs are estimated to De $4,096,000. Included within those acquisition costs are the costs of City owned property, which, in Phase I, includes portions of an alley and street to be vacated. Phase II includes that property which is now a City parking lot. In addition to those direct costs, a contingency has been allowed for, in the amount of $350,000, and cost of administer- ing the acquisition program of $150,000, for a total estimated site assembly cost of $4,596,000. All of the direct costs, with the exception of the City owned parking lot, are required for Phase I. The only additional requirements the Agency has in ~he site assembly cost for Phase ~I is the city parking facility. In addiLion to the direct costs the Agency has, under the agreement~ is the r~sponsibility to make annual lease payments for certain public parking spaces within the above-grade parking garage. To determine the total cost of the agreement to the Agency, Katz Hollis took the present value of both sets of lease payments, using a 10% discount rate, which is approximately $654,000. Under the agreement it is contemplated the Agency ~ill be responsible for debt service on Industrial Revenue Bonds, which will help finance part of the acquisition of the site. The Agency will have interest costs associated with those payments. The o~her source to the Agency for funds to assemble the site is to use a portion of the Tax Allocation Bond that the Agency issued in April, 1983. It has been estimated that approxi- mately $2,700,000 of that Bond issue will be used for this project and Katz Hollis has included, as a cost to the Agency, the interest on those bonds over the term of the Bonds. The Agency will receive certain revenue as a result of this project. Those re- venues come from three sources: property taxes from the develop- ment~ the Developer has agreed to make an in-lieu payment to the extent that the property taxes on either Phase I or combination of Phase I and Phase II do not equal $500,000 per year, beginning the firs~ year Phase I is completed; and the agreement provides that in the event the Developer exercises his option on Phase il %hat the Agency will receive a purchase price from Phase II under certain conditions. Those conditions are spelled out in the a~eement. If the development of Phase II commands rents in excess of a $1.80 per square foot the Agency will receive, as an additional purchase price, the value of 5% of the project, exclusive of any debt on the project. It is a method of determining that purchase price in the future, when there are a lot of unknowns today, as to what the project will look like, what rents will be, etc. The total cost to the Agency, prior to consideration of addit~nal purchase price for tax increments or in-lieu payments, is approximately $10,100~000. Those are the total costs to ~he Agency for ~he project and includes interest on bond financing over a 25 year period. That is the present value of those costs. Katz Hollis has estimated the value ho the Agency of tax increments generated by the project in the in-lieu payments from the Developer over the life of the project to be approximately $3,500,000. That is exclusive of any payment made by the Developer for Phase II. The net cost to the Agency for this agreement over the life of the project is approximately $6,500,000, exclusive of any consid- eration for the sale of Phase II. Mr. Hollis stated the purpose of the Reuse Analysis is to estimate the value of the site for the proposed use. The reuse is defined as being the highest price which a property is expected to bring for a specific use in a competitive and open market under the reuse conditions established by the Agency. The value of the property at this location is being determined for this development that has been proposed under the conditions spelled out in the Disposition and Development Agreement. Those conditions are that a specific type of development must be built. A minimum amount of development must be built at one time. The parking must be of a certain nature, structured and underground. The project must go forward immediately and no speculation on the land is allowed under the agreement. The Reuse Analysis looked at several methods of valuing the property. The first is a comparable approach; that is, to look at what other developments of this type, in this area, have paid for land. This type of project has not been built in this area. Other projects in this area, not similar to this one, were looked at. The Analysis shows that the cost for land and parking per square foot in the suburban area has been approximately $2].00 per square foot of leasable area. q?his project commands a cost to the Developer of approximately $32.00 per square foot. This Developer, in this location, is ?aying more for land and parking than other Developers of office space in the Greater Bakersfield Area. In other developments, particularly those in the suburban Bakersfield area, the major cost for land and parking has gone for land. The parking has been mostly surface parking. In this project khe predominant portion of the contribution of land and parking is into parking. The parking is either structured or below grade. However, in total land and parking costs the Developer in this location is paylng more than a Developer in a suburban area. Look- ing at it from a comparable standpoint, this project is at least comparable to what other Developers are paying from a land and parking cost standpoint. The project was then looked at from an income standpoint to determine, after looking at the cost and rents associated with the project, what income was available to support the land. After accounting for the cost of the project, revenue from rents generated by the project, parking payments that the Agency would be making to the Developer and accounting for the obligation the Developer has to make payments to the Agency on Phase I that are in excess of the taxes generated from Phase I, it was determined that Phase I actually had a negative land value. The income generated was not sufficient to support all the costs of the project, exclusive of land. When Phase II was looked at, as a total project, the con- clusion as to land value using the income approach, was that the combined project had a value of about $50,000. That assumed that Phase II went ahead at the same time as Phase I. In looking at this project, now that it is a phased pro- ject, it was concluded that if the Developer had only the rights to build Phase I and no option on Phase II, the land value would be negative and the Developer would probably not go forward with it. Therefore, it was concluded that the appropriate land value for Phase I is minimal or a $1.00 land value. The proper value for Phase Ii should be determined at the time it goes forward. There is a formula in the agreement that will calculate what the Phase II value is for land, depending on what rents are at that point in time, what the project is in terms of square footage, what the use of the property is, etc. - 6 - The last portion of the report concerns the value of the property at its highest and best use. The highest and best use is defined as the legal use that yield ho the land the highest value. It does not take into account any restrictions on the property that the Agency would place on it. Of all the land uses permitted by the Zoning and Redevelopment Plans, it only looks at which of those uses generates the highest land value and what is that land value. It was concluded that the highest and best use for that piece of property is probably an office project of approximately 250,000 square feet with structured parking and no subterranean parking or enclosed retail mall area and the value of that property would be approximately $1,300,000, if that was the development being proposed. CORRESPONDENCE Communication from Bianco, Means & McBurnie, Attorneys at Law, 1107 Truxtun Avenue, dated October 17, 1983, requesting a review on behalf of their client, California Republic Bank, of the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement concerning a portion of Parcel A. In answer to a question by Councilman Rockoff, Mr. Beatty stated the concerns expressed in the letter have been eliminated due to the change in the map. The agreement clearly states that none of California Republic Bank's property is to be acquired by the Agency and the map has been corrected to be consistent with that. Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff~ communication from Bianco, Means & McBurnie, Attorneys at Law, 1107 Truxtun Avenue, dated October 17, 1983, requesting a review on behalf of their client, California Republic Bank, of the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement concerning a portion of Parcel A, was received, ordered placed on file and referred to staff. Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from Norman M. Walters, 3301 Dwight Street, dated October 12, 1983, expressing opposition to the proposed Truxtun Galleria Project, was received and ordered placed on file. Mr. Beatty stated, for the record, each Councilman received a copy of Mr. Walters' letter expressing opposition to the Truxtun Galleria Project due to concerns with the change of use of the Hall of Records Building, interference with private enterprise, etc. PUBLIC HEARING ~[ayor Shell declared the hearing open for public par- ticipation. Dr. Glenn Puder, former member of the Redevelopment Agency, stated he is familiar with some of the procedures that have taken place tonight and was on the Agency for eight years because he was and is interested in Downtown Redevelopment. He felt this project is viable and should be pursued with vigor. Mr. Richard McBurnie, Attorney with the firm of Bianco, Means & McBurnie, stated he appreciates the efforts made by the Counsel for the Agency to revise the draft agreement to cover the problem raised in their correspondence. On behalf of California Republic Bank, he still has a slight concern regarding the legal description of Parcel A contained on Attachment No. 2 of the Agreement. Thal Attachment includes Parcel A and a slight revision might be appropriate. Mr. Beatty suggested that when the motion is made on the agreement, if the Council desires, it can be made subqect to any revisions in the legal description which are necessar~ to c±ear~y exclude that parcel of land fro~, the property to be acquired by the Agency. Mr. John Brock, owner of Brock's Department Store, stated if the costs are not out of line he feels the Galleria Project proposed by Mr. Moreland, at least Phase I, would be one of the first steps that might get downtown off the ground. They have been waiting a long time and people are needed downtown. He is not for spending a lot of the taxpayers money, however, something is needed to start the ball rolling if the City is going to have a viable downtown, centrally located. He is for this project proposed by Mr. Moreland. Mr. Dick Crow, Vice-Chairman of the Kern County Historical Society, stated they would like to see the Hall of Records Building preserved in a reasonable sort of way. The report made several months ago by Mr. Richard Monje of the City's Historical Preservation Commission was very comprehensive, brought up a lot of problems concerning the Hall of Records Building and recommended it be preserved. City Manager Kelmar's report this evening regarding moving and rehabilitating the Hall of Records is probably sufficient for many of them to support moving that building and restoring it. In order to reinforce this position it is suggested that the pro- ject being discussed tonight be contingent upon the successful execution of an agreement with Mr. Gannon for the moving and re- storation of the Hall of Records BuJlding. Mr. ~ark Lutrel stated he is not totally against the Galleria Project. He is concerned with the Hall of Records Building. He felt redevelopment, as a whole, is good and there are certain areas in the City that need it. He felt removing the Hall of Records Building is not good for maintaining the hishorical signifi- cance of the City for future generations. [ir. Lutrel read a por- tion of an article that appeared in the ~iay issue of Bakersfield Lifestyle magazine entitled "Downtown a Turning Point," by Bruce E. Keith. Mrs. Jeanne Foth, former member of the Redevelopment Agency, speaking in opposition to the project, stated she feels the Truxtun Galleria Project is a beautiful dream and hopes it does not become a nightmare. She felt concern when talking about leas- ing to the County of Kern, because of the unknowns. They are talk- ing about money that belongs to the taxpayers through tax increments, etc. Mrs. Martha Wal~2ers, 3301 Dwight Street, asked what site is being proposed for the Hall of Records Building. City Manager and Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency Kelmar stated it will be relocated on 17th Street between "F'~ and "G" Streets, which is presently a City parking lot and the Developer would pay i~he City for almost all of the land. l[rs. Walters, spoke in opposition to the Truxtun Galleria Project and sta~ed she did not feel downtown is a blighted area by definition in Health and Safety Code Section 33320.2. She stated her main objection is the use of taxpayers money to create a sub- sidy for a private developer. No further protests or objections being received and no one else wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Shell closed the public portion of the hearing for Council and Agency deliberation and action. Councilman and Agency Member Means asked where the City is at in discussions with the County about leasing space. City Manager and Execut~ve Director of the Redevelopment Agency Kelmar stated the City is not involved in any of those dis- cussions. That discussion is the responsibility of the Developer. He understands there is supposed to be a report filed, this week, by the County Administrative Officer in response to questions on the - 8 proposal made by the Developer to the County. The Board of Super- visors is supposed to discuss the issue aL their meeting either Monday or Tuesday of next week. Councilman and Agency Member Means stated he has heard or seen in the media that there was some discussion about whether the offer that was made to the County was reasonable or whether they need that space. One of the concerns to the County seems to be that the deal they are being offered in terms of price per square foot is out of line, too high. Mr. Terry Moreland, Developer of the Truxtun Galleria Project, stated they have been apprised of the County needs for a number of months. They were in the process of looking at the opportunity to buy the Westchester property, which contains ap- proximately 100,000 square feet. There have been numerous articles written, and have come across the media, of other space that they are looking at, so he put together a proposal that would meet their space requirements and a financial proposal to meet their economic needs. That proposal included numerous amounts of contingencies that would make it a viable proposition to the County. There was a $1.85 lease with the opportunity for them, after a 10-year period, to have ownership in the building. Without that it would not be possible for the County to enter into a serious lease ne- gotiation with the Galleria. Councilman and Agency Member Means stated any project like this ~s complex. Clearly, this is a situation where the City~ through the Redevelopment Agency~ is going to have to assist if downtown is going to be redeveloped. The City is in 'the process of seeing a landmark project that can get underway and allow the rest of downtown to develop. He hopes the Council and Agency will support this project and then the Council can turn to the County. Not ask them to do something that is not in their best financial interest. He recognizes the City has not had the best relationship with the County in the past, but he feels the City has to assume 50% of the responsibility for that, whether it is the dump or any other item. He hopes the County does not go overboard by not getting into this proposal and recognizes that the City of Bakersfield is in the County and what may be in the interest of downtown may also be in the interest of other people in the County. The Board of Supervisors represent people who also live in the City. Those people are voting for some of the Council as well as the Board of Supervisors. It seems a little bit strange to him that there are some members of the Board of Supervisors who have some extended concerns, yet the Council members representing those same con- stituents are in support of it. He hopes any lack of cooperation in the past will be overlooked and the project is evaluated on its merits. It is something Lhat is very critical for downtown and he feels it is~ Jn fact, the last chancre. ]'t is the City's last hope ane he hopes people will support it. He hopes the County also cooperates with Mr. ~.ioreland in his projecn. COUNCIL AND AGENCY ACTIONS Adoption of Resolution No. RA14-83 of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Moreland Corporation. Upon a motion by Agency Member Rockoff, Resolution No. RA14-83 of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the execution of a Disposition and Development Agree- ment between the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Moreland Corporation, including the technical corrections made to the Disposition and Development Agreement by the Redevelopment Agency's Consulting Attorney and any possible technical revisions that may be needed to exclude any land from Parcel I by California Republic Bank, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Agency Members Barton, Means, Payne, NOES: None ABSENT: Agency Members Christensen, Ratty Rockoff Adoption of Resolution No. 123-83 of the Council of the City of Bakers- field approving and authorizing the execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency and Moreland Corporation. Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Resolution No. 123-83 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving and authorizing the execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Bakersfield Redeve~pment Agency and Moreland Corporation, including the technical corrections made to the Disposition and Development Agreement by the Redevelopment Agency's Consulting Attorney and any possible technical revisions that may be needed to exclude any land from Parcel I by California Republic Bank, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Means, Payne, Rockoff, NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmen Ratty, Christensen Barton Adoption of Resolution No. RA15-83 of the City of Bakersfield Redevelop- ment Agency authorizing the entering into of Financing Leases or Agree- ments for the purpose of financing construction of office building facilities to be constructed and developed by Moreland Corporation. Upon a motion by Agency Member Payne, Resolution No. RA15-83 of the City of Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency authorizing the entering into of Financing Leases or Agreements for the purpose of financing construction of office building facilities to be constructed and developed by Moreland Corporation, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Agency Members Barton, Means, NOES: None ABSENT: Agency Members Christensen, Payne, Rockoff Ratty Adoption of Resolution No. RA16-83 of the City of Bakersfield Redevelop- ment Agency authorizing the entering into of Financing Leases or Agree- ments for the purpose of financing construction of parking structure to be constructed and developed by Moreland Corporation. Upon a motion by Agency Member Payne, Resolution No. RA16-83 of the City of Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency authorizing the entering into of Financing Leases or Agreements for the purpose of financing construction of parking structure to be constructed and developed by Moreland Corporation, was adopted by the following roll call vote: AYES: Agency Members Barton, Means, Payne, NOES: None ABSENT: Agency Members Christensen, Ratty Rockoff ADJOURNMENT Upon a motion by Agency Member Means, the Redevelopment Agency's portion of the j©int public hearing ]regarding the 10 - Disposition and Development Agreement for the Truxtun Galleria Project~ was adjourned at 8:43 p.m. Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, the joint public hearing before the Council and Redevelopment Agency regarding the Disposition and Development Agreement for the Truxtun Galleria Project~ was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. J~[~ES J. BA~TON, Chairman !~ersfield Redevelopment Agency 'W. D./~/~INBOTHAM, S~r~ary Baker~ld Redevelo~e~t Agency