HomeMy WebLinkAboutMAR - DEC 1969 MINUTES RASeptember 25, 1968
gency was
City Hall,
chairman.
The seventh meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelopment A-
called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers of
on the 25th day of September, 1968, by Wilbur Rickett,
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Wilbur Rickett
Vince Casper
Robert Watson
Mrs. Peggy Ghezzi
Bill Lee
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert King
Mr. Rickett asked for any corrections or additions to
the minutes of the August 28th meeting. Mr. Bergen, City Manager,
stated he would like to have more detailed information given under
Item Three - Agency-City Basic Contract, and presented same in writ-
ten form. Vince Casper moved the minutes be approved as corrected;
seconded by Robert Watson; voted upon, and carried.
Mr. Bergen reported the Agreement between the City of
Bakersfield and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Bakersfield
had been presented to the City Council at the September 24th meet-
ing. The Council made three corrections, and then adopted the Agree-
ment for presentation to the Agency. After some discussion, Mr.
Watson moved that the Agreement be approved as amended. Vince Cas-
per seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was cast by roll call
taken by the secretary - Robert King, absent.
Mr. Bergen said he had made a recommendation to the Coun-
cil that the Agency be assigned to the Budget Review and Finance
Committee for the purpose of discussing procedures; said committee
to return to the Council with a report. The Council accepted this
recommendation. Upon a suggestion by Mr. Bergen, Mr. Rickett ap-
pointed himself, Robert Watson and Vince Casper as an Agency com-
mittee to meet with the members of the Budget Review and Finance
Committee and asked that Mr. Bergen make the arrangements for such
a meeting.
Mr. Rickett announced that Bill Bryant, representing the
Larry Smith & Company, Inc.~ had given a report last evening to the
City Council on the economic study they made for the Downtown Bakers-
field Renewal Report. At this time, Mr. Rickett asked Robert Miller
to review for the Agency members Mr. Bryant's presentation. Mr.
Miller gave a very thorough review, and stated that the Agency mem-
bers must have vision, imagination, a desire to revitalize Downtown
Bakersfield, and must become educated to the facts. Mr. Rickett
thanked Mr. Miller for his report, and said the members of the Re-
development Agency had certainly learned in the past six months
that there is a great deal of education that must be gone through.
Some discussion followed between Mr. Miller and the Agency members.
Mr. Rickett next asked Mr. Watson to give a short resume
of his recent trip to Inglewood where a similar undertaking is in
effect. Discussion followed.
Mrs. Ghezzi said she wished to add her thanks to Mr. Mil-
ler for his fine presentation, and said she felt it should have
been done by him at the Council meeting as the Council needs edu-
cating.
There being no additional business to be discussed at
this time, Mr. Rickett adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wilbur Rickett, Chairman
By: Irene Clarke, Secretary
XXXK~K - 14-
March 11, 1969
The eighth meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelopment A-
gency was called to order at 4:30 p.m., in the Caucas Room at City
Hall, on the llth day of March, 1969, by Kenneth Hoagland, City
Attorney.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert King
Bill Lee
Robert Watson
Vincent Casper
Mrs. Peggy Ghezzi
Gerald Clifford
Theron Taber
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Mr. Hoagland stated that due to the resignation of Mr.
Wilbur Rickett the Agency was now without a Chairman. It was his
suggestion that the next item of business be the election of such
a Chairman.
Mr. Casper moved that Robert King be appointed Chairman
of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency; motion seconded by Mr.
Lee; voted upon and carried.
Mr. King assumed his position at this time.
Mr. Hoagland will supply each member with a copy of the
Agency's By-Laws prior to the next meeting so there will be time
to study the contents; and he suggested that at the next regular
meeting of the Agency consideration be given to the adoption of
the By-Laws.
Discussion followed on the setting of a regular meeting
date. Mr. Clifford moved that the next regular meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency be set for Wednesday, the 26th of March, at
8:00 p.m., and that, thereafter, 8:00 p.m. on the fourth Wednesday
of each month be established as the time and date of the regular
monthly meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Casper; voted upon; and carried. Mr.
King requested Mr. Hoagland to make the necessary changes in the
proposed By-Laws in compliance with this motion.
Mr. Hoagland presented some background history on the
Agreement between the Empire Square Associates, Inc., the Bakers-
field Redevelopment Agency and the City of Bakersfield - said
Agreement will be presented for consideration at a joint meeting
of the Bakersfield City Council and the Bakersfield Redevelopment
Agency on the evening of March 13, 1969, at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Hoag-
land said that Mr. Jacobs and himself would at that time explain
in detail the Agreement. He, however, did state that concepts ap-
pearing in the Agreement were in the whole developed through dis-
cussions over the past three or four months with Mr. King, Mr.
Casper and Mr. Watson of the Agency and Mr. Vetter, Mr. Rees and
Dr. Stiern of the City Council. Some discussion followed regard-
ing the fairness of the Agreement, the power of eminent domain,
the conflict of interest in the survey area. Mr. Hoagland again ex-
plained the Brown Act for the benefit of the new members of the
Agency, and stressed that if anyone desires information on the
conflict of interest law to contact him since violation of this
law does constitute certain criminal charges.
Upo~ a suggestion made by Mr. King that a Vice-Chairman
should be appointed, Mr. Lee made the motion that Mr. Casper be
appointed to serve as the Vice-Chairman. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Taber; voted upon and carried.
At 5:15 p.m., Mr. King adjourned this meeting until
7:00 p.m., on Thursday, the 13th of March, 1969.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert King, Chairman
By: Irene Clarke, Secretary
March 13, 1969
Minutes of a special meeting of the Council held jointly
with the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency on March 13, 1969, in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:00 p.m., for the purpose
of considering an agreement between a Developer, the Redevelopment
Agency and the City Council relative to instituting a study of a
project in the downtown area.
Present:
Councilmen Heisey, Hosking, Rees, Stiern, Vetter, Whitte-
more
Absent: Councilman Rucker
The following members of the Redevelopment Agency were
present: Theron Taber, Gerald Clifford, Vincent Casper, Mrs. Peggy
Ghezzi, Mr. Bill Lee. Two members, Mr. Robert E. King, chairman,
and Mr. Robert D. Watson, were absent.
Report of Budget Review and Finance
Committee on Developer Agreement.
Councilman Vetter, chairman of the Budget Review and Fi-
nance Committee, reported that some time ago the Committee was
asked to review the financial aspects relative to the operations
of the Redevelopment Agency created by Ordinance No. 1709 New Series.
In accordance with Resolution No. 103-67, no funds were to be bud-
geted to the Redevelopment Agency by the City for projects but rather
it was the understanding and thinking of the Council that the pri-
vate sector should share the financial responsibility of developing
the downtown area.
Recently a group known as Empire Square Associates, Inc.
s~t forth a proposal to the City and the Agency which embodies the
above-stated understanding. This proposal is contained in the a-
greement now before the Council for its consideration. Basically,
the agreement calls for the developer to produce the capital neces-
sary to finance feasibility studies required for any project. In
certain circumstances the developer may recover his costs upon the
happening of certain contingencies.
The agreement contemplates a five-phase project. The pro-
posed agreement contemplates that the financial risk is borne en-
tirely by the developer through Phase I. After Phase I is approved
by the City and Agency and throughout the remaining phases, the Agency
and the City would be liable for the costs of the project in varying
amounts, depending on the circumstances. The circumstances occur
fundamentally upon whether or not the project is terminated by the
Agency or City or by the developer.
In any event, the developer may recover costs through var-
ious phases up to completion of the project, dependent upon the cir-
cumstances as follows:
Phase I - Costs only not to exceed $75,000
Phase II - Costs only not to exceed $150,000
(including Phase I)
Where City goes forward on project with another developer:
Phase I - Costs plus overhead and profit not to
exceed $125,000
Phase II - Costs plus overhead and profit not to
exceed $235,000 (including Phase I)
The Committee feels that "Section 803 Interest" should be
modified to delete any reference to "overhead and profit" as an
item subject to interest payments. Also Section 316 should be modi-
fied to indicate when reimbursement is to be made respecting sub-
section 4. It is recommended that such repayment be made at the
same time called for respecting subsection 3 of Section 316.
The members of the Committee are in accord on the con-
tract proposals with the exception of the portion dealing with the
continuation of parking meters. Councilman Stiern feels that the
meters should be phased out and revenue replaced by other means.
The Committee wishes to express its wholehearted approval
of the concept this agreement represents for the development of the
downtown area. The Committee recommends approval of the contract
with modifications as indicated in this report.
Councilman Vetter then commented as follows:
The Committee sincerely appreciates the help from the
staff, Mr. Hoagland, Mr. Bergen and Mr. Jacobs, who is the attorney
for the Agency, and they have all been very patient with me and all
the questions that I have had. The proposal is unique, it was put
together from just an idea that these gentlemen had, and it has gone
on to what I think is an excellent agreement which you now see be-
fore you. I think this is a good example of a joint effort by the
private sector of the community and the public sector of the com-
munity, joining together in a development that obviously will be
good for the entire community and particularly, the downtown area.
I would also like to compliment the gentlemen that are here tonight,
Mr. Miller, Mr. Coomes and Mr. Rickett, who attended all the meetings
that we had in working out this contract. They were very coopera-
~ve, I think the keynote of all the meetings we had, was one of ex-
cellent cooperation, the City and its staff, Mr. Coomes, and all the
individuals involved.
I know there has been some comment in the past that there
has been a long delay on this redevelopment of downtown, and it is
certainly understandable why people feel that there has been a de-
lay. Perhaps we should have made reports beforehand, but it is very
difficult to make reports on these things when you are in the process
of working and revising, and working again. I would say that there
has been no intent on the part of the City, and certainly on the
part of the Committee, to delay it, in any way~ shape or form. I
think the work you see here tonight will show that we have been
spending a lot of time along with the Empire Associates people and
along with the City staff. The Committee wants this project to go, I
know that the Developer wants it fo go, and I feel that if and when
the Council approves it, whether it be tonight or whether it be at a
later date, I think it will be the first real positive step that we
had for a long, long time for the redevelopment of downtown. I think
that it will be a step toward a new downtown, a prosperous downtown~
and we hope, a very dynamic downtown.
Mayor Hart commented that the Council is aware of the'work
that has been put forth by the Committee and is very appreciative.
He stated that he, too, has the hope that this project materializes.
Mr. Wilbur Rickett, president of Empire Square Associates,
Inc., read a letter, stating that on behalf of his company~ he is
presenting to the Council and to the Agency tonight a proposal where-
by it would locally undertake the substantial investment and risk
required for private survey and planning studies to determine the
feasibility of redevelopment in downtown Bakersfield.
Empire Square Associates, Inc. is a corporation formed by
Mr. Robert Miller and himself and both have a strong desire to see
redevelopment in Bakersfield result in a revitalized core area.
If they are successful in undertaking this surveying and
planning, they hope to present to the Council and to the Agency a
workable plan for development, with the expectation that in consid-
eration of their efforts, they would carry through with participation
in redevelopment as developers of the project area.
The agreement presented tonight to accomplish this has been
developed over the last several weeks in close consultation and co-
operation with the City Manager, City Attorney and Committees of the
Agency and the City Council. All have had an opportunity to review
it prior to this meeting, and he requested favorable consideration
tonight so that they may move ahead without further delay.
-17-
XX~I~K
Mayor Hart suggested that in considering the agreement
the Council should go through it collectively with Mr. Jacobs and
Mr. Hoagland for questions and discussion, so that the Council will
understand thoroughly all phases of the agreement.
Mr. Hoagland stated that Mr. Jacobs would explain the
contract section by section, item by item, stopping for explanations
and to answer any questions the Council wished to direct to him.
Mr. Jacobs stated that this agreement has been a somewhat
difficult job to work out, not because there were any particular
basic problems in it, but because of the complexity in being fair
to both sides. The agreement is based on the concept of the original
ordinance and resolution, that the Agency would be self-supporting
and that no funds would be supplied. It is also done on the assump-
tion that there would be no commitment to federal funds insofar as
any agreements to be made by the City or the Agency at this time.
He stressed that until the Council and the Agency, both
of them, approve the Phase I Report, there is no liability whatso-
ever, in any form, on the part of the City or the Agency. Any
financial liability will be made at the time the City decides whether
or not to accept the Phase I report and move on. There is nothing
that will be voted on tonight to commit the City in anyway to any
financial responsibility and liability.
Mr. Jacobs then proceeded to outline the agreement to the
Council and those members of the Agency present, section by section,
stopping to answer questions, make clarifications where requested,
and make certain modifications as suggested which will appear in the
corrected agreement in its final form.
During discussion on the reimbursement paragraphs, Coun-
cilman Heisey asked if there is some provision made for auditing
the reimbursement figures of costs, overhead and profits, and asked
what protection the City has along these lines.
Mr. Jacobs commented that the theory with or without an
audit has been that there is ample protection to the City. When
the City Manager has been given a breakdown of the costs, at that
point whether the Council did or did not approve the Phase I report
or the Phase II report, would be based on whether or not the Council
is satisfied with the costs. If it is not satisfied with the costs,
it would be a basis for rejection. There might be some value in an
audit at that time, but it is not a matter in which the City is
automatically responsible for the costs~ but is only going to be
liable for the costs, if the report is approved. So the Council has
~that control, and if the City Manager is not satisfied with the
costs, the Council would merely reject the report and not be liable
for the costs.
Mr. Bergen stated that the Finance Director would evaluate
these costs and a report would be made to the Council before the
Phase I report would be approved. The Council will have the oppor-
tunity to review the costs before approving the Phase I report.
Councilman Heisey commented that he did not feel the pub-
lic would want the Council to give a blank check to any agency or
redevelopment group and the least they can do is to see that an
audit is made in some detail. Mr. Bergen stated it would be broken
down sufficiently to satisfy the Manager's Office and when it is sub-
mitted to the Council, if they want more detail, that could be ob-
tained. He will rely very heavily on the Finance Director for the
audit.
After further discussion, it was decided that such costs
shall be subject to reasonable review and audit by the City and
the Agency at the time of their submission to the City Manager.
Councilman Hosking questioned the desirability of having
an arbitration clause in the contract, as it has been his experience
in this field to go to outside arbitration. Mr. Jacobs replied that
he has never been certain that arbitration clauses in the contracts
with governmental agencies are appropriate, his personal leaning has
-18-
been towards the courts as the appropriate place to decide a public
problem of this sort. Mr. Hoagland stated it is true that there are
some clauses in the agreement, such as bonafide negotiations and
good faith, which could be defined, and he would feel that since
government moneys are involved here, that the final arbitration of
these matters is in a court. Basically, what he would object to
in arbitration, is that it could lend itsel£ to criticism of city
government in some fashion because arbitration does not have the
stature that a court proceeding does, and if the court decides a
matter then it would not lend itself to any criticism on behalf of
government in deciding an issue.
The Council recessed at 9:00 P.M. and reconvened at 9:15
P.M.
In response to a question from Councilman Stiern, Mr. Jacobs
again reviewed the City's responsibility in connection with the costs
for Phase I and Phase II reports, stating that the City would be li-
able for these costs only after it has first approved the Phase I
report~ and then if the project progresses to that point, the Phase
II report has been approved.
Councilman Whittemore asked if this proposed study will
be an updating of the Golden Corridor surveys and studies made some
years ago. Mr. Rickett stated that that report had a plan to change
Chester Avenue into a type of mall, that a substantial part of that
report was an economic analysis of marketing, which was updated in
1967. The report he proposed to submit will be considerably broader
than any other report that has been made on this community.
After additional discussion, Councilman Hosking stated that
Mr. Vetter's committee has expressed its wholehearted approval of
the concept this agreement represents for the development of the
downtown area, and recommends approval of the contract with modifi-
cations as indicated in the report, and he would see no purpose in re-
viewing it further. If it is acceptable to everyone on the Council,
he would make a motion to approve the agreement as to form and refer
it to the Redevelopment Agency for their recommendation.
Mr. Hoagland stated it would be appropriate for both bodies
to approve the execution of the agreement subject to the City Attor-
ney redrafting it in line with the modifications expressed here to-
night.
Mr. Vince Casper, vice-chairman of the Redevelopment Agency,
explained that of the three members of the Redevelopment Agency who
have studied this agreement, he is the only one present tonight.
The other two members are Mr. Bob King and Mr. Bob Watson. The other
members of the Agency have not seen this agreement until Tuesday,
they have all indicated a favorable reaction, but they would like to
have a meeting to discuss it. He stated they would like to retire
to another room to do so. Mr. Hoagland explained that this could not
be done, and stressed that it would be in violation of the Brown Act.
Vote was then taken on. Councilman Hosking's motion~ which
carried unanimously.
Mr. Hugh Sill asked for permission to address the Council
at this time, stating that he was one of the few who was instrumental
in leading up to the conception of the Redevelopment Agency. Inas-
much as the downtown business association has played some part in
this action, as an organization, they were put out that they were
not informed of the meeting. Also, they had not been furnished with
a copy of the proposed agreement. He hopes that they were just in-
advertently overlooked.
He addressed a few remarks to the members of the Agency,
stating he has no intention of being critical, but he has never
received any answers to his questions about what the Agency was ac-
complishing. A number of people who were willing to do work on the
Agency have been eliminated because of conflict of interest, and as
a result of that there has been disorganization over a period of time.
He hopes that with the new members on the Agency it will become a
well-knit, organized Agency and that it will proceed post haste to
accomplish this program.
-19-
KXX~XXX
He addressed the Council stating that he still feels it
has become indifferent since the Agency was appointed. However, if
he interprets Mr. Jacobs' remarks properly, the Council is finding
tonight that it is being drawn into it, more than they ever thought
they would be. They .are being drawn into it and rightfully so,
because the Council has a duty to see that every pkase of this City
is run properly, and downtown Bakersfield is a part of it. The
Council cannot look at it with indifference, it is an integral part
of the community, it is comprised of a group of property owners
that are willing to do their share, and it cannot be done without
the help of the Council and the assistance of the City. He asked
that the Council lend every assistance possible to see that these
proceedings are started underway. He hopes that in the near future,
designers and developers are brought into the downtown area, so
that the people downtown who are going to pay for this may have some
choice. So that they will be at least able to express an opinion
and the thought as to which way this town should be redeveloped.
Public hearings will have to be held under this proposed agreement,
and he will say that there will be a greater attendance at the pub-
lic hearings than there is here tonight, because the people involved
here have to be notified of the hearings. He went on to say that
they are late, they are in chaos downtown, they are disorganized
and it is getting worse every day, they need assistance, and the
Council has to act and act now. He asked that it not be left to
another generation, they do it now.
Mr. Bergen stated he would like to make a statement. As
pointed out this evening, this is a lengthy three-way agreement,
there have been committee meetings, and he is sure that Mr. Sill
was ~are they were working on the problem. It has been very dif-
ficult to know when this type of agreement was going to be ready
and prepared in such a way that it had a chance to be approved by
the parties affected, and that has been the difficulty in giving
proper notice to the public. There was a reason for urgency in
this, and that was why the Council received copies Monday night, and
the special meeting was set up for tonight. It was not intentional
on his part to neglect to notify all parties concerned.
Both Councilman Vetter and Councilman Heisey took ex-
ception to Mr. Sills' remarks that the Council had shown indiffer-
ence toward the downtown area, as all members of the Council are
very vitally interested in the downtown area. Councilman Heisey
commented that the Council has given them a Business Promotion
District downtown, a Redevelopment Agency for the downtown, and the
Council has cooperated wholeheartedly and enthusiastically as well
as it can, without saddling the rest of the community with the bur-
den.
Mayor Hart commented that he was not here to defend the
position of the Council or to placate the downtown business area.
As far as he knows, this meeting was fully publicized and he is
trying to make this thing move in the direction they all want it
to, and it seems that they are started in that direction. He agrees
that they are probably fifteen years late, but they are all in this
thing together and he would suggest that they go ahead on a harmon-
ious note and not use this particular instance for a challenge of
the purpose they all want.
Mr. Hoagland stated Mr. Casper has indicated that the
Agency members would like to have some time to hold another meeting
to familiarize themselves with the proposed agreement, and he has
suggested that the Council adjourn and the Agency can adjourn to
a meeting where they can discuss it further.
Councilman Stiern stated he would like to make a short
comment. He is amazed at some of Mr. Sill's observations and would
like to point out to him that the Council has assisted in certain
progress in the downtown area, in fact the only progress that has
been made. The Council has bought parking lots, entered into A~
greements with private owners for parking lots that needed to be
developed, and has sponsored their development with financial ar-
rangements. Money has been advanced for studies in the past, such
as the ill-fated Golden Corridor, he can't quite accept Mr. Sill's
comments, but in the spirit pointed out by the Mayor to move ahead,
he is willing to do so.
X~X~X -20-
Mr..Hoagland stated the Council will have the corrected
copies of the agreement for adoption at the Monday night meeting.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Stiern, the meeting was ad-
journed at 10:00 p.m.
Vice-Chairman Casper stated the meeting of the Redevelop-
ment Agency would be adjourned until 10:00 A.M., Friday, March 14,
1969 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall to further consider
the proposed agreement with the developer.
DONALD M. HART
MAYOR of the City of Bakersfield, CaliJ~ornia
ATTEST:
MARIAN S. IRVIN
CITY CLERK and Ex-Officio Clerk of the
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Council
March 14, 1969
The reconvened adjourned meeting of March 13, 1969, of
the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 10:00
a.m., on the morning of March 14, 1969, in the Council Chambers
at City Hall, by Mr. Vincent Casper, Vice-Chairman.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Vincent Casper
Bill Lee
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Peggy Ghezzi
Theron Taber
Robert Watson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert King
Mr. Casper asked Mr. Watson to present the following re-
port of the Contract Agreement Committee:
"This Committee has met on numerous occasions with
the Council Budget Review and Finance Committee and
the Developer relative to the contract which was
discussed last night at a joint session of the City
Council and the Redevelopment Agency.
"It is the opinion of the Committee that in order
to accomplish the purposes inherent in the estab-
lishment of the Redevelopment Agency that this
agreement be entered into by the Redevelopment A-
gency as the agreement now stands."
Vincent Casper
Vincent Casper
Robert King
Robert Watson
Robert Watson
It is to be noted that Mr. King was unable to place his
signature on the Report due to his absence from this meeting; how-
ever, Mr. King had attended the meetings during which time the
Agreement was formulated, and completely concurs with this Report.
Mr. Clifford made a motion that the Report be accepted
as presented and placed on file; motion was seconded by Mr. Lee;
voted upon and carried.
Mr. Hoagland was asked to report the action taken by the
City Council at last night's meeting. He stated that the Council
-21-
had approved the Agreement as to form with the modifications that
has been discussed throughout the evening. The Council then refer-
red the Agreement back to the Redevelopment Agency for consider-
ation. The Agency can now refer it back to the City Council, with
any additional recommendations, for consideration at the next reg-
ularly scheduled Council meeting. At that time, the Council will
then execute the contract.
Agency members were asked for comments. It was concluded
that the contract is satisfactory to the Agency in its modified
form.
Mr. Taber made the motion that the Agency accept the A-
greement as modified and that the Vice-Chairman be authorized to
execute same. Mr. Watson seconded the motion, voted upon and car-
ried.
Mr. Wilbur Rickett asked to speak before the Agency at
this time. He stated that as a past member of the Agency he is
aware of the frustrations which have faced this group. He feels
that in this Agreement the Agency has been assured that certain
steps will be taken, and that limits have been set to assure them
that things will be done.
Mr. Hoagland reiterated that By-Laws will be mailed to
Agency members prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting, and
that, hopefully, certain contracts will be on the agenda for pre-
sentation at that meeting.
Mr. Robert Miller asked to speak before the Agency at
this time. He stated that this has been a "year of decision" -
relative to action. He expressed his appreciation for having been
given the opportunity to put together this unique document between
the Empire Square Associates, Inc., the Bakersfield Redevelopment
Agency and the City of Bakersfield which makes possible a definite
project undertaking for the revitalization of downtown Bakersfield.
He also stated that he will be in attendance at all Redevelopment
Agency meetings; reporting back each time on a continuing basis
the developments in Phase I. He believes that a point of decision
should be reached in Phase I by the middle of June of this year.
There being no additional business to be discussed, Mr.
Casper adjourned this special meeting at 10:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Vincent Casper, Vice-Chairman
By: Irene Clarke, Secretary
March 26, 1969
A meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency was
called to order by Mr. Robert King, Chairman, at 8:05 p.m., March
26, 1969, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Robert King
Robert Watson
Vincent Casper
Bill Lee
Mrs. Peggy Ghezzi
Gerald Clifford
Theron Raber
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
Minutes of the March llth and March 14th, 1969, meetings
were presented for approval. There being no corrections or addi-
tions, Vincent Casper moved the minutes be approved; seconded by
Bill Lee; voted upon and carried.
The Agency By-Laws were presented for discussion and ap-
proval. There being no discussion, Mr. King recommended that the
-22-
By-Laws be adopted and requested a motion. Gerald Clifford moved
the By-Laws be adopted as presented; seconded by Mrs. Peggy Ghezzi;
voted upon and carried.
The Agreement for City Services was next presented for
approval. Mr. Hoagland was asked to explain its content. He
stated that on Page 2, Section II "Compensation by the Agency
for Services Rendered" - the word "partners" should read "execu-
tives'' and the word "supervising" should be "technical". He con-
cluded his review by stressing that costs under this Agreement shall
commence on the date that the services are begun, and shall accrue
on the basis established by the Agency and appropriate City Offi-
cials for the services being performed. The Agency, however, shall
not be responsible for the payment of accrued costs for services
until Project funds are available to the Agency for this purpose.
Mr. King asked the Agency members to question Mr. Hoag-
land about the Agreement if they had any doubts about its meaning.
Mr. Taber suggested modification of Section III, Page 3, second
paragraph, by dropping the first and last sentence of the paragraph.
His feelings were that the sentence "Any funds which may become
available to the Agency and which can be used to pay the debts of
the Agency to the City for services rendered under this Agreement,
shall be used to pay such debts" is sufficient wording. Mr. Hoag-
land agreed with Mr. Taber's opinion. Mr. Taber then moved that
the Agreement be accepted by the Agency as modified; seconded by
Mr. Lee; voted upon and carried.
Mr. King asked Mr. Bergen who was responsible for prepar-
ation of the Agenda, and how the public goes about getting items
placed thereon. Mr. Bergen replied that this Agenda can be handled
in much the same way as the City Council's Agenda. If you want some-
thing to appear on the Agenda, contact either the City Manager's Of-
lice or the City Clerk's Office. The preparation of the Agenda will
be the responsibility of the City Clerk's Office with approval of
presented items to be made by the City Manager's Office. Mr. Taber
said he feels that the Agenda items should definitely be screened.
Mrs. Ghezzi asked if it was necessary for the Agency
to meet in the Council Chambers. Mr. Hoagland replied that for
the convenience of the public meeting should be held in the Coun-
cil Chambers. It was also noted that public hearings will be con-
ducted by the Agency as redevelopment continues.
Mr. Bergen recommended that the meetings be taped. He
said that at the next meeting he will recommend some specific pro-
cedures for the administrative workings of the Agency.
Robert Miller of the Empire Square Associates, Inc., was
next introduced by Mr. King. Mr. Miller stated that his group
feels "1969 is the year of decision for downtown Bakersfield", and
that the major decision on Phase I should be ready for presentation
by the middle of June, 1969. Mr. Miller distributed to each Agency
member a thirty-page "Preliminary Redevelopment Plan for Downtown
Bakersfield - Project No. I - Empire Square", stating that this is
being presented only for educational purposes as the first draft
on the preliminary redevelopment plan. He then proceeded to review
the Plan for the Agency members. Upon completion of his present-
ation, he said that the next two weeks should give legal counsel
ample time to study this Plan, and called upon the Agency to set a
special meeting two weeks from tonight to certify a Project Area
and approve a preliminary plan within the Project Area, and then
to request the City Council to call upon the Planning Commission
to identify a recommended Redevelopment Area.
Discussion was called for. There being none, Mr. King
thanked Mr. Miller and said that this was a very enlightening re-
port.
At this time, Mr. King suggested that certain ground rules
should be set. He recommended that any document to come before the
Agency must first be submitted to the City Attorney. Mr. Hoagland
will, in turn, submit them to Mr. Gene Jacobs before presentation
on the floor. This will enable the members to be better informed.
Mr. Bergen stated that any letters, reports, etc., will be submit-
ted with the Agenda; however, at times there may be exceptions to
this rule, and last minute reports may be made at the discretion
of the Agency.
-23-
Mr. Lee said he felt that points of particular interest
should be marked so that the members would be aware of these items.
Mr. Bergen felt that Staff Reports are definitely in order.
Discussion was held on the date of the next meeting as
requested by the Empire Square Associates, Inc. It was decided
that the meeting this evening will be adjourned until the 9th of
April, 1969, at 8:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of City Hall,
for the purpose of considering a Resolution asking the City Council
to direct the Planning Commission to go into the Survey Area, select
a Project Area, and bring back a preliminary plan.
Mrs. Ghezzi asked about the "Master Plan" that had been
referred to several times. Mr. Bergen stated this "Master Plan"
was adopted in 1961 by the City of Bakersfield and the County of
Kern. The Plan has not been up-dated and is currently being worked
on.
There being no additional business to be discussed, Mr.
King adjourned this meeting at 9:40 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., on Wed-
nesday, the 9th of April, 1969.
Respectfully submitted,
Rober~ King, Chairman
By: Irene Clarke, Secretary
-24-
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1969
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at eight o'clock P.M. April 23, 1969.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert King,
and the secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Robert King, Chairman
Vincent Casper
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Peggy Ghezzi
Bill Lee
Robert Watson
Absent: Theron Taber
Minutes of the regular meeting of March 26, 1969 were
approved as presented.
Proposed Rules, Order of Business and Procedures for
conducting the meetings were discussed at this time. It was
concluded to defer action until the next meeting to permit the
City Attorney to incorporate them with Section 509 of the By-
Laws, which had previously been adopted. Mr. King asked Mr.
Hoagland to furnish him with a general outline of the provisions
of Masons Rules of Order so that he can conduct the meetings
accordingly.
Mr. King pointed out that a serious problem exists in that
the attorney who represents the Agency does not have his office in
Bakersfield and it is necessary to forward any documents to him
for his perusal, as the Agency is in no position to act upon
anything which requires a formal vote, if it has not been approved
by its attorney. Getting documents to the Agency sufficiently in
advance of the meeting to allow them to be reviewed by the legal
advisors is an absolute pre-requisite in considering anything.
Mr. Robert Miller of Empire Square Associates apprised
the members of the Agency that he had suggested to the City Manager
today that a weekly meeting program be initiated whereby members of
the City staff, Empire Square Associates and the chairman of the
Agency or his representative, could get together in a weekly session
to keep up to date and more or less present a status type of report.
-25-
Bakers~eld, California, April 23, 1969 - Page 2
~,lr. ~rg~u cor~onted .............. naun'~ made any commitments
for the Agency, he had merely indicated that he thought it would be
a good idea, to hold an official meeting with the staff each week.
This could be held in the Caucus room where there would not be
any interruptions. It would not necessarily result in a meeting
every week, but it would allow them to move ahead faster.
Mr. King agreed that this is an excellent idea and that
he would be happy to attend whenever he is in town. In the event
that he couldn't attend the meeting, he asked Mr. Bergen to notify
Mr. Casper, the Vice-Chairman of the Agency. This proposal met
with the approval of the other members of the Agency.
At the request of Mr. King, Mr. Miller read the following
letter from Empire Square Associates, Inc., addressed to the Chairman
of the Redevelopment Agency:
Enclosed herewith is a Preliminary Plan for Empire
Square, Project No. 1 for the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Bakersfield.
Under the terms of our agreement with the Agency
and City, we hereby request approval of this
Preliminary Plan and in particular the following
Sections of our agreement.
Section 202 - Proposed Project boundaries
as required by law
Section 203 - Proposed Preliminary Plan
as proposed by law
The considerations for approval should be Project
Boundaries, Land Use and Traffic Circulation
If the Agency approves the Preliminary Plan, we
further request that the Agency transmits the
Preliminary Plan to the City Council for their
consideration as to Project Boundaries, Land Use
and Traffic Circulation.
Hopefully, the Council would give their approval and
under Section 220 of the agreement would direct the
City Planning Commission to:
1. Select the project boundaries
2. Formulate the Preliminary Plan contained
in Phase I Report as the boundaries and
Preliminary Plan have been approved by
the Developer, City Council and Agency
3. Transmit the Preliminary Plan to the Agency
-26-
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1969 - Page 3
We are in effect hereby submitting two of the three
elements of the Phase I Report. They are Section
202 and Section 203 of the Agreement, for action
prior to the submission of Section 204. The Agreement
contemplated this could be done by the phrase in
Section 220, ("if it has not previously done so with
the concurrence of the Developer, the City and the
Agency)"
Mr. Watson asked if this had been referred to the Traffic
Authority and if Mr. Miller was requesting approval of the preliminary
plan before the Agency receives a report from the Traffic Authority.
Mr. Miller replied that they were asking for approval which
is completely in accordance with the California Redevelopment Law,
that more specific uses will be delineated as they move down the
line, that the first thing must be approval of the preliminary plan
and that is what they are asking tonight. He stated that they have
tested what they are proposing tonight as being practical to work
within the agreement with the City, that the preliminary plan and
the exhibits were distributed to the Planning Director, the City
Engineer, the Police Department, the Fire Department, and the City
Department heads involved, and he is very hopeful the Redevelopment
Agency will consider tonight the three elements that are involved.
Mr. Bergen commented that he hadn't had the opportunity
to see this plan until this week. He is not prepared to say that he
approves or opposes the closing of 21st Street at this time. There
are certain alternatives that must be considered before he can
recommend that this be done.
Mr. King asked Mr. Jacobs, attorney for the Agency, to
give them an opinion, as without his recommendation he does not propose
to vote on the proposal at this time.
Mr. Jacobs stated that the Agency is not in a position to
act on the preliminary plan tonight, the contract on Page 7 has the
assumption that the preliminary plan will be acted on by the Plann-
ing Commission after the Phase I Report has been submitted to the
Agency and the City Council and has been acted on by both bodies.
There was no contemplation at the time the contract was drafted that
the developer would be here for this purpose at this early stage.
-27-
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1969 - Page 4
It has to be submitted to the Planning Director, it should be looked
over by a financial consultant and by him, to see if the boundaries
make sense in terms of public parking. For instance, there is a lot
of public parking inside these boundaries, which will cause the City
to end up reducing the tax increment to where the project may not be
publicly financible. Therefor, the boundaries should be drafted,
not only in terms of planning, but in terms of financing of the
entire project. For the Agency to take any kind of an action in
principle, or otherwise tonight, would be an unwise move.
Mr. King asked Mr. Jacobs if there was anything that the
Agency could do tonight that would speed this thing along.
Mr. Jacobs said that he would recommend that the Agency
not take action. In the first place, the Agency can't take any
official action other than to say that it approves those boundaries
in principle for purposes of the general planning they are now doing.
He wouldn't have any objection to that as long as it is merely in
principle and does not in any way accomplish Section 202 of the
contract.
Mr.
Mr.
King asked Mr. Miller if that would help him at all.
Miller replied that it is terribly important that they
have some action tonight. Whatever the Agency feels confortable with
tonight would be of help, because when they start to talk to people,
they must have some indication that they have the support of the
Redevelopment Agency of Bakersfield. As he understands the law, they
must have a starting point, and the starting point is the preliminary
plan.
Mr. Bergen commented that at least as far as the staff is
concerned, they will agree that they are going to consider street
closures, but it would to be qualified to the extent that alternate
streets will be constructed in such a manner that the traffic will
be taken care of. They are willing to evaluate closing of the street,
in fact there are a number of streets that are going to be closed, which
it will be necessary to close, but he doesn't think they are going
to say they will recommend the closure of that street specifically
without certain data.
-28-
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1969 - Page 5
Mr. Clifford asked if the Agency could give them an approval
generally, subject to the various conditions about streets without
taking a final complete action.
Mr. Jacobs replied that the Agency can approve it generally
as having no legal effects in terms of the preliminary plan and within
the meaning of the law. He wouldn't have any objections to this. His
problem is that this is the action that should be taken by the Agency
after careful staff work, with their staff meeting carefuly with the
Agency's staff, with consultants making judgments on it. However,
this kind of material has not been presented. He is suggesting
that the back-up material be definitely and carefully tested that
can be made available to the staff so that they would not have to
duplicate testing. This is not properly staffed and before the Agency
tonight so that he can make any kind of an intelligent recommendation.
If it will be a security blanket to somebody to adopt it in principle
in its most generalized form, then he has no objection to that because
it has no legal meaning. But it also has no meaning in terms of them
being able to go out meaningful to developers and make any steps
forward. They need many hours of staff work culminating in a
recommendation tonight, which will be a joint recommendation based
on resolutions that have been pre-drafted. But in his judgment
these documents have not come to the Agency with intelligent staffing
so that they could make an intelligent decision.
Mr. Wilbur Rickett of Empire Square Associates, addressed
the members of the Agency, stating that they have submitted a pre-
liminary plan to the Agency and they think it conforms to the Community
Redevelopment Law. They are going ahead and assemble the land mass
on which to put the project, and he does not think they should have
to study a whole group of possible assemblies of land mass to come
up with some kind of a decision. He thinks they have the most orderly
process and that is to come up with the land mass first and lay the
project out. That is what they are attempting to do in this prelimi-
nary plan. If they are not in conformance with the requirements of
the Community Redevelopment Law, all that the Agency needs to do is
point out specifically what is desired, and they will get it in shape.
-29-
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1969 - Page 6
Mr. Rickett stated they do have a team of consultants, they have a
traffic engineer, a planner and a financial consultant. If the
type of material the Agency wants is for them to come in and give
evidence~ they will be glad to do it. They have been going on the
principle that in one regard they are operating as the staff for
Agency, and they have tried to do their job. They have submitted a
project boundary and a preliminary plan. If further material is
needed to go on with it, they will be real pleased to bring it to
the Agency.
Mr. King asked Mr. Bergen what specific departments of the
City should give favorable recommendations before the Agency can
affirmatively approve what the developers have asked them to do
tonight.
Mr. Bergen stated that if meetings were held with the
Public Works Director, Planning Director, Chief of Police and Fire
Chief, they probably could come to some conclusion that the abandonment
of certain streets is feasible and could recommend the abandonment on
that basis. He can say tonight that they would entertain the pro-
posals for closing these streets, but he wants to stressthe fact
that he wants to be very careful about saying that they will close
these streets.
Mr. King commented that he has the nod of the head, a con-
sensus from the Agency members, that they want affirmative recommen-
dations from the City and the specific departments from the City,
which would reasonable be required before the Agency could pass on
this. Also, how much time is a reasonable length of time for a
report so the Agency can move ahead on this request. He asked if
this could be done in a week, is this too soon to come back with a
preliminary recommendation. He doesn't think anyone expects a final
plan, but a preliminary appraisal as to whether it is feasible or not.
Mr. Bergen stated he would set up a meeting with his staff
and Mr. Rickett stated that as far as he is concerned, they have
enough information to handle it in seven days.
-30-
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1969 - Page 7
Mr. King stated that it it met with the approval of
everyone concerned, that matter should be continued until one
week from tonight when they can hopefully have a report from
Mr. Bergen that the four departments involved have preliminarily
acquiesced in the plan, or have not, whichever the case may be.
Mr. Casper made the marion that this action be taken,
which carried unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Marian S. Irvin
Assistant Secretary to the
Redevelopment Agency
-31-
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1969
Minutes of a special meeting of the Bakersfield
Redevelopment Agency held in the Caucus Room of the City Hall
at 7:30 P.M., May 7, 1969.
A quorum being present, Chairman Robert E. King called
the meeting to order and asked the secretary to call the roll.
Present:
Robert E. King, Chairman
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Margaret Ghezzi
Theron Taber
Absent:
Vincent Casper
Bill Lee
Robert Watson
The chairman read the following letter submitted by
Planning Director Dewey Sceales:
"The Departments of the Engineering - Public Works,
Police, Fire and Planning have reviewed the
Preliminary Plan designated as the Empire Square
Project located within the designated redevelop-
ment survey for downtown Bakersfield.
The Departments approve in principle the Resolution,
the proposed area boundary, the proposed area
general land uses, and the proposed closing of the
streets and alleys as depicted on the Preliminary
Plan Map attached herewith. Approval by the
Departments of the above mentioned proposals in
principle shall not be construed as Staff approval
of the Phase I Report or any portions thereof
submitted to the City by the Empire Square
Associates, Inc.
The City reserves the right for additional and
final recommendations on the proposals as outlined
in the Preliminary Plan after review and analysis
of the detailed data required in Section 204
(Preliminary Feasibility Study) of the Phase I
Report.
City Attorney Hoagland stated that he wanted the record
to show that by adopting the proposed Resolution, the Agency in no
way indicated approval of Section 202 and Section 203 of the contract
between the City and Empire Square Associates, Inc. covering Phase I
or any portion thereof.
-32-
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1969 - Page 2
Upon a motion by Mr. Taber, Resolution No. RAi-69 of
the Bakersfield Community Redevelopment Agency approving in
principle proposals for project area boundaries, general land
uses and closing of streets for proposed Empire Square Redevelop-
ment Project and recommending that the City Council direct the
City Planning Commission to select boundaries and formulate a
Preliminary Plan for said proposed Redevelopment Project was
unanimously adopted.
Chairman King read a communication from Mr. Wilbur
Rickett, President of Empire Square Associates, Inc., advising
that the persons presently owning an interest in the Developer
Corporation are as follows:
Wilbur Rickett President
Robert A. Miller Vice-President
Earle J. Gibbons Secretary-Treasurer
There being no further business to come before the
Agency at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Marian S. Irvin
Assitant Secretary
Bakersfield, California, May 28, 1969
-33-
Minutes of a special meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 4 o'clock
P.M. May 28, 1969.
Vice-Chairman Casper called the meeting to order with the
following members being present:
Present: Vincent Casper, Vice-Chairman
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Margaret Ghezzi
Bill Lee
Theron Taber
Absent: Robert E. King
Upon a motion by Mr. Clifford, Minutes of regular meeting
of April 23, 1969 were approved as presented.
Upon a motion by Mr. Clifford, seconded by Mrs. Ghezzi,
minutes of a special meeting of May 7, 1969 were approved as
presented.
Mr. Dewey Sceales, Planning Director, read a communication
from the Planning Commission advising that at a special meeting held
May 19, 1969, the Commission had adopted a Resolution depicting the
boundaries of the Empire Square Redevelopment Project and a Prelimi-
nary Plan for the Redevelopment of the Project Area. Upon a motion
by Mr. Taber, the communication was received and placed on file.
The special meeting was called for the purpose of discuss-
ing the employment of an executive director. Mr. Wilber Rickett,
President of the Empire Square Associates, stated that he had talked
with Mrs. Lila Little, who is now the executive director of the
Housing Authority of the County of Kern, and has had years of
experience in this field. Mrs. Little has not given him a definite
answer as she wished to discuss the matter with members of her Board
of Directors and has set up a meeting for that purpose on the evening
of June 4th.
He proposed to the Agency that they consider retaining Mrs.
Little as its executive director. There has been no discussion
relative to remuneration, however, in order to fund the position,
Empire Square Associates as part of its program, will put up the
money for the initial phase of hiring Mrs. Little.
-34-
Bakersfield~ California, May 28, 1969 - Page 2
Mr. Bergen commented it was his understanding that she
would be retained to perform a certain function and it would not
be a full time position. A contract probably should be entered
into between Mrs. Little and the Agency for her to perform certain
duties for a certain fee and Empire Square would make the funds
available as a gift to the Agency. He asked Mr. Hoagland to explain
how this could be handled.
Mr. Hoagland stated the contract would not have to be
amended, the Agency can accept gifts, however, he would imagine that
the Agency would want this as a part of the overall cost, to be re-
covered later. He asked what period of time this position would be
in existence.
Mr. Rickett stated that he would not think they should
make it less than six months. This is something to be discussed
and decided.
Mr. Clifford asked if Mrs. Little would continue in her
present capacity and handle this work for the Agency in addition to
her present duties. He also wanted to know if this six month's
period was a rough estimate of the length of time she would be hired.
Mr. Hoagland stated the contract period could be indefinite, to
terminate upon the giving of reasonable notice.
Mr. Bergen called attention to Section 205 of the Agree-
ment between the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency, which specifies that the Manager has been appointed the
Community Development Director of the City. In Section 206 it states
that an executive director of the Agency shall be the day to day
administrator under the supervision of the Manager. That is the
position they are talking about, it is not intended to replace the
City Manager. It is the intent to augment the day to day work and
follow-through and to use the expertise that she would have in con-
nection with this type of program. He has talked to several Council-
man and the Agency and they have felt it is an excellent way to
handle it. He stated that he felt the proper action of the Agency
would be to instruct the Attorney to prepare the necessary contract
with Mrs. Little for the consideration of the Agency.
-35-
Bakersfield, California, May 28, 1969 - Page 3
Mr. Clifford asked it it wouldn't be well at this point
to find out whether Mrs. Little is interested in coming up with
a figure and accepting the position if it is offered to her. Mr.
Rickett replied that she hasn't checked with her Board relative to
taking this position.
Mrs. Ghezzi asked if Mrs. Little would have time enough
to do the work that Mr. Rickett and Mr. Miller wanted her to accom-
plish. Mr. Miller replied that he has a feeling she will say yes
right now, that she will have the time.
Mr. Bergen explained that there was no commitment needed
at this meeting, they just wanted to bring it to the Agency, and if
they are generally in agreement, the action would be to instruct the
attorney to proceed with preparing a contract between Mrs. Little
and the Agency that can be brought back for discussion at the next
meeting. He assumes Mrs. Little will be present at the meeting so
that the Agency members can talk to her directly as she will be an
employee of the Agency, not an employee of Empire Square Associates.
Mr. Lee asked it the Agency has enough money to pay her
fees and Mr. Bergen stated this is the next problem to be worked
out, they will have to submit a recommendation to the Agency at
that time on how it would be financed.
Mr. Taber stated he thought the idea is an excellent one,
he is sure that the City staff is not going to have time to process
all the governmental paper work the Agency is going to get involved
with in the redevelopment. Both he and Mr. Casper stated they know
of no one who is better qualified or has had any more experience in
dealing with the proper governmental agencies than Mrs. Little.
Mr. Casper read a letter from Mr. Robert Watson submitt-
ing his resignation as a member of the Redevelopment Agency due to
his activity in the real estate and construction business which
would create a conflict of interest.
Upon a motion by Mr. Clifford, the meeting was adjourned
at 4:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Marian S. Irvin, Assistant
Secretary to the Redevelopment Agency
-36-
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1969
Minutes of a special meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency held in the Caucus Room of the City Hall at 4:00 P.M.
Robert E. King, Chairman
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Margaret Ghezzi
Bill Lee
Dr. Glenn Puder
Absent: Vincent Casper
Theron Taber
Mr. Hoagland advised that no action could be taken today
on a proposed contract with Mrs. Lila Little for services as Exe-
cutive Director for the Redevelopment Agency until a meeting has
been held with the attorneys, Mrs. Little, Mr. Bergen and Empire
Square Associates. A contract will be submitted to the Agency as
soon as this meeting has been held which will be within the next
few days.
Mr. Robert Miller, vice-president of Empire Square
Associates, stated thgy are way down the road on the proposed
project of Empire Square and they had asked for time today to go
through some of the preliminary plans they have developed and will
be using. Mr. Miller then submitted a preview presentation of the
proposed downtown project using slides for this purpose.
He offered the following tentative plan for the develop-
ment of the proposed project:
Submission of Report for Review 6-30-69
(To legal counsel, city manager,
staff, etc. and to combine
Phase I and Phase II)
Submission to Final Report for Review 7-30-69
(To Redevelopment Agency and City
Council)
Complete Development Agreement 7-30-69
Scheduled Hearing on Redevelopment
Plan 8-15-69
Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan
and Approval of the Development
Agreement 9-15-69
Submission of Federal Application 9-22-69
Approval of the Federal Application 3-22-70
June ll, 1969.
Present:
-37-
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1969 - Page 2
Sale of Tax Allocation Bonds on
Behalf of the Redevelopment Agency 7-1-70
Land Acquisition in the Retail Area
First 8 Blocks 7-1-70
Complete Land Acquisition in the
12 Block Retain Area 11-1-71
Completion Demolition and Site Plans
in the Retail Area - 8 Blocks 3-1-72
Commence Development of the Retail
Project 3-1-72
Open Retail Project 9-1-73
He emphasized the necessity for the Agency to make the
decisions that it must make in order to put this program into
operation. Empire Square will keep the Agency up-to-date on
developments as they occur, and this demonstration will give the
Agency some evidence of their convictions regarding this project.
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 4:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~arian S. Irvin
Assistant Secretary
-38-
Bakersfield, California~ June 18, 1969
ment
P.M.,
with the
Minutes of a special meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelop-
Agency held in the Caucus Room of the City Hall at two o'clock
June 18, 1969.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert King,
following members being present:
Present: Robert E. King, Chairman
Vincent Casper
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Margaret Ghezzi
Bill Lee
Theron Taber
Absent: Dr. Glenn Puder
Mr. Hoagland summarized the terms
of a proposed contract to
be entered into with Mrs. Lila Little to act as Executive Director
under the direction of City Manager Harold Bergen, Community Redevelop-
ment Director.
Executive Director shall be compensated as follows:
$550 per month for services
$250 per month for secretarial services
$150 per month for office rental - office to
be maintained in the Housing Authority
headquarters
Miscellaneous expenses of telephone, travel, meals
and lodging where necessary in the performance of
contract services
The term of the contract shall be for an indefinite period
and may be terminated by either party on thirty days written notice
to the other. There has been $4,000 allocated by the City Council
and it is contemplated that this contract will be limited to four
months. Mr. Hoagland stated the contract could be extended by mutual
agreement predicated on whether the Phase I Project is feasible or
not.
Mrs. Little will utilize her expertise and liason for the
processing of applications for federal funds and aid the Agency in
making the involved application for such funds. Mrs. Little has a
working relationship with HUD and these connections will be invaluable
to the Agency.
-39-
Bakersfield, California~ June 18, 1969 - Page 2
Mr. King asked Mr. Hoagland if the contract had been re-
viewed by Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Hoagland stated that it had been. Mr.
Bergen recommended adoption of the contract.
Mrs. Ghezzi asked when the contract started and Mr. Hoag-
land replied that it would be dated as of today, June 18, 1969.
Mr. Bergen commented thai there is no plan for applying
for federal £unds~ but it is not going to be too long before the
Agency will be receiving Phase I and Phase II Report. The adoption
of the report is going to bind the Agency to certain financial
~mmitments. It is important for the Agency to evaluate the availa-
bility of these funds and to know if this project is eligible for
federal funds. The time is important.
Mr.~ Casper moved that the contract with Mrs. Little as
prepared by the legal staff, be approved. This motion carried
unanimously.
Mr. Bergen stated that he wanted the recorded to show
he will be on vacation from June 2?th to July 2Sth, and that Mr.
Hoagland will be Acting Community Development Director. Also~ his
staff is in touch with HUD evaluating going into a workable program
for the City.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
Marian S. Irvin
Assistant Secretary
-40-
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1969
Minutes of a special meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelopment
Agency held in the Caucus Room of the City Hall at 4:30 P.M., Septem-
ber 5, 1969.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert E. King
and the secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Robert E. King, Chairman
Vincent Casper
Gerald Clifford
Bill Lee (came into the meeting at 4:50 P.M.)
Mrs. Margaret Ghezzi
Theron Taber
Absent: Dr. Glenn Puder
Also present at the meeting were City Manager Harold Bergen,
City Attorney Hoagland, and Director of Public Works Jing.
Mr. King read a communication from Frapwell and Ghezzi,
Architects, clarifying this company's role in the proposed redevelop-
ment project, as the Phase I Report submitted by Empire Square Asso-
ciates lists the firm of Frapwell and Ghezzi as part of the develop-
ment team. This letter was received and filed.
Mr. King stated that the purpose of holding the meeting was
to bring the members of the Agency up to date on what has happened
and what will be forthcoming as a result of the Phase I Report sub-
mitted by Empire Square Associates. He asked either Mr. Bergen or
Mr. Hoagland to give them a run-down on what is being done and is con-
templated in the future and any specific questions from the Agency
members can be asked at this time.
Mr. Bergen stated that he and the city attorney had held a
meeting with Eugene Jacobs and John Gray, as well as Mr. Richard
Calhoun of the Development Research Associates, on Thursday, August
28, 1969. One of the first things that they concluded was that it
is not mandatory to approve the Phase I Report to make the formal
application to HUD for the NDP grant. Thus, primary consideration
can be given at this time to making this application. As far as the
report itself is concerned, there is insufficient background, or
-41-
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1969-Page 2
supporting material, in it for the consultants to come to a conclusion.
In reply to a question from Mr. King, Mr. Bergen explained
that background material required would be the supporting data on cost
figures; primarily work sheets, how they arrive at their conclusions,
etc. Also a rough draft of the NDP application has been requested by
the consultants, so that it can be studied. He has contacted Mrs.
Lila Little and advised her that it is very important that he have a
rough draft of the application and she has indicated that as far as
she was concerned, the application now was in such form and con-
tained insufficient data but that it may be ready at the end of this
week, however, he has not received it as yet. It is most critical
that they have this rough draft of the application, if they are going
to file an application before September 22, which everyone speaks of
as the target date to make application for initial funds to the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. Assuming that the
application is ready the first part of the week and Gene Jacobs and
John Gray have a chance to look at it, hopefully, a week from
Tuesday, September 16, a committee of the Council and a committee
of the Agency can sit down with the consultants and find out where
they stand.
Empire Square Associates is submitting a report to the
higher officials of HUD on the west coast at ten o'clock, Tuesday,
September 9, in San Francisco, They would like to have a repre-
sentative of the Redevelopment Agency and one from the Council
present, and Mayor Hart and Councilman Vetter have indicated they
will attend. Mr. King cannot make the meeting, and Mr. Casper,
Vice-Chairman, has stated he
the Agency.
It is important that
will attend the meeting and represent
a presentation be made to the people
who will be receiving the application as everyone agrees that this
project will not go without federal funds. All information that Mr.
Bergen has received is that federal funds are getting scarcer.
Mr. Hoagland commented that Mr. Richard Calhoun has said
that he cannot tell the Council anything based upon the report
without seeing more of the work that went into the report. As far
as Mr. Hoagland is concerned, it seems to him that it is almost
mandatory that the contract with Empire Square Associates be
modified, that the City can Ok the Phases but does not assume any
-42-
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1969-Page 3
liability until federal funds are available. They can adopt Phase
I Report on the condition that federal funds will be available,
but will not be obligated if the money does not materialize.
Mr. King stated that before he is going to cast a vote in
favor of adopting the Report, he will want assurance that federal
money will be available and forthcoming.
Mr. Clifford commented that it might be possible that another
problem will develop to get the private financing necessary to sell
the bonds.
Mr. Bergen replied that this is the problem that bothers
the consultants, they want to see if there is sufficient local money.
Mr. Clifford stated that he does not think that going back
to Empire Square Associates with a counter proposal need to be apolo-
gized for too much, because since this thing has started the money
situation has worsened each month, so they are going along with an
economic situation which didn't exist when the project was started.
Mr. King commented that he would say
sus from the Redevelopment Agency, that they
about a modification of the contract.
it would be a consen-
had better start talking
Mr. Bergen stated that a great deal of work has gone into
the preparation of the Phase I Report and in fact the consultants
said that there is considerable more work than would be necessary
by the contract. It has been indicated that with BakerSfield not
having federal aid or being involved in urban projects, there would
be a great deal of effort made by HUD to accept the application,
even though it might not meet all of their standards, just to accept
it, but it might be some time before they would receive any money.
Mr. Hoagland stated it is recognized that federal funds are
a necessity for this particular project, and the downtown area can-
not be blacked out and just sit there. There is no way the bonds
can be sold until the project has been accepted by the Federal
Government and some assurance that the funds will be available within
some target date. The Bank of America building along will not
support the deficit on the other 12 block area.
-43-
Bakersfield, California, September 5, 1969-Page 4
Mr. Bergen commented that the plus factor that they have
here with the difficult money situation that exists now, is that
this is a unique type of project to the extent that there is no
federal, city or county money in this project at the present time.
The initial cost, the preliminary planning, is being financed en-
tirely by private money, that is the type of project that may make
it possible to get federal money, as HUD is interested in the private
enterprise approach. If it were not for that, he would not be very
optimistic that federal aid will be available. The staff, the
consultants, are doing every thing possible to make this project
"fly", but there are some problems that must be faced.
Mrs. Ghezzi asked why they haven't been able to get the
supporting data from Mrs. Little, and Mr. Bergen replied that they
have difficulty themselves in getting the background information
and he thinks Mrs. Little is having the same trouble.
Mr. Hoagland stated that it is the opinion of John Gray that
the application might be accepted but may just lie in the basket
from now on.
Mr. Bergen advised that he has a tentative agreement from
Gene Jacobs and John Gray that they will be available in Bakers-
field a week from Tuesday, providing that they have received the
background material at least a week before that date. A meeting
should be set up with a committee of the Council and a committee
of the Agency, at which time the report can be thoroughly discussed
and they can arrive at some conclusions.
Mr. Lee asked if the President's proposal for a cutback
in federal funds would preclude approval of the application, and
Mr. Hoagland replied that he thinks the unique approach will be
helpful. Apparently, the administration is looking for a new type
of urban redevelopment and without this unique approach, the
application for federal funds would probably already be too late.
Mr. King stated that if members of the Agency had questions
relative to the Phase I report, it might be a good idea to call
Mr. Bergen and tell him what the problem is, so that he can alert
the experts to look at the matter from those angles.
-44-
Bakers£ield~ Cali£ornia~ September 5~ 1969-Page 5
Mr. Bergen stated that it had been explained to him that
an NDB application is identical to an Urban Renewal Application,
there is no di£ference, the money is in the same pot. An NDB project
is one that is approved for one year and must be renewed annually.
This was set up because the federal government~ under a standard
Urban Renewal application, was having so much money committed and
not enough action.
Upon the advice o£ Mr. Hoagland, the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency officially accepted the Phase I Report.
Mr. Casper suggested that meetings be scheduled in Septem-
ber to discuss the Phase I Report, he has several questions and he
is sure other members of the Agency have also. A meeting was
tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, September 16, at 7:30 P.M.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Marian S. Irvin
Assistant Secretary
-45-
Bakersfield, California, October 20, 1969
Minutes of a special meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at five
o'clock P.M., October 20, 1969.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Robert E. King,
who stated that the purpose of the meeting was to consider Phase I
Report of Empire Square Associates for the redevelopment of Downtown
secretary called the roll as follows:
Present:
Bakersfield.
The
Robert E. King
Vincent Casper
Gerald Clifford
Margaret Ghezzi
Mr. Bergen, City Manager, made the following statement:
I have passed out a copy of the City's consultant's evalu-
ation and recommendations on the Phase I Report to each of the ~
members. We realize the members haven't had a chance to read it.
In order to eliminate a discussion of the entire report, I would like
to emphasize the last portion of the recommendations which states
"It is our recommendation in light of the uncertainty
of a method for financing the project that the Agency
and City obtain an amendment of the Agreement with
Empire to extend the time for City and Agency action
on Phase I report to January 5, 1970"
This is the specific recommendation that the consultants
made. There was quite a lengthy meeting with a committee of the City
Council and your Agency the other night and perhaps they would want
to augment on that recommendation. I would like to state that the
Council Committee plans to support the recommendation of the con-
sultants and that Agreement 30-69 be extended to January 5, provid-
ing all parties signify their approval of the extension within ten
days thereof.
This Agency is one part of the Agreement. There are
three parties to this Agreement, the Redevelopment Agency, the
City Council and Empire Square.
Absent:
Bill Lee
Dr. Glenn Puder
Theron Taber
-46-
Bakersfield, California, October 20~ 1969 - Page 2
Casper: I attended the committee meeting with the consultants,
as well as Gerald Clifford, and the consultants felt that it would be
January 5th before we would know whether there would be any federal
funds to put the project actually into effect. It would take a
federal grant to be able to make the project and the report work, so
on that basis, they were recommending that the time be extended. I
also attended the 7:30 meeting with the Empire Squares Associates
and at the time I left the meeting, about 9:30 or 10 o'clock, it was
still going on and I don't know what the outcome of it was, but I
left with the impression that if we want a project, we will have to
extend the contract until at least the time when we know whether we
are going to have federal funds or not.
Clifford: I stayed with the first phase of that meeting.
I has to leave before the meeting was held with the Empire Square
Associates, and it was my statement when I left that I would agree
to go along and to vote in line with the recommendation that we
had been given by Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Gray, for much the same reason
that Mr. Casper has outlined here, to give ample time for the Empire
Square Associates to obtain firm financing.
King: Wilbur, do you have anything to say at this time7
Rickett: We were at the meeting that Mr. Casper attended
and it was a long meeting. Our recommendation was a 20 day extension
of the contract and we flatly rejected the idea of the January 5th
or whatever date --
King: How do you feel about it now?
Rickett: I still reject it. Our thinking was that the
20 day extension was in order so that during those 20 days the
proper conversations and meetings could go on to further analyze the
Phase I Report. The 20 days seemed to us to be very reasonable. We
originally had a time period of 60 days. The extension into November,
December or January, otherother 80 days, seemed like a long extension
from the original 60 day period.
King: Anybody have any questions they care to ask Wilbur?
-47-
Bakersfield~ California~ October 20~ 1969 - Page 3
Casper: Wilbur~ what would be accomplished by a 20 day
extension insofar as knowing whether or not there would be financing
from the federal government on this project. The time schedule of
themeeting I attended in San Francisco was that they would know by
January 1st whether or not we would be in the ball park.
Rickett: I think you could at least discuss fully the
intent of the conlract. We have some reasons why we feel just the
automatic extension to January 5th is a longer time than is reason-
able. There are things that need to be done to keep the project
moving, to keep the momentum up. I would ask you for instance~
where are we to be left in the next 80 days~ are we supposed to
cease working on this. Are we to work on it~ if we are~ are we to
get paid for if? These are the sort of questions that seem to me
are worthy of some discussion. There is just not the time to discuss
them from Thursday night to tonight. That's why I think the 20 days
are very important and reasonable~ and darn fair. We're willing to
take a real good look during thai time but I put it right back to
is your interpretation of what we're to do in the next 80
you~ what
days.
Casper:
federal grant, it
Well, the way I look at it, Wilbur, if we get a
will be approximately the first of the year before
we will know. That way we have a project. By accepting a Phase I
Report we're only buying a report, and we do not have a project.
And that is exactly what we don't need, is another report. We need
action, we need a project, and I think everybody in the community
wants a project.
Rickett: I certainly agree with you that we need action
and what we have is an action program. I think it takes action all
the way down the line. I don't necessarily concur with your feeling
that there will be no indication of a grant until the 5th of January.
As you know, I stated that I felt it would come before that. I even
offered to go double or nothing with you if it did come before that,
and nobody wanted to take me up.
-48-
Bakersfield, California, October 20, 1969 - Page 4
King: Well, Wilbur, if that is correct, the extension
until January 5th would not mean that this group would have to delay
action until January 5th. If you satisfied the Redevelopment Agency
and the City Council of financing responsibilities, it could be done
at any time, could it not?
Rickett: Could you define for me from the recommendation
there, what would satisfy7
King: I can't answer that question.
Rickett: Well, are we buying a pig in a poke?
King: What are you buying if you don't go along with
this idea?
Rickett: Well, we can consider that tooT but I'm asking
you, according to this recommendation and the statements about federal
funds, just what action are you looking for?
King: I believe we are looking for some assurance that
the thing is feasible economically, which we have not as yet been
given.
Rickett: Is it reasonable to ask that that be defined.
King: Well, perhaps that should have been in the contract
and maybe we ought to talk about modifying it ....
Rickett: Isn't that a darn good reason to have 20 days?
King: It seems quite obvious to me that we can't do it in
20 days, or at least it seems so in the opinion of these people who--
Rickett: You mean in 20 days you are not going to be able
to define what you mean by satisfaction .....
King: I don't know whether you are going to be able to
give us reasonable assurance.
Rickett: Well, are you going to be able to define in 20
days what you call reasonable assurance7
King: I think that is a matter that either the contract
spells it out or it doesn't. Now, we are satisfied at this point,
apparently the consultants are satisfied, that they have not been
given sufficient evidence, and I think your attitudes leaves us
absolutely no alternative.
-49-
Bakersfield~ California, October20, 1969 - Page 5
told at thai meeting that we fulfilled all the legal requirements
for a Phase I Report and that the action now is a policy action. I
think it is reasonable in that regard to ask just excactly, when you
are talking about assurance, what you mean.
King: I think you know what we mean, are we going to be
able to get the money, or aren't we?
Rickett: Does the money have to be laying on the table?
King: No. But have you got anybody that's got a commit-
ment in writing that will say we are going to have available X
number of dollars for the project.
Rickett: No.
King: OK. If you had such an assurance that we could
rely upon as reasonable business people, then I say you meet the
requirements. If you don~t have any assurance, which you don't
have, then you haven't met the requirements. That's the whole problem.
There are other suggestions here, which I think you are familiar
with. One of them is to obtain an agreement, or a modification of
the agreement, that we could proceed with the Phase II subject to
our only becoming liable if the project funds become available.
Does this idea appeal to you at all?
Rickett: To proceed with PhaseII?
King: Yes. In other words .....
Rickett: and if we do, the meter's running if funds
become
availabe?
King: Right.
Rickett: Well,
that's certainly better than the blanket
recommendation at the bottom, which doesn't refer to it.
King: Well, that is one of the other things that we
have here. Harold, what's your thought on that?
Rickett: This is why I think you need the 20 days.
-50-
Bakersfield, California, October 20, 1969 - Page 6
Bergen: I
It was never brought
specific alternative,
don't think there was any particular objection.
up. The committee felt that in view of no
or no specific request, they felt that the
only thing they could do would be to go along with the consultant's
report. The committee did indicate to me that if they had a request
for a 20 day extension, they would probably be inclined to act on
that request rather than act on this report. But without a formal
request, it was the committee's message to me, that they were going
to recommend the consultant's report. Assuming that you follow the
recommendation to extend this agreement to January 5th, there's
nothing to prevent coming in with a supplemental agreement to follow
recommendation No. 5. Let's sayfunds become available, there isn't
anything that prevents us from moving ahead, moving into Phase II.
King: Have a copy of these recommendations been furnished
to Wilbur - his company7
Bergen: Yes. They received a copy of this last Thursday.
King: Well, Wilbur, it seems to me that the five choices
that are available to us are listed there.
Rickett: You completely disregard the offer of a 20 day
extension?
King: No. that will be number six.
Rickett: Ok.
King: so we have six courses. One would be to approve
the Phase I Report. I don't believe that this group subject to
anybody disagreeing with me - is prepared to approve it.
Rickett: It would be the smartest move you could make.
King: Does anybody feel to the contrary on that? Ail
right. The second is to reject it. I would certainly prefer not
to reject it, if there is any alternative, because I would like you
to keep the project going.
Ricket: Right.
King: Three, take no action, which in effect is to table.
Rickett: Rejection. Yes.
-51-
Bakersfield, California, October 20, 1969 - Page 7
the City,
the City
King: Four. Obtain an amendment to the agreement between
the Agency and Empire, the three of them, whereby time for
and the Agency action on Phase I Report is extended - you
have suggest 20 days?
Rickett: Yes.
King: Well, does the Commission have any questions or want
any further discussion on the request from Empire Square for a 20 day
extension of the time period.
Clifford: I merely think in my interpretation of what's
been said, that the 20 days - Wilbur's just stipulating that. If you
went to January 5th, he could have 20 days, or 15 days, or 10 days,
or whatever he wanted. It looks like to would be more advantageous
for you to have a maximum of January 5th, if this financing is going
to drag out, which I feel it will.
Rickett: I think that the 20 days, Gerald, is important
to work out the details of the extension. So far we've said the
January 5th, an 80 day extension or whatever it is, of the Phase I
Report, with no details of what is expected to be accomplished at
that time, other than general terms. Now the assurance of a federal
grant. Those words are in our existing Contract in Phase V, "assur-
ance of financing." You are considering Phase I, which is preliminary,
and the specific phase you are considering is preliminary financial
feasibility. If that is to be amended to say "financial assurance",
then that is something that ought to be worked on. I think that is a
big step. I feel like we signed a contract for a five card stud game,
and you are asking to see the second card. That's all right. But I
think it's worth of some consideration. I don't think its real
reasonable from your viewpoint, to ask for just a blanket extension
until January 5th, that is being bandied around between "financial
feasibility" and "financial assurance."
Clifford: Well, Wilbur, what you have said then is that
there is a misunderstanding between the Agency and your group as to
the interpretation as to what was to be accomplished in the Phase I
Report. That is what you said?
-52-
Bakersfield, California, October 20, 1969 - Page 8
Rickett: Yes, in effect. But we are certainly willing to
take a new look based upon an entirely different set of circumstances
than existed at the time this contract was entered into. We've come
a long ways and I think that it's worth of a look, and that's what
the 20 days is for. To try to come out with something that is
definitive so that you know what you are going to try to accomplish.
Ghezzi: Wilbur, then you mean that within the 20 days we
could determine whether we would extend it longer, or at the end of
20 days, whether we would accept or reject Phase I, or whether we
would ask for a further extension?
Rickett: I think all of those are possibilities.
Ghezzi: I mean, in other words, the 20 days would give us
time to talk it over and arrive at an opinion of whether we want a
further extension or whether we want to wait, or whether we want to
accept or reject.
Rickett: Yes. And just what is in the best interests of
redevelopment to have accomplished. Sure, the best interest would
be to have the cash laying on the table, I suppose that could be an
interpretation. Once we step out of this preliminary feasibility
and availability, I think it's proper to try to be definitive in
what we are talking about.
King: Harold, do you have some comments?
Bergen: First of all, the consultants were specifically
asked at the meeting on whether 20 days could accomplish anything,
and they both very emphatically said that 20 days - they could just
retype the report and send it in again in another 20 days, and that
probably wouldn't accomplish anything.
The thing that we are getting hung up on here, Phase I
Report, and I'm not talking Phase V, Phase I talks about availability
of funds.
time the
It was implicitly the understanding of the Council at the
agreement was entered into, when the came came for the Council
-53-
Bakers£ield, California, October 20, 1969 - Page 9
to move ahead to obligate funds, they would have an opportunity of
knowing and evaluating the chances of £inancing. Implicity included
in that paragraph is the requirement for the availability of financing.
They do not know now, and under those circumstances they would not be
in a position to approve Phase I. That's under Phase I "availability",
not Phase V.
There is no way of defining availability of the private
sector of financing until you knew what amount o£ federal money you
are going to get. And not until you had a contract from the federal
government, telling you the amount of the funds you are going to get
from the federal government, could you make your financial analysis
on the local funding. These two things are included in that paragraph
that says "It is our recommendation in light of the uncertainty of
a method of financing the project that the Agency and the City obtain
an amendment of the Agreement to extend the time."
It very well may be that at Janury 5th, the availability
will not be known by the Council and the Redevelopment Agency in
order to evaluate whetter you have a project or whetheryou have a
report. I think that's the thing that the Council was depending on.
It was discussed by the Council that at
to obligate funds that they would know,
whether they had a project or a report.
the time they made the decision
at least on a calculated basis,
You could talk about defining
it for 20 days days, or 30 days, but until you have that intangible
commitment from the federal government, you can't, first of all say
how much federal money you are going to get, and secondly, evaluate
the private sector on funds available from there. The consultant made
this very clear that when they mention financing, they are not saying
federal government funds entirely. It is impossible to evaluate the
local funding until you know what the federal funding is, so that
from that standpoint, you can't make a decision under Phase I on
availability. That was their very specific recommendation and I can't
see any way that the Council could make a commitment prior to that time.
King: Anybody else have any comment they would like to
make? What's the pleasure of the Agency?
-54-
Bakersfield, California, October 20, 1969 - Page l0
Clifford: The request is for a 20 day extension, then.
King: The request is for a 20 day extension and our
consultants have indicated that that's insufficient to accomplish
anything.
Rickett:
something couldn't
Mr. King. I would hate to think that in 20 days
be accomplished. I think as Harold was talking,
we heard conunitment, we heard about private financing, we heard
about maybe local sharing. I can see that maybe it will come up to
the day where the federal government says we are ready to give you a
grant and then you got to decide whether you can raise your local
share or not. Is this going to be another extension of the Phase I
Report? You are opening up quite a -- this is what I think is worthy
of a lot of discussion in the next 20 days. Now, possibly at that
time we can come back in and all agree and feel that we have made
the best move to further the cause for redevelopment downtown. That's
the basic purpose. And I would formally request, if it is going to
take the onus off of somebody else, and they feel that somebody needs
to request it, I'll sure make a request for the 20 days. And as a
matter of fact, I can give it to you in writing. That's probably
what I ought to do right now is
least have it.
King: When you think
to give it to you, and you will at
about it, it is kind of silly for us
to act on something when our consultants indicate that it is insuffi-
cient. Let the record show that I have been handed a letter which is
addressed to the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency, under
date of October 20, 1969, and reads as follows:
We hereby respectfully request an extension of time
for twenty (20) days for Agency and Council action
on the Phase I Report submitted by Empire Square
Associates, Inc. pursuant to its agreement with
the Agency and the City dated March 19, 1969.
The purpose of extension would be to allow us
time to appropriately respond to your consultants'
report dated October 16, 1969, and to fully explore
with City and Agency representatives the implications
to Bakersfield's downtown redevelopment program of
action based on the recommendations contained in
that con sultants' report.
-55-
The items contained in the October 16 report of the
consultants were made known to us at a joint meeting
with City and Agency representatives and your
consultants on the night of October 16. Since the
presentation of the advance drafts of the Phase I
Report to the,consultants on August 18, 1969, we
have solicited their comments and offered to them
any information they might require.
ion
We note in this connect/that Agency Counsel, Mr.
Jacobs, at the October 16 meeting, stated that the
legal requirements of the contract for the Phase I
Report have been satisfied by us. That contract
fairly contemplated that the decision to proceed
into Phase II would be based on the preliminary
estimates contained in that report, and that
proceeding into Phase II would ~ar~y~with~itl,eer~alfl~ ~ ~
financial obligations to reimburse us for our work
in preparing the Phase I Report.
Since it appears that the question to proceed with
Bakersfield's downtown redevelopment program on the
basis of the Phase I Report is one of policy, and
involves some uncertainty on the part of the con-
sultants over the availability of federal financing
for the project (which under our contract is to be
determined by Phase V and not in Phase I0, we think
it is very important to fully consider the effect of
rejection of or delay in approving the Phase I Report on:
The processing of the application for federal
funds under the NDP program, an application
based on the Phase I Report and prepared by
the Agency executive director with the assist-
ance of the Agency's consultants.
The need to continue, without undue delay,
negotiations with major retail tenants for
the project area
Pending developments, in and outside of the
project area, including the Bank of America
Financial Square, for which important decisions
must be made as those developments will relate
to the proposed redevelopment program.
The momentum and interest that has been generated
locally, particularly with the financial community
in discussions concerning ways and means of pro-
viding local financing - both public a~ private -
in the amours and at the times it will be
required.
The continuation of the harmonious relationships
between Empire Square Associates and the City and
the Agency, which have been marked by sincere and
conscientious efforts by all parties to fulfill
their contractual obligations to each other
It is with a sincere concern for continuing the progress
made thus far, a concernwe feel is shared by the Council
and the Agency, that we request this extension of time
for your formal action on the Phase I Report.
Very truly yours,
EMPIRE SQUARE ASSOCIATES, INC.
(s) Wilbur Rickett, President
-56-
Bakersfield, California, October 20, 1969 - Page 12
Clifford: Nay I say something?
King: Please.
Clifford: As near as I can determine, we have not had a
meeting of minds on this interpretation on our stand regarding financ-
ing. I thought our stand was such that the financing, both public and
private, would be assured that it would be available when the Phase I
Report was given to us. But that apparently is not what Wilbur and
Bob's interpretation is, as near as I can figure. In the 20 days I
think Wilbur said they want to iron out this so-called difficulty and
still probably not present us with a firm commitment for the construe-
Apparently that I what I got from the conversation
tion of downtown.
so far.
Bergen:
I would imagine, and I don't want to put myself in
the position of speaking for the Council Committee, but I would think
that the Council Committee would see no harm in giving a 20 days
extension as long as it is requested by Empire. This would put us
ina position of not acting on the consultant's report at this time.
It would be merely a 20 day extension which could allow time for
further discussions. My recommendation is that this request would
be inorder.
King: Do we have a motion that we grant the request of
Empire Square Associates for a 20 day extension.
Clifford: I would so move to grant the Empire Square's
request.
King: Any further discussion. Ail in favor signify by
the usual sign.
AYES ALL
King: The motion is carried. Ken?
Hoagland: Now, Mr. Chairman, I think a motion would be
appropriate to amend the contract to conform with the request. You
do have a copy of the contract. That will have to be signed by all
signatories to the original contract, including the Agency, and the
City and the Developer. And just insert in that one place, insert
the word "*)' for the previous word "60", as set forth.
-57-
Bakersffield, California, October 20, 1969 - Page 13
King: Could I have amotion that the City Attorney be
instructed to prepare appropriate documents and the necessary
signatures be authorized by this Agency.
Casper: I will so move.
King: Any discussion. Ail in favor signify by the
usual sign.
AYES ALL
King: The motion carried. Anything further to be
considered?
Rickett: I want to thank you for the consideration
shown. I look forward to finding a way to get this accomplished
and we appreciate your action because I think it has a lot of
merit and will keep things going for us. Thanks a lot.
King: Fine. Thank you, Wilbur. The meeting is
adjourned. (At 5:50 P.M.)
CHA i~RMA~/~6_~evelOpment
Agency
ATTEST:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY to the Redev~lopment Agency
-58-
Bakersfield, California, November 4, 1969
Minutes of a special meeting of the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall on Tuesday,
November 4, 1969, at 4:30 P. M., for the purpose of considering
Phase I Report of Empire Square Associates for redevelopment of
downtown Bakersfield.
The meeting was called to order by Robert E. King, Chair-
man, and the Secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Robert E. King
Vincent Casper
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Margaret Ghezzi
Theron Taber
Absent: Bill Lee
Dr. Glenn Puder
Mr. Bergen passed out to each Agency member a copy of the
Budget Review and Finance Committee's Report dated November 3, 1969,
which was submitted to the City Council last night.
Mr. King asked Mr. Bergen if he wished to say anything.
Mr. Bergen stated that if you read the report that was made to the
City Council last night from the Budget Review and Finance Committee,
it will explain the City Council's action. Also, the members of the
Redevelopment Agency that attended those Committee meetings may wish
to augment it. The staff's recommendation would be that the
Redevelopment Agency extend the contract until January 5, 1969, by
modification of the agreement.
Hoagland: The contract is prepared for the signatures
if the Agency wishes to approve it.
King: Vince attended one of the committee meetings, and
Jerry attended one and I attended one and another one, and the up-
thing
shot of the whole/that was that finally Empire Square did request
that the contract be extended to allow approval or rejection of
the Phase I Report on January 5, 1970. They also made some other
requests, but those requests are not contingent on this. So I would
like to come to this thing first. I understand the Council has
already voted to approve this and I would appreciate a motion from
someone here if you would like to do likewise.
-59-
Bakersfield, California, November 4, 1969 - Page 2
Casper: This is exactly what we wanted in the beginning,
so unless there are some other questions from any of the members, I
will move that we approve this request for an extension to January
5th.
King: Any further discussion on the subject? If not, all
in favor signify by the usual sign.
AYES Ail
Bergen: Empire Square didn't actually request an extension,
this extension is by mutual agreement. In other words, meetings have
been held, and all the parties have agreed to an extension to January
5, 1970, for consideration of the Phase I Report.
King: Ok. I told everybody that this would be brie£, but
if you all have just a few minutes, if it
make a report on some other things, If it
adjour the meeting, and I will just talk,
listen, can.
is legal, I would like to
is not legal, we can
and all who wish to
Hoagland:
the agreement.
King: Ok.
and he, as you know,
to go through. Mrs.
This is all in connection with the extension of
Ken Vetter and I had lunch with Wilbur at noon,
is extremely optimistic that this thing is going
Little has been in constant contact with the
HUD people and despite the President's austerity program and every-
thing else under the sun, he honestly and totally believes that we
are going to be offered a federal contract and it is going to be of
a sum of money that will enable us to get this project under way.
For this reason, he has made a serious request that the Agency get
itself in the position to really function as an Agency, when, as
and if, this amour of money is offered to us and we should then
elect to go ahead with this thing. Part o£ this was discussed the
other night and Harold has indicated to me that he has already
started inquiries as to the availability of people who could serve as
the permanent executive director for the Agency.
-60-
Bakersfield, California, November 4, 1969 - Page 3
Wilbur also suggested something that made a lot of sense to
me. That was that we, as the Agency members, should begin to educate
ourselves as to just exactly what is going to be required of us, as
an Agency, if we undertake to go ahead with this project. There is
quite a lot to it. He has suggested, Harold, that Lila Little, be-
cause of her information, and particularly the knowledge that she
has gained in the preparation of the NDP application, could very
well outline for us some of the things that would be required in the
months to come and would give us a much better insight into what will
be required of us, and we would have a little better knowledge of how
we should organize ourselves. I thought it made a lot of sense, and
I wonder if we couldn't se/ up either a series of weekly meetings, or
once every two week meetings, from this point on, with the thought
that we can utilize the time to get acquainted with our job from
Lila, or from any other source that's available. We could have a
forum here where Empire Square could keep us appraised of what's
going on and information they are getting. I think there have been
some time lags between information that they have not been getting
to us, and some of our people felt that they were withholding
information, and they don't want to take the blame for it because
they say that you were not having regular meetings and it was very
difficult for us to get this information to you. Maybe they are
right on that, I don't know.
But at any rate, it would seem to me that perhaps a meeting
every weekor two weeks, would be in order during this interim period,
and possibly wouldn't be too much of a burden on any of us. If you
people are agreeable with that, I wonder, Harold, if you could take
whatever steps are necessary to set it up.
Bergen: Yes. But I think the first thing that I am going
to have to do is to request more funds. We've already $500 over the
amount that the Council has allocated for the services of Mrs. Little.
It was my intention to have a meeting with Mrs. Little, subject to the
Agency's concurrence, that we get another agreement from her where she
would act as a consultant to us, with the idea of vacating the position
of executive director so that we could seriously think about hiring
-61-
Bakersfield, California, November 4, 1969 - Page 4
someone on a permanent basis as executive director. Then get some
estimates from Mrs. Little on just how much money is going to be
needed in the meantime for let's say, a meeting every two weeks, or
on some definite schedule until the 5th of January, and then go to~
the Council Committee and recommend that X number of dollars to
accomplish this be provided to the Agency. Then we could bring this
back, say in two weeks, to the Agency, if this meets with your approval.
King: That sounds fine, does everyone agree to tha't? Ok.
Now for the benefit of those who hadn't participated in these recent
committee meetings, we were given considerable information about the
Bank of America building which can serve as a very important tool
for us in connection with the downtown redevelopment.
Hoagland: Mr. Chairman, all of the details about the Bank
of America at this time are strictly confidential.
King: I didn't intend to go into that in detail - I think
what I am going to say, anybody that walked outside on the corner
could find out. This thing looks like it may go through, and as a
result of that, part of the construction which is necessary adjunt
to the Bank of America building, could, if handled properly, qualify
as a non-cash grant in aid, could qualify as a credit toward the local
contribution of the Redevelopment project, and as a matter of fact, of
such size, that it would satisfy entirely our first year's requirements
from the City money. So this looks like something that would be of
great benefit, great stimulus to the possibilities of the downtown
redevelopment.
Ken Vetter and I feel, as a result of
had today, that serious consideration should be
financial
which one,
the meeting that we
given to getting a
consultant as was discussed before. I don't know, who or
or anything else, but serious consideration should be
given to that so that we would be in a position to move if this
thing develops to that point.
without a great deal of money being
matter of finding out who the right
getting preliminary ideas from him.
I understand that that can be done
expended by the City, it's just
guy is and lining him up and
the
-62-
Bakersfield, California, November 4, 1969 - Page 5
Bergen: Ken has been in touch with Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Coombs
concerning this specific matter today, So I think this is being pursued.
Hoagland: Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Coombs met down in Los Angeles
yesterday with Mr. Graves and even today they were exploring the field,
so something is being done right at this moment.
King: The last thing that I wanted to talk about was, as a
result of the committee meetings that were called, Wilbur asked to meet
with Ken and me today to see if we could resolve other areas which were
sort of in limbo. It is my understanding that as a result of our action
to extend until January 5th the consideration of the Phase I Report, the
developer and his attorney feel that we have created a limbo situation
with respect to expenses which have been incurred by them after August
18th, which was the day they submitted the Phase I report, and other
expenses which will be incurred
5th. They are concerned that a
curred in that period could not
Phase II cost, assuming that we
by them between this time and January
claim might be made that expenses in-
be recoverable by them as a part of
approved Phase I and went on to Phase
II. Mr. Rickett estimated that it is going to cost him approximately
$5000 a month to keep this thing rolling between now and January 5th,
and he estimates that they have already incurred an additional $10,000
from August 18th to the present time, this would be a total of $20,000.
They want to keep going, they have to keep going, and Ken and I both
felt that he should recommend to the Council and I should recommend to
the Agency, a modification of the contract, so that any of those
expenses incurred would be considered as Phase II expenses, under the
contract.
This is not changing the limitations which are already appli-
cable to Phase II expenditures, it is not saying that the $20,000 is
is necessarily a proper Phase II expenditure, merely, that no point
would be raised on these expenses because they were incurred in this
period between August 18th and January 5th.
I hadn't had a chance to talk to Mr. Hoagland about that'
that and I don't know what his reaction is to it, but this is agree-
able to Wilbur and it seemed agreeable to Ken and me. And if it is,
-63-
Bakersfield, California, November 4, 1969 - Page 6
it would solve the problems that caused the recent meetings. He did
request one other point, and I think everybody in the committee meet-
ing was in agreement with that, and that is the Blight Study which
necessitated an expenditure of $11,960.00 should be considered either
as a Phase I or a Phase II expense, and that we would increase the
limit of the Phase I Report, if it is a Phase I expense, or increase
the limit of the Phase II Report by that amount, if it is a Phase II
expense. I don't know whether any of you know what this is all about,
but basically speaking, it became necessary to have a Blight Study
done before the federal government would seriously consider a NDP
application, and it cost $11,960.00. This was done and Wilbur's out-
fit has spent that amount of money. I believe that Harold and the
other people agree that it was a proper and necessary expenditure and
one that should be considered if and when we approve the Phase I Re-
port. That really is the upshot of the meeting that he had with us.
Do you have any thoughts on this, Harold?
Bergen: No, I think you stated
evaluating the actual costs submitted for
it very well, We are
the Phase I Report and hope
to be able to come to a conclusion this week or next.
King: Ken, do you think that you could get together with
Jacobs and work up something that would be a modification and would
meet what I said, so that we could take some action on it?
Hoagland: I think that is along the lines that we have
contemplated before, I don't see any problems.
King: Well, this is our thinking. I would like to have it
proceed that way, so that we could formalize this maybe at the next
meeting that we have.
Clifford: May I ask one question? They submitted the Phase
I Report on August 18th. How much time did we have then to approve
or disapprove Phase I Report under the original contract.
King: 60 days.
Clifford: Well, that brings up a point to my mind. They
knew that we had 60 days to approve it, so should you take the period
from the 18th of August to the 5th of January, or 60 days from the
18th of August.
-64-
Bakersfield, California, November 4, 1969 - Page
Hoagland: We have changed that provision to 140 days in
our amendment to the contract.
Clifford: Well, at least if it was 60 days in the original
agreement, they knew that it would be possibly, there would be a
period of 60 days where they wouldn't have gotten into this reimburse-
ment situation.
Ghezzi: I think that is a very good point.
King: We considered that in our discussions today. Initi-
ally, it was suggested by Wilbur that there should be some sharing of
the expenses which are incurred between now and January 5th, regard-
less of whether Phase I Report was accepted or rejected, and I must
say that the committee, when we were all present, which included the
three Council members and those of us here, were somewhat inclined to
think that there was more than a little merit in that. He has now
said, however, that he would be willing to take that gamble because he
feels so certain that the project is going to go through, and not ask
us to pay anything for a dead horse. In other words, if the thing
goes down the tube, he will swallow the whole thing, if we would agree
to reimburse him if the thing
Clifford: If we go
King: If we go on,
goes ahead.
to Phase II.
and frankly,
I thought that was a fair
compromise of the problem to do that, because we are not going to be
on the hook for anything if we don't go ahead with it.
Clifford: Do we need a motion?
King: No. This is going to have to be worked out eventu-
ally as a modification one way or the other. But we wouldn't want
to do that until we had it in writing. That is the point, there is
no question but what there was this hiatus and it was contemplated
in the contract. However, to try to smooth things over and get it
back on a more fair working arrangement, we thought maybe this other
thing would solve the whole problem and we would not obligate the
City unless we get a project.
-65-
Bakersfield,
Clifford': I
compromise on the part
California, November 4, 1969 - Page 8
a
feel that would certainly be~more than fair
of Empire Square, they'could conceivably ask
ior participation in the event that it was turned down. I think
that that would have been very reasonable too, to a certain amount,
is
so this/more than fair, I think.
King: Wilbur had the attitude of wanting to cooperate a
100% and I would like to keep it that way too. Ok. That is really
everything that I have.
Harold, I have been furnished with something here which I
think would be of considerable help to the Agency members, It is
kind of an abstracting and analysis of the contract broken down by
phases and it just shows exactly what is required and I think it
might help us all, because the contract is long and a little hard to
understand. Maybe if you could dupli6ate this and furnish it to
everyone they would appreciate it: This is the onlycopy, so I will
need one too.
Has anybody got anything else
Harold, will you Check with the members
they would like to bring up.
on a date, so that we can
get this regular meeting lined up and we can all put in on our calendars?
Harold: The ByLaws set up the 4th Wednesday, If you want
a special meeting you are probably talking about the 19th of November.
King: I think the 19th would give us time to work out
details. I would suggest that we meet bi-monthly between now and
January 5th unless we run out of things to do.
Ghezzi: That will give us four meetings, then.
Bergen: I think that if we are going to do this on a
special meeting basis and with the holidays coming around, rather
than just picking the first and third Wednesday, let's look at a
calendar and'pick certain days, you~don~t ~ant meetings bef6re
holidays. Why don't we tentatively set the 19th for the next meet-
ing. Then, after talking to Mrs. Little, we will bring back a
schedule of suggested meetings.
-66-
Bakersfield, California, November 4, 1969 - Page 9
Clifford: How about getting these meetings on some specific
time, like eight o'clock?
Bergen: Ok. November 19th at eight o'clock. This is
tentative, however, and we'll let you know for sure.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 P.M.
F~IA_~R AN~Redevelopment
Agency
ATTEST
Assistant Secretary'fo' th~ Redevelopment Agency
-67-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969
Works William
Minutes
as presented.
Minutes of the special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., December 9, 1969.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Robert E.
King, and the secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Robert E. King, Chairman
Vincent Casper
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Margaret Ghezzi
Bill Lee
Dr. Glenn D. Puder
Theron Taber
Absent: None
Also attending the meeting were members of the City Staff,
City Manager Bergen, City Attorney Ken Hoagland, Director of Public
Jing and Director of Planning Dewey Sceales.
of the last meeting of November 14, 1969 were approved
Mr. King read a letter from Dr. John Lavender, Senior Minister
of the First Baptist Church, which had been previously filed with the
Agency, requesting the Agency to expand the Survey Area to include the
nine and one-half block of land bounded by "M" Street, 23rd Street and
the freeway, "Q" Street and 21st Street, and to determine if it would
be possible, through the process of redevelopment, to acquire and make
this new location available to the church.
Part of the plan which has been submitted by Empire
Associates is the possible utilization of the present site
First Baptist Church for a hotel complex, but this
Square
of the
is tentative and
is not a part of the present
N.D.P. funds. If the Agency
from the federal government,
application which the Agency made for
is successful in obtaining a contract
it might want to give consideration to
this request. If the present application is not satisfactory, and
no immediate construction program is to be considered, there is no
point in making any decision at this time. The question also arises
as to whether the expansion of the present survey area would curtail,
jeopardize or in any way delay, the existing application for N.D.P.
funds.
-68-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 2
Mr. King commented that before any action is taken on this
request the Agency should have an opinion from Mr. Jacobs as to
whether or not the Agency can expand the Survey Area without detri-
ment to the present application, if it should involve extensive
modifications of the application, it possibly is not the right time
to do it. He therefore recommended that any action on this request
be deferred until an opinion is received from the legal counsel at
the next meeting.
Mr. Casper commented that if the Survey Area is to be expand-
ed, it should not stop at 21st Street but should go ali the way from
the freeway on "Q" Street to Truxtun Avenue. Mr. King stated this
matter would be discussed later.
Mrs. Lila Little, Executive Director, stated they have had
comments from the HUD office where the application has been throoughly
reviewed, and one of them was that the relocation payments should be
reduced about $56,000. Most of the other comments were relative to
whether the area met the critera or not. There is no doubt but that
it does, but HUD officials asked that it be explained at greater
length on paper, which has been done. Next week, representatives
from HUD will come to Bakersfield and review his plans for parking
and the first year construction with Mr. Rickett. She read a letter
from the assistant acting regional administrator of HUD, describing
the future plans for the redevelopment of downtown Bakersfield and
stating that on the basis of the application and the Phase I Report
produced by Empire Square Associates, Inc., his office recommends
approval, such approval to be based on certification of the Bakers-
field Workable Program for Community Improvement which was submitted
to the Regional Office the week of September 8, 1969.
Mrs. Little stated there have been numerous reports from the
HUD officials relative to certain new guidelines with respect to the
Neighborhood Development Program. The Agency's application is being
held in the San Francisco office pending receipt of new federal guide-
lines for redevelopment. New applications for the 12 Western States
which do meet the guidelines are being reviewed again, and they will
-69-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 3
consider which onesfit the category. HUD has released $125 million
federal funds for redevelopment projects which will finance about 45
cities and their projects. There are 280 applications nationwide for
the funds and 31 in the 12 western states. Her estimate is that about
six in the western states will be funded She has been informed that
the Minimum N.D.P. accomplishment that HUD will accept within a two
year period will be the acquisition of, or binding commitments for all
property scheduled for acquisition and expenditures made for or bind-
ing commitments on all activities on which grant payments are based,
for demolition and site improvement, which means that they only need
to be under contract, not completed.
Mr. King asked Mrs. Little what she believed would be the
timing for the release of funds to be given to the lucky cities who
will have their application approved. She replied that a communication
from HUD stated that Secretary George Romney today announced that with-
in the next two or three weeks HUD will allocate funds for the N.D.P.
applications for the fiscal year 1970. She believes that the Agency's
application fits within the guidelines.
Mr. Rickett told the group that if a contract was tendered by
the federal government and it was acceptable, it would be the Agency's
responsibility to take action to acquire land, demolition on that land
and some site preparation. That would be almost entirely an Agency
function. The ordinance which creates the Redevelopment Project
would have to be passed and public hearingswould be held. The Agency
would then be authorized to proceed. The local share would be the
parking structure in Block 272, which would be proceeding at the
same time. A ReUse Agreement to be entered into between the Agency,
the City and Empire Square for the eventual acquisition of that land
which goes back to private use in the 12 blocks, would not affect
the parking structure, and there would not be any rebuilding on it
within the action year.
-70-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 4
Mr. King stated that if a contract was tendered and accepted,
there might be a few months delay before the action would start. He
asked if when they reach the point of the commencement of the action
year, does the budget which has been submitted contemplate necessary
funds to accomplish the necessary 80-20 work arrangement which they
specify is necessary. Mr. Rickett stated this was so. As he under-
stands it, the contract is a loan-in-grant contract. The Agency
gives HUD their estimate of their first quarter needs, as far as
money is concerned, and the loan for that amount of money is made
directly to the Agency from the federal government. Beginning with
the second quarter, the Agency goes to a private financing institution
and borrows the money that they feel is necessary for the second
quarter's operation; however, he is not sure on this whether it is
the second quarter operation, or the rest of the year.
Mrs. Little clarified this statement by saying that they
would offer temporary loan notes for sale and private banks would
bid on those notes. Mr. Rickett stated these notes are guaranteed
by the federal government. A maximum interest rate of 6% is paid
by the project and if there are any interest charges over that, it
is made up as a straight grant from the federal government. At the
end of the action year, an accounting is made. The local project
authority, the Agency, has to have either spent or have committed to
be spent, the matching amount of money, which allows one year to pro-
cure the local financing of one-third of the amount necessary, for
the action year only. In reply to a question from Mr. Ghezzi, Mr.
Rickett stated he did not know where the figure 80-20 came from, it
is roughly two-thirds grant, and one-third local.
Mr. King commented that the 80-20 is the first year completion
of contemplated work, not money.
Mr. Hoagland asked Mrs. Little for a clarification of the
statements that one of the minimum NDP accomplishments HUD would
accept within a two year period would be the acquisition of or
binding commitments for all property scheduled for acquisition and
-71-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 5
the expenditures made for binding commitments on all other activites.
He is concerned particularly with the "acquisition of", is this to
be done in the first year or two years. Mrs. Little explained that
this does not apply to the entire project but applies only to the
property and expenditures made for the action year.
Mr. Hoagland asked if this would be the property actually
acquired or in the process of condemnation. Mrs. Little commented
that they hope there will not be any condemnation. Mr. Hoagland
stated they all hoped that, but if condemnation proceedings are
commenced, there is such a thing as court delays, etc. Mrs. Little
replied that she thinks the 20% would take care of that. Mr. Hoagland
stated that his only question was would it have to be irrevocably
acquired or could it be in the process of acquisition. Mrs. Little
stated they allow 20% because they realize there might be some
condemnations.
Mr. King remarked that he has asked in a meeting today with
Mrs. Little and Empire Square Associates, what had been the experience
of other developers as to the percentage of properties that went to
condemnation as opposed to those that they were able to acquire, and
the percentage was only 3 to 4%. So the 20% figure in a two year
period would appear feasible in this area. He summarized the dis-
cussion briefly, stating that in his opinion this means that hope-
fully in two or three weeks the Agency will know whether it is one of
the favored few or not and then the whole question is, what will be
the terms or conditions of the contract that is offered to the Agency.
Mrs. Little advised that the federal grant is $1,899.000 and that
will be reduced by $56,000.
The members of the Agency went on to the discussion of the
possible expansion of the project area. Mr. Miller commented that
Empire Square originally minimized the project area basically for
the reason that they wanted the first project to be successful.
Both legal counsels have pointed out the potential tax increments
which will be created in peripheral projects if the first project
-72-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 6
gets off the ground. Empire Square has the feeling that the Redeve-
lopment Agency should not consider an expansion of the project area
for the potential tax increments that could be created between the
streets bounded by Chester Avenue on the east, G Street on the west,
Truxtun Avenue on the south and l?th Street on the north. Another
check should be made through the legal counsel based on the position
today with the N.D.P. application. This is something that perhaps
can be done at an early date and he thinks the request should be
made, and asked Mr. Bergen if he wanted to comment.
Mr. Bergen stated this is something on which they need Mr.
Jacobs' comments at the next meeting and he will ask Mr. Hoagland
to make sure that this is included with the report.
Mr. Miller stated that in discussing the matter with many
agencies throughout California, it has been their experience that
this is a very important step for the Agency as it moves ahead, to
be constantly examining. As they understand it, within a certain
boundary there is a project and tax increments that are created
within that boundary and can be used for that particular project.
If another project is created and there are tax increments from
that project, the two cannot be intermingled. So it gives a
stronger base of financing from the local share, plus the fact that
it creates the opportunity to be alert to £urther situations, be-
cause they will occur.
Mr. King commented that once a contract is offered to the
Agency, it will be necessary to hold certain public hearings and
a decision has to be made as to whether or not the plan which
Empire Square is proposing will be acceptable to the Agency. The
Agency will then take action to determine this, and the City Council
will be the final body to determine whether the Agency's action is
correct. They will have to concur, as well. Assuming that has
been done, and they have a plan which has been adopted into law,
from that point, as he understands it, the Agency becomes the body
that must make the decisions and must actually spend the money. In
fact the government loans are not made to the Bakersfield City Council
but actually make to the Redevelopment Agency.
-73-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 7
Mr. Hoagland concurred that basically the Redevelopment Agency
will assume full responsibility for the project within the limits
of its agreement with the Council. Mr. King commented that the ulti-
mate decision would rest with the Redevelopment Agency, which makes
it clear that the Agency would need to employ an Executive Director
who has experience in these matters and a staff of sufficient size
to handle the day to day functions.
Mrs. Ghezzi asked how they are going to do this, where will
they get the money for this purpose. Mr. King stated that as he
understands it, the Agency receives the money from the federal
government, not the City Council, and is charged with the obligation
to spend it wisely. Basically, a budget was set up, but it is not
laid out. There are policy decisions to be made, and obviously, the
Agency does not have the professional knowledge to do this.
Mrs. Ghezzi asked if a contract and a loan is received from
the federal government, does it still have to be approved by the
Council, and Mr. King stated that was so, but once it was approved,
the burden primarily falls on the Agency.
Mr. Bergen commented that at the time the Council approves
the contract, there are other financial obligations that they have
to consider and that gets into the approval of operating funds for
the Agency.
Mr. King stated that something had been bothering him and
other members of the Agency for some time. Assuming that a federal
contract isoffered to the Agency of such size that makes it appear
they can go ahead with the
availability of City funds
in dollars and cents, what
Mrs. Little replied
project, there is still the problem of
for its share. In this first action year,
is the City's obligation.
that the City's share was $800.000.
Mr. King said that if the City's share amounted to $800,000,
it seems to him that they will have a relatively limited time with-
in which to act upon the contract when it is offered to the Agency,
and still stay within the terms of the extension which they have
agreed to with Empire Square. He asked how the Agency is going to be
intelligently advised as to the availability of these federal funds,
-74-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 8
without a financial consultant, which has been discussed at many of
these meetings. Mr. Jacobs is an excellent man in his field, but
he is not a finacial consultant, neither is Mr. Gray or any of the
others they have talked to, but he has been told that there are
financial consultants available. It seems to him that the Agency
should be getting in touch with some consultant and getting a pre-
liminary look at the problem.
Mr. Bergen stated he ~'as under the impression that the Agency
had given Mr. Gene Jacobs the authorization to discuss this with the
attorney of Empire Square so that there would be discussions with the
financial consultant.
Mr. King asked Mr. Miller if he had been aware of any contact
between the Agency's legal counsel and that of Empire Square.
Mr. Miller replied that he understands that there have been
conversations between Mr. Coombs and Mr. Jacobs and they are trying
to nail down a date with the financial consultant. They are concerned
about this and talked to Mr. Coombs who stated that he was waiting to
hear from Mr. Jacobs and hopefully, they were trying to get with
Larry Commerford of Blyth & Co. That is the last word they had on it.
Mr. Hoagland stated that the uncertainty of the plans of the
Bank of America project could have an effect on the overall picture
and that might be the cause of the inaction on the part of the legal
counsel.
Mr. Clifford commented that the $800,000 mentioned by Mrs.
Little was beginning to scare him and Mr. Bergen said if they were
talking about the City coming up with $800,00, it might as well be
cleared up right now, as the City is not coming up with $800,00.
The most direct concernto him is the funds which will be needed to
pay the staff to enable the Agency to operate.
Mrs. Little stated that when the contract is signed, an advance
loan can be obtained from the federal government.
Mr. Bergen commented that when a contract is offered from
the federal government, prior to the signatures, and assuming the
-75-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 9
City decides to proceed a full time executive director will need
to be hired.
Mr. King remarked to Mr. Bergen that he had skipped one step
which he could not skip that easily, and that is the very basic
proposition of approving or rejecting the Phase I Report.
Mr. Bergen said he would get back to that. Assuming they
get a contract offered, there will be a period of time when the
consultants are going to be very busy in order to make sure the
project is feasible. When they have decided that it is feasible,
approval of the Phase I Report will follow.
Mr. King asked Mr. Bergen if the federal government offers a
contract of sufficient proportions to come reasonably close to what
has been requested, is that alone enough to satisfy him that they
have a feasible project without worrying about a local share.
Mr. Bergen replied that he thinks there was some question
about the local share in talking about the $800,000. But when the
contract is offered with the exact money~ then the consultants,
within a couple of weeks, can say they have a project. And when
they say that, he is assuming the City will move ahead.
Mr. King asked if the consultants they have now feel that if
a contract is offered to the Agency by say the 25th of December, does
this give them enough time to make a recommendation relative to the
local share, whether they could approve or reject the report.
Mr. Bergen stated he thinks the point that is important to
bring up here~ is that the consultants in their report didn't say
that the approval of the Phase I Report be deferred based only on
the fact that federal funds were not offered, but there was some
question on the local sharing. When the discussion was held on the
Bank of America project, it was assumed that this would take care of
the problem and that the final determination could be made when they
knew the exact amount of the project.
Mr. King commented that one of things he was trying to avoid
and this is just a matter of anticipation~ would be coming up to the
-76-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 10
point they haven't had a financial consultant and they haven't had
his opinion, and therefore, cannot make a recommendation. Whereas,
they could cut that time down now by having Mr. Jacobs get together
with the Empire Square people and get this man lined up and start
the preliminary work.
Mr. Bergen agreed and stated they would call Mr. Jacobs in
the morning and remind him that they would not like to have a meet-
ing on the 4th of January and be told that a decision could not be
made because they didn't have a financial consultant.
Mr. Hoagland stated the legal counsel has talked to Larry
Commerford upon some of the possibilities inherent in the Bank of
America project.
Mr. Clifford commented that he thought they had agreed on
this extension until January 5, 1970, merely to give the Empire
Square Associates time to establish that this project could be
financed, he thought that was the No. 1 reason why they agreed to
extend this until January 5th. Now it appears a number of little
things are cropping up which were not discussed at the time of the
extension.
Mr. Hoagland remarked
the Bank of America building,
that he thinks it was contingent upon
that is the key to the local share.
Mr. King stated, to put this thing in the proper prospectus,
Dick Graves, who is the developer on the Bank of America Building
and who is very knowledgeable in redevelopment matters, made the
statement that if the Bank of America goes, he felt that along with
the parking structure, it could qualify virtually as the whole share.
But there is a possibility that it won't go, and he doesn't feel
that Empire Square should go down the tube just because Bank of
America doesn't go. That is why he believes there should be finan-
cial consultants on the job now to see if there are other alternatives
which would make this project feasible.
Mr. Clifford commented that he thinks they are practically
talking about another extension and Mr. King replied that he is
trying to avoid that.
-77-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 11
Mrs. Little reminded the Agency that when it selects a staff,
it should be someone with experience. This is going to be an action
project and it could not be handled without an experienced Executive
Director. She has talked to an experienced man who at the present
time is working in Los Angeles and has expressed interest in the job,
but is concerned about the amount of money which she put in the budget
for the position. He is making over $20,000 now, and would make some
concession to come to Bakersfield, but he would be reluctant to
accept $16,200 which is the amount budgeted. There is a contingency,
however, which could bring it up to $19,000. He has the qualifica-
tions to make a good executive director and has the experience, and
she has asked him to contact the Agency and submit a resume.
Mr. King asked about restrictions being placed on the hiring
of the staff, and Mr. Bergen stated these employees should not be
under Civil Service, but it is required that they have the same
working conditions and receive the same fringe benefits as city
employees. However, the Agency would have the final right to hire
or fire these employees. Mrs. Littled stated it would be necessary
to adopt a Personnel Policy to cover the guidelines from the federal
government.
Mr. King pointed out that he had been told that in the early
stages of getting things started, Redevelopment Agencies were re-
quired to meet two or three times a month, or even more, and will
require a bit of time not only
staff.
Mrs. Ghezzi stated that
from the Agency members but from the
from the discussion, the only thing
that she can see they have arrried at, is that Mr. Bergen and Mr.
Hoagland are going to contact somebody about a financial advisor.
She can't see that they have accomplished anything else after all
the discussion.
Mr. King remarked that they had been told a preliminary con-
tact with a financial consultant had already been made but Mr. Bergen
and Mr. Hoagland will utilize their good offices, together with
Empire Square, to try to bring this thing to an immediate head.
-78-
Bakersfield, California, December 9, 1969 - Page 12
However, in the absence of a federal contract, they do not have a
definite program.
Mr. Casper stated he was confused on one point. The last
time they had a committee meeting and Mr. Jacobs was there, he left
that meeting with the understanding that Mr. Jacobs was to have some
discussions with financial consultants and they were to talk with
Mr. Graves of the Bank of America on the possibility of creating
the local funding of this $800~000, and as he understands now,
there hasn't been any contact made with the Bank of America.
Mr. King stated he attended the same meeting and came away
with the same impression, but the follow-up to-night does not indi-
cate that anything has transpired on it. This is something that is
very vital to this project and he would like to see some action
taken.
Mr. Bergen stated he would call Mr.
is slipping by and it should be recognized
by,
Jacobs, but the time
that as every day goes
to have these answers by January 5th is going to be more and
more difficult.
A special meeting was scheduled for December 17, 1969 at
eight o'clock p.m. Mr. Bergen stated this would work out very
well, as it is contemplated that several HUD representatives will
be in Bakersfield on that date and may attend the meeting. Also,
Mr. Jacobs will be present and hopefully, have some answers for
the members of the Agency.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
AI elopment Agency
Assisfaht Secretary'to tee Redevelopment Agency
-79-
Bakers£ield, California, December 18, 1969
Minutes of the special meeting of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., December 9, 1969.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Robert
E. King, and the secretary called the roll as follows:
Present: Robert E. King
Gerald Clifford
Mrs. Margaret Ghezzi
Bill Lee
Absent: Vincent Casper
Dr. Glenn D. Puder
Theron Taber
Also attending the meeting were members of the City Staff
City Manager Bergen, City Attorney Ken Hoagland, Director of Public,
Works William Jing and Director of Planning Dewey Sceales.
Minutes of the last meeting of December 9, 1969 were
approved as mailed.
Mr. King stated that at the last meeting the Agency had
posed specific questions which it felt required the presence of its
legal counsel. The Agency is generally concerned with being in a
position to act promptly if the contract is offered so that additional
time will not be needed to get organized. That is the one thing he has
been concerned about, and he asked Mr. Jacobs to enlighten them as to
whether he feels they are going to be in a position to act with reason-
able promptness if a contract is offered. The second question deals
with the matter of the legality and practicability of increasing the
survey area.
Mr. Jacobs stated that he is
promptly and instantaneously to accept
doesn't feel this is a problem.
controls in the early stages and
America and the garage structure
concern about the two projects, but because of the
and the City, if large expenditures have been made
happened, the City would be obligated for a rather
satisfied they could act
a federal contract, so he
It might take some expenditure
require waiting until the Bank of
are started, not because of any
loss to the Agency
and something
large amount of
money.
-80-
Bakersfield, California, December 18, 1969 - Page 2
Mr. King remarked that at the last meeting the necessity
of having what they termed a "financial consultant" was discussed.
From information that he has learned since, he understands that Mr.
Gray is acting as a financial consultant to the City.
Mr. Jacobs stated that Mr. Gray plays the role of public
fiscal consultant. In some cities, he is the advisor in terms of
bookkeeping, the special unique ways in which books have to be kept
as required by the federal government. As a public fiscal consul-
tant, Mr. Gray knows all the categories of costs, of revenues, in
redevelopment, how to put these matters together. He is probably
the most experienced man in his field in this State. His role for
the Agency is to dig out the numbers, put them together and then
have those numbers available for the bond consultant or the bond
underwriting firm. The public fiscal consultant and the bond under-
writing firm work hand in hand to accomplish the actual bonding.
There are two or three ways of working with a bond consultant or a
bond underwriting firm. One is to simply enter into a consultant
contract in which you pay them so much, and they get paid whether
the bond issue goes forward or not to act as the consultant. How-
ever, the firm that has been the most active over the years, generally
works on a basis of being paid only if the bonds sell and take a
flat fee out of the bond issue, or a percentage of the bond issue
which amounts to the same thing.
Mr. King asked Mr. Jacobs if
this purpose on behalf of the Agency.
contacted the representative of Blythe
he had contacted anyone for
Mr. Jacobs stated they had
and Company who has handled
most of these bond issues in California. His reaction to the issuance
of bonds for parking garages is very good. It has a good rating
and this kind of bond issue could go. His only concern is that the
market for bonds has been gradually deteroriating, which means that
the borrower has to pay a higher rate, and the general bond market
is getting very close to the legal rate that can be paid. This
Agency won't be going to the bond market, if everything went exactly
-81-
Bakersfield, California, December 18, 1969 - Page 3
right, until some months from now. It will be going sometime after
the Bank of America Building starts, or around the same time. That
would mean a different bond market than the one today.
Mr. King asked Mr. Jacobs if a contract is offered to the
Agency, has he made the necessary contacts, so that he cancome back
and give the Agency a recommendation as to whether or not it can
accept or reject the Phase I Report. Mr. Jacobs replied that he had.
Mr. King asked if a contract is offered on the 24th day of December,
how long would it take to come back with a recommendation as to
whether or not the Agency should accept the Phase I Report and proceed.
Mr. Jacobs replied that he thinks it would be probably less
than a week. It will probably take longer than that to work it all
out with the federal government because they will come back with what
is referred to as a "Laundry List", to make adjustments. The Agency
and the developer could be starting on what to do well before the
federal government itself would be ready to actually offer the
contract. From the time the Agency learns it is going to get a
contract and the time it is actually signed, takes a month or two.
Also, the action year may not start until March or April. Re is
prepared now to say, if that contract is offered, that there is a
reasonable possibility that the Agency can go forward and possibly
the Phase I step that the Agency has been so concerned about, can
be accomplished at the time of the offer itself.
Mr. Clifford asked Mr. Jacobs if it would be possible or
feasible to get a firm contract from one of the bond underwriting
firms to agree to buy the Agency's bonds at a certain discount.
Mr. Jacobs replied that it could not be done in that manner.
To go through one of those companies would mean that the issue would
go out on the general market and be offered and no legal commitment
to buy would be made by thatsort of company.
Mr.Clifford asked if the Agency might not get involved if
they approved Phase I and then were not quite sure whether or not
it could handle its own share.
Mr. Jacobs replied that this gets to something which he
-82-
Bakersfield, California, December 18, 1969 - Page 4
thinks is very important and it has been raised by the developer
many times. In approving Phase I, the Agency is not saying that
it is an absolute guarantee, it is merely saying there is a reason-
able possibility of getting financing and moving into it. To make
sure the Agency doesn't get hurt beyond merely the Phase I costs, or
the big money that is going to be needed for the local share, the
Agency does not allow expenditures to go beyond the certainty of the
garage starting. The minute the garage starts, the Agency is then
in a position ofhaving the local share taken care of for the first
year for federal government purposes. His advice is that when the
Agency does get the contract, and there is a reasonable possibility
of financing, it should then move forward into the redevelopment
plan, into the contract with the developers, and not hold them to
having the absolute financing. That is not the sense of the contract.
Mr. King asked Mrs. Little to bring them up to date on what
has happened to the application.
Mrs. Little stated she had been notified by Mr. Dave Hollo-
way of HUD in Los Angeles, that during the last three days, the
field representative for HUD in San Francisco had gone over all the
applications and scored them according to the guidelines that came
[
out. He said he couldn't reveal how the Agency's application stands,
however, he could say it
some others. Because it
a weaker category as far
was very high in some areas and weaker in
is not people-oriented, it might be put in
as guidelines are concerned. She received
a call yesterday from the HUD office and they asked her if the
Gency was offered a contract, would the Agency and the City be able
to adopt a plan within three months to act, and she told them yes.
Mr. King asked Mr. Jacobs if assuming the Agency was
offered a contract, could the Redevelopment Plan be adopted within
three months. Mr. Jacobs said there is no problem there. No further
questions being asked on this phase of the problem, Mr. King asked
Mr. Jacobs if personnel-wise, there is anything that the Agency
should be organizing in anticipation of a contract.
-83-
Bakersfield, California, December 18, 1969 - Page 5
Mr.
would be that
a contract, to the day they sign and return it
be two or three months without any question at
Mr. Bergen commented that Mr. Jacobs
Jacobs stated they might be looking, but his judgment
from the day the federal govenment says there will be
to the Agency, could
all.
had indicated he can
make a report inside
December 24th that a contract was offered.
could get the Council together in one week,
Phase I Report.
of a week if notification was received by
He is not sure that he
let along approving the
In reply to the Agency's second question, Mr. Jacobs stated
that it has always been his recommendation that boundaries are expanded
and established, not based on planning as such, but based primarily on
the maximizing of the financial position. The way the question was
phrased, he would think that the project boundaries could be expanded
in or out, because the project boundaries here are not consistent with
the first action year, they are larger than the first action year.
Therefore, in his judgment, they could be expanded. It would be un-
waise to do it now before the contract is offered. Once they offer
the contract, somewhere in the forseeable future, the boundaries
should be adjusted to come up with the best project boundaries for
the purpose of the financing. There was a question raised about the
possibility of expanding for church purposes. To include a church
would not be the best way of maximizing for financing purposes, but
it could be started, possibly as a separate project, on a unique basis.
Mr. King commented that by not taking any action at this
time to increase the area, the Agency would not be jeopardizing its
ability to do this at a later time. Mr. Jacobs stated he personally
thinks it should be done at a later date in some form.
Mr. Bergen stated he had no further comments, everything
has been covered here, they are just wailing and proceeding with the
things they need to do. However, he is sure the Council would hold a
meeting on this if they could move ahead on it.
Mr. King stated he didn't think they should set a definite
time for the next meeting because they can't do anything further
-84-
Bakersfield, California, December 18, 1969 - Page 6
until they learn whether
lng.
Mr. Jacobs
January 5 date. Mrs.
or not they will be included in HUD find-
commented that the crucial date here is the
Little added that Mr. Holloway told her it
would probably be the first week in January before they would
receive any announcement. Mr. Jacobs stated that would be his guess,
too, knowing how the federal government operates around the holiday
season.
Mr. Clifford asked Mrs. Little if the Ageny's program
was people-oriented. She said that it was not, and she thought that
perhaps the guidelines were people-oriented, that is the reason she
mentioned it. Mr. Jacobs stated that when they are talking about
people-oriented projects, they are talking about low income housing
or jobs for the unemployed,
over the others, in a sense
matching low income houses,
was
etc. This project has some advantages
that no one would be moved out, with
which creates problems.
There being nothing f~C to b~scussed,
adjourned at 9:00 P.M. · / ;/'
A~R~3~ELOPMENT
MARIAN S. IRVIN ~
to the Redevelopmenf Agency
the meeting
AGENCY'
Secretary