Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/93 BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM April 2, 1993 TO' HONORABLE ~AYOR AND CITY COU ALAN TANDY, CITY.MANAGE~ SUBJECT' GENERAL INFORMATION , 1. Enclosed, from the City Clerk, you will find a copy of the Candidates who have filed for the 5th Ward election. 2. In the continuing process of exploring where we might have revenue increase potential, we had a meeting with one cable television company this week. That was an extremely positive meeting and an attitude of no opposition was expressed. Of course, it could be different with the other company.' We will continue to investigate. This would be the issue which would result in a franchise fee increase on cable t.v. from 3% to 5%. 3. The Minutes from the February 9th and February 23rd meetings of the Citizens' Parks and Recreation Committee are enclosed. There is at least one member of that Committee who wants the Committee to become independent and ~ts own taxing and budget authority outside of the City Council's control. The Agenda for the March 30th Meeting is also enclosed, at which there was discussion where one member of the Committee encouraged the reapplication of the motorcross raceway recently denied as a zoning issue by the City Council. Those Minutes, when completed, will be. forwarded to you. 4. A couple of Councilm~mbers have called me concerning the proposed graffiti ordinance and whether we were developing criteria which could result in punishing the victim through some sort of legal procedure. Actually, that section was not proposed to be changed from what was currently in the books. We do not actively enforce against the victim, however, if there were special circumstances, the City Council could make a specific finding and take enforcement action. For example, if there were an absentee landlord who did not care about resolving the problem, the flexibility is there. 5. With respect to the Golden Handshake, we had hoped to bring that forward as an emergency ordinance so that we would have knowledge of who was retiring in time for the budget preparation. It is a major issue and it is one which, if we do not act positively upon, the unions will later second guess Council judgement when layoffs are necessary and public safety forces bring forward safety and other concerns. It would take five votes to make it an emergency. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL April 2, 1993 Page -2- 6. The Redevelopment Agency refinancing is proceeding. We did, in fact, get a Triple B+ rating from Standard and Poors, which is usually the indicator that an issue will go through. It is a better rating than we anticipated, so we may have a positive cash flow in the Redevelopment Agency in the near future. 7. The Economic Development Department is meeting this week with a supermarket chain in follow-up to attempting to encourage the location of a supermarket in southeast Bakersfield. 8. In follow-up to a Budget and Finance Committee meeting and direction, a letter to the. County on the issue of landfill gate fees, without universal collection in their territory, is enclosed. Because this is a volatile issue, close reading of the letter is probably in order. 9. You will find a map enclosed on the Hosking Trunk Sewer construction. Loose sand conditions are going to require a fairly lengthy disruption of Wible Road between Berkshire and Hosking Road. You may get complaints; it will cause a mile detour. 10. Hotel progress report: The local group meeting did take place this week. There is no progress to report and, frankly, little promise. With respect to the national level prospect, we are pursuing discussions on the financing plan and with the developer - we will keep you informed. 11. 'John Stinson and Lee Andersen have held meetings with the Convention and Visitors Bureau group about increasing the Transient Occupancy Tax {hotel tax) from 10% to 12%. It looks like they might accept it! 12. Attached is a listing of complaints we have about LAFCO that we intend to administratively pursue. AT.alb Attachments cc: Department Heads City.Clerk CANDIDATES FOR PUBLIC OFFICE COUNCILMEMBER SHORT-TERMWARD NO. 5 JUNE 8, 1993 SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CERTIFIED CANDIDATES: ROWE HAKes Occupation on the Ballot: DESIGN TECHNICIAN 132 No. McDonald Way Bakersfield, 'CA 93309 (H) 323-6743 FILED~ BUT NOT CERTIFIED: RANDALL LEE.ROWLES to appear on the ballot as RANDY ROWLES -BUSINESSMAN/CIVIL ENGINEER 901 Mohawk Street, %51 Bakersfield, CA 93309 (W) 325-7253 DANIEL JOHN KANE to appear on the ballot as DANNY KANE - ELECTRICAL BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE 5312 Appletree .Lane Bakersfield, CA 9.3309 (W) 326-3767 (H) 323-1874 April.l, 1993 ELIST1 CITIZENS' PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE Meeting of February 9, 1993 MINUTES PRESENT: Mary Sawyer, Leonard Schroeder, Melissa Jolle¥, Jack Goldsmith STAFF PRESENT: Jim Ledoux, Frank Fabbri, Marguerite Smith, Alan Shaw I. The meeting was called to order at 12:15 pm by Chairperson Mary Sawyer. II. It was moved by Jack Goldsmith, seconded by Leonard SChroeder, that the minutes.of the meeting of November 18, 1992, be approved. ~ Motion carried. . III. New Business Chairperson Sawyer questioned the results of the polling of the Committee members ~egarding changing the meeting day and time to the second Tuesday of each month at 12 noon. Recreation Superintendent Ledoux stated that the response had been six to one in favor of the change. The question of Committee member Eterno's lack of attendance and the fact that he would be unable to attend future meetings in a different time frame was discussed. RecreationSuperintendent Jim Ledoux informed the Commit.tee that he had talked to Mr. Eterno on this subject and the possibility of a resignation from the Committee was discuSsed. · Chairperson Sawyer stated that a letter'of resignation was needed and that it was appropriate because the bylaws state that if a member.misses three meetings in a year, he or she would be asked to step down. 1~. It was moved by Jack Goldsmith, seconded by Leonard ~Schroeder, to change the meeting time and place for the Citizens Committee from the second Wednesday of each month at 5:30 pm to the second Tuesday of each month at 12 noon, Motion carried. 1. Election of Officers It was moved by Jack Goldsmith, seconded by Melissa Jolley, that Mary Sawyer and'Leonard Schroeder be · retained as Chairperson and Vice Chairperson., respectively. 2 2. City Proposal to Vacate Softball Complex RecreationSuperintendent Jim Ledoux explained about,the anticipated shortfalls in the upcoming year and that City staff had been instructed to present three separate budgets for consideration, one at 5% less than the existing budget, one at 10%, and one at 15% less. He stated that a departmental decision had been made to move the softball program out of the Complex and into City parks, allowing the department to realize a savings of approximately $96,000, which would go a long ways~towards reaching the department's goal of reducing the budget by the required amount. He also said that this issue had been before the City Council the previous Wednesday, and there had been a considerable.amount of discussion regarding whether or n0t the softball program should be.moved out of the Complex. He said that Lee Andersen, the Community Services Manager, felt that the issue should be brought before the Citizens' Committee for their input. He also commented that there are program savings as well as maintenance savings that could be realized if the move from the Complex were made. Even if the program were moved to the ballfields in town, the Recreation Division will run a good. quality program and although it may not satisfy,all of the upper division players, who like to play.in tournaments, it will be a good recreation league. Park Superintendent Frank Fabbri reported that at the Council meeting several of the CoUncilmembers had questioned the financial statement that had been compiled relative to the Compl~ex, and they had held off any action on the issue until the next Council meeting on Wednesday, February 17. He then went through each item of the financial statement with the Committee. Several questions regarding the statement were asked by the Committee members. Frank also informed the Committee of an~ informational workshop to be put on by Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater on Wednesday, February .17. Chairperson Sawyer requested that in the future, if staff had issues to go before the City Council', that the Committee be notified so members could attend the Council meetings. There was much discussion on the Council ~agenda, referral of issues and timing in regards to the' .agenda conference and the agenda being~distributed.~ Recreation SuPerintendent Ledoux expounded on moving the softball program from the Complex into City ball diamonds. Chairperson Sawyer passed out coPies of a proposed letter to be sent to Councilmembers regarding the issue. She questioned the cash flow statements of the food and batting cage concessions. She suggested that possibly private concerns could operate the Complex at a profit while,the City, with its overhead could not, among other things. Mrs~ Sawyer stated-she-is in favor of softball staying at Mesa Marin with the City not as involved as it has been and may be not inVolved at all. Vice-Chairperson Schroeder stated he felt that . Committee did not have enough information on the issue and that the Committee needed to wait until after the workshop prior to taking.any action. committee member Jack Goidsmith stated he would like to listen to the report at the workshop. Leonard Schroeder stated he would like a private party to appear at the workshop with a specific plan. Deputy Attorney Alan Shaw~explained to the Committee about the workshop. He also said they could make an oral presentation during~the public portion of the Council meeting which could be effective. He told the Committee thgy could adjourn tonight's meeting and reconvene it at. 'the workshop. The meeting'was adjourned at this time to be reconvened at 5:15 pm on wednesday, February 17, at the City Council Chambers. .febcr CITIZENS' PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE February 23, 1993 MINUTES (Reconvened meetings of February 17 and February 23) .PRESENT: Mary Sawyer, Leonard Schroeder, Jack Goldsmith, Delbert Murray, Geri Spencer ' ABSENT: Anthony Eterno, Melissa Jolley· STAFF PRESENT: Lee Andersen, Jim Ledoux, Frank Fabbri, · Alan Shaw, Tim Ruiz, Marguerite Smith Note: These minutes are a continuation of the minutes from the meeting of February 9, which was adjourned and reconvened on both February 17 and February 23. t The meeting was.called back to order by Chairperson Mary Sawyer at 12:15 pm. Mrs. saWYer related to the Committee members what had taken place at the City Council meeting of February'17, 1993. She,stated that Councilmember Brunni had referred an issue (City softball program) to the Citizens' Committee for review. III. (2) Discussion of City's proposal .to vacate Bakersfield Municipal Softball Complex (Mesa Marin) continued. Mrs. Sawyer stated that she had registered to address the Council on the Complex issue, however, she was not allowed to do so by the Mayor. She said without any input from the Citizens' Committee, the Council voted not to renew the lease- agreement for the softball Complex. She said she felt that was not appropriate and that if the Committee wanted to raise this issue again on the third of March, it could do so. She stated she was bringing this information back to the Committee to'see what it is they wanted to do. Leonard Schroeder stated that the way he understOod the issue, the City has elected not to renew the lease for Mesa Marin and is proceeding with the softball program in the City's parks. He said if that is the case, the Committee is meeting for something that ~should not be. Mrs. Sawyer responded that "no, the Committee is not meeting on something that is a d°ne deal". She said the Committee is meeting in a continuation of the previous meetings to conclude the agenda, and that while the City Council did, through a motion vote; uphold the .decision not to renew the lease, there was no chance for the Committee to express itself and that violates the Committee's rights and 'also violates the rights of the citizenry that the ~Committee supports. She also said she belHeves there are 'grounds to have this issue on the Council agenda .again if the Committee so wishes. Mrs. Sawyer stated she had asked that Mr. Frank Collins, owner of the softball .complex, be invited to attend the meeting. However, he had not been. contacted, which'was an oversight. Mrs. Sawyer said that the issue may go.quietly by the wayside and there may be no citizens group out there that wishes to vocalize Hts intention to save the Mesa Marin Complex and Bakersfield's involvement therein. However, a group may arise and say something. Committee member Delbert Murray questioned the reason for not .renewing the lease. Community Services Manager Lee Andersen provided an explanation. Leonard Schroeder commented on Mary Sawyer being denied the ability to speak at the Council meeting. He felt that possibly the reason was she was denied was because she had put two topics on one request to. speak card. Mrs. Sawyer stated she agreed with the comment, and what it does is give the Committee the legal .right to continue discussing Mesa Marin, and if any citizens wish to have a platform to be aired, this is it and they have to go before the Council. She also said she leaves the Council's decision will stand. Mrs. Sawyer read to the Committee COuncil Referral #11495 (Brunni), which asks the Citizens' Committee to investigate the CitY's recreational programs. Recreation Superintendent Jim Ledoux stated he had asked Councilmember Brunni if there was a specific area she was referring to and that her emphatic response was the softball program. Mrs. Sawyer had Jim Ledoux explain what the City's plan for the parks was regarding softball. He spoke of the need to provide programming for the average player and not necessarily for the highly competitive tournamentplayers. 'Several questions were asked regarding costs and revenue at the Complex with staff members responding. Further discussion regarding Mesa Marin and the softball program was .held between the Committee and staff members. Committee member Delbert Murray expressed his concerns regarding the fact the Citizens' Committee has no power. °He feels the ~committee should be a commission with power. Committee member Geri Spencer asked how the'committee members felt about the Mesa Marin issue. Chairperson Sa~wyer polled the members for their comments. Members Goldsmith, Schroeder, Murray and Sawyer also expressed their opinions. There was a motion by Leonard Schroeder that the discussion on the softball comPlex issue be continued until the March meeting and that Frank Collins and all others who inquire, regarding the complex be advised of the meeting so that they may come and speak or receive information. The motiOn was seconded by Delbert Murray and approved by the committee.· · Iv. Public Statements - None V.· Committee Statements - Mrs. Sawyer stated that Mr. Murray would like to see this committee, changed to a commission, so she asked that it. be put on the agenda for the next meeting. Mrs. Spencer's asked to be made aware of what cuts are proposed. Mrs. Sawyer commented on the ability to see the budgets~ She directed that the reorganization issue be put on the action agenda to be brought to a vote. The meeting as adjourned at 1:10 pm. CITIZENS' PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 30, 1993 Bank Room - Convention Center 1001Truxtun Avenue 12:00 noon AGENDA I. Call to order II. 'APproval of minutes of meeting of February 9, 1993 III. Approval of. minutes of reconvened meeting of February 17, 1993 IV. New Business 1. Reorganization of citizens' 'committee to status of commission - City Attorney 2. Rio Bravo Cycle Complex 3. Council Referral #11495 - Recreational programs (softball) " V. Old'BuSiness 1. Discussion of citY's decision to vacate Municipal Softball Complex (Mesa Marin) 2. Disposition of used playground equipment - staff VI. Public Statements VII. Committee Statements VIII. Adjournment CiTY ~Ai~AGER-~ CITY OF BAKERSFIELD GOLDEN HANDSHAKE INFORMATIONAL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 2, 1993 ~ 1. Overview of the Golden Handshake. PERS - Section 20818 "Two Year Additional Service Credit" 2, Questions and anSWers. 3. Esitmated retirement amount. "GOLDEN HANDSHAKE" INFORMATIONAL MEETING ' ' APRIL 2, 1993 1.. What is the .Golden Handshake ? A. The Golden Handshake means that the City of Bakersfield is amending their contract with the Public Employee Retirement System to offer the "Two Year Additional Service Credit'. 2. Who is eligible for the Golden Handshake ? ' A. All employees that are or will be at/east 50 and have at least 5 years of service with the City of Bakersfield during the window period, are eligible at this time. What is the window period ? A. The window period is MaY 3, 1993 through October 29,1993. To receive the "Two Year Additional Service Credif', you must work one day during the window period and retire during window period. 4. ' How do I apply for the Golden Handshake ? A. You must complete the attached form and submit it to the Personnel Office no later than dune 1, 1993. 5. How soon do I need to apply ? A. The sooner you apply and complete the paper work' the. sooner you will receive your first retirement check. 6. When will I receive my first retirement check ? A. It Will take approximately 90 days for PERS to complete the ·paper work. 7. Will my first .?etirement check include the amount for the "Two Year Additional Service Credit ? A. No. It will probably take an additional 4 to 6 months before you will receive the additional monies. 8. Why won't I receive the "Two Year Service Credit" monies on my first.retirement check ? A. PERS will bill the City for all service credit retirements at the'end of the window Period. 9. How much will I receive in my retirement Check ? A. We have prepared for all eligible employees an estimate of their retirement amount and their retiree health insurance costs. You may pick this up at the end of the meeting or in the Personnel Office. 10. Who is eligible for the health insurance ? A. All employees with at/east 15 years of actual service with the City of Bakersfield. 11. Will my years of service at another agency count towards the health insurance requirement'or' towards the required amount, of years to receive the GOlden Handshake ? ' Al No. 'Your years of service for t~oth the Golden Handshake and the health " insurance must be with the City of Bakersfield. 12. Will this Golden Handshake be offered again ? A. We cannot predict what could happen in the future, however there are no current plans to do so. Presently the Go/den Handshake is only available from May 3, 1993 to October 29, 1993 for ali employees that will be at/east 50 years of age and have at/east 5 years of service during this time period. t3. Will the City be offering other options like the 3 & 3 or the 4 year at a later date ? A. There are no plans to offer any other options at this time. Also, at this time these options have not passed the legislature.. 14. - If I do not have the actual 15 years of service reqUirement for the retiree health insurance, What can I do ? A. You will be eligible to purchase medical and/or dental insurance through COBRA for a period of 18 months. After the 18 month period, you will need to find your own insurance plan. 15. Is the Golden Handshake finalized. A. No. The matter must go back to the Council on April 14, 1993 for final approval. · TO: 'Personnel Ginger. Rubin Benefits Technician . I would like to accept the City of Bakersfield's offer of PERS Section 20818 - "TWo Year Additional Service Credit", better known as the Ooiclen Hat~rl$1~ai~e, that is being offered from May 3, 1993 to October 29; 1993. I understand to receive the "Two Year Additional Service Credit", I must: '1. Be at least 50 years of age during the window period. 2. Have at least 5 years of service with the City of Bakersfield during the window period. 3. Work one day during the window period. 4. Retire during the window period.. 5. Submit this request form no later than June 1, 1993. To be eligible for the retiree health insurance I understand that I must have 15 actual years of service with the City of Bakersfield. I would like to retire on . . Please call me at to set up an appointment to complete my retirement papers. The best hour of the day to contact me is Signed: Date: Please print: Name: SoCial Security. #: Address: City/Zip: Work Phone #': Home Phone #: (GR/{.;I IMI~EI'.42~ BAKERS.FIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager March 31, 1993 Mr. Joel Heinricks, Director · Resource Management Agency County of Kern . 2700 '.'M" Street, Suite 35© Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Joel: - Thank you for attending the Budget and Finance Committee of the City Council on Monday, March 29th, pertaining to the issue of mandatory gate fees and the impacts of that proposal on the City of Bakersfield. Based upon the discussions that took place and the comments of Councilmembers, i believe that it is clear to say that the City will actively oppose gate fees without universal collection, unless modifications can be made to the proposals by Kern County which would alleviate the negative impacts such a policy would have on the City of Bakersfield.' In order to achieve clarity on that issue, those "negative impb. cts" include the following: a. There would be hu.qe businesS inequality between unannexed properties and annexed properties under the current proposal. A business in the County, for example, could opt not to pay any garbage fees, either on their taxes or for gate fees, and, instead, to illegally dispose of waste in City containers. A business in Bakersfield is subject to mandatory collection and will also be ' subject to. mandatory gate fees. If illegally dumped "upon," that Bakersfield business would also pay the gate fees for the County- · generated garbage. b. Illegal dumping is already a serious problem .from residential areas. The imposition of gate fees without mandatory collection in the · County will, simply, encourage commercial entities to also illegally dump, thus worsening the situation the City experiences now, with respect to paying for. hauling fees and disposal fees of those who choose not to pay. City of Bakersfield .- City Manager's.Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 Mr. Joel Heinricks,. Director Resource Management Agency March 31, 1993 Page -2- " c. While gate fees, .coupled with univerSal collectiOn, would move the community well' along in achieving recycling goals, we continue t© believe that gate fees, without universal collection, will only encourage illegal dumping and Will not move recycling efforts far enough along. This will, also, not give us the database or information we need to determine .what kind of long-term waste diversion program is necessary, because we will not know what quantity of the waste can be diverted' through other mechanisms. Despite these serious reservations, the discussions you initiated have been productive in indicating several ideas for exploration which could provide compatible grounds for further discussion on this subject. Those areas which seem to hold the most promise would include the following, all in combination with one another: a. A discount from County to City on total gate fees paid by City to reflect the illegal dumping.. This amount would be for both hauling costs and gate fee costs. b. Put into effect, this year, mandatory collection fees for all County commercial entities in the Metropolitan area. That would create equality between City and County businesses. We also believe that it would create fewer problems for commercial collection in the .County than your.original proposal. We have 4,400 commercial customers. If you impose gate fees upon them, without universal collectior), they will be aware of the disparity and will, undoubtedly, be very upset with the amounts they are paying. Imposing the same standards on the businesses in the urbanized areas of the County, to make'it so illegal dumping does not get worse, would place all businesses within the Metropolitan area on a comparable basis. We recognize that some would be unhappy with this. We believe that it is fewer than the 4,400 who will be unhappy with an inequitable system, howeverl c. The City and the County should, immediately, form a Joint Powers Agreement. That Joint Powers Agreement Board should be composed of representatives based upon the proportionate populations of the annexed and unannexed populations within the Metropolitan area. The purpose of that Board would be as follows: 1. To assist the City of Bakersfield and County of Kern in achieving mandated State recycling requirements. Mr. Joel Heinricks, DirectOr Resource Management Agency March 31, 1993 Page -3- 2. T.o improve service efficiency by el!minating. duplication between those geographic areas fully encircled, or in the close vicinity of the City of Bakersfield. 3. To, within a three-year period, achieve a common set. of standards for sanitation collection throughout Metropolitan Bakersfield. That is, the Board would be empowered by the City and County to impose mandatory collection standards and other such actions as might be necessary to achieve waste diversion goals, first, in islands surrounded by the City and', secondly, in the other areas near the City of Bakersfield. At the end of the three-year period, sanitation collection in the Metropolitan area of the County, dbe to the efforts of the JPA Board, would be the same as in the City. Collection routes would be logically allocated End recycling goals would, hopefully, ,be much closer to being achieved. It is acknowledged by both parties that, as universal collection would be imposed on a phased-in basis Within the Metropolitan area, the discount 'provided to City' residents, in order to offset for illegal dumping, would proportionately fade away and disappear. These would seem to be the areas which were potential win-win situations for both the City and County. If you have other thoughts that might represent a positive gain for each. entity, we would be happy.to hear them. We are interested in advancing this matter as rapidly as possible, so that we know whether or not there will be official protest made of the County's plans at the hearings which take place in early May. Your cooperation in coming forward in order to aVoid a controversy is greatly appreciated. We hope that these discussions set about creating the potential for a positive resolution to'these issues. AT. alb - cc:- Joe Drew · Honorable Mayor and City Council 'BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · Ciiy Manager Aprii 1, 1993 Mr. ,9i11' Turpin LAFCO 2700 "M" Street, Suite 302 Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mr. Joe Drew County Administrative Officer 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Messrs. Turpin and Drew: Attac~ed is a listing of the specific problem areas the. City of'Bakersfield has had with LAFCO in recent times. Andrea Britt, from my office, will be calling within the next few days to schedule an appOintment between LAFCO, the County Administrative Office and my office .on these subjects. Thank you for your cooperation. 'Sincerely, /~ City Manager // ' ' AT. atb Attachment bcc: Honorable Mayor Bob Price Supervisor Ken Peterson .City of Bakersfield · City Manag.er's Office · 150.1 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield.. California · 93301 " SPECIFIc LAFCO PROBLEMS · Haley No. 1 Annexation (Inhabited) . Approved by thc City Council with little opposition. Denied by the LAFCO Board on April 25, 1992. Thc decision was based on approximately 30 - 35 people out of 2,567 people in thc annexation area attending thc meeting eXpressing obicction to thc annexation. · Columbus No. I Annexation (Inhabited) Approved by City Council with little opposition. Denied'by LAFCO'Board on June 23, 1992. The decision was based on approximately 60 - 65 people out of 2,941 people in the annexation area attending the meeting's expressing objection to thc annexation. * Denial .of these two cases results in a lost opportunity to remove nearly two square mil~s of Coun~ "ishmds" within the metro area. · Buena Vista No. 5 Annexation (Inhabited) The Executive Officer recommended approval of that portion which has an urban designation. He recommended denial of the areas prezoned agriculture. His basis was on the fact that the city was not planning for the eventual urbanization of the area. He requested that city staff provide him with an analysis of all agriculture and Vacant lands within the city limits. Based on this information he demonstrated that thc city does not need this additional land within the city. LAFCO Board eventually adopted his recommendation. 'The city requested reconsideration and after additional information was obtained regarding our ability to serve the area and the withdrawal of the sphere of influence amendment and Kern River No. 10 Annexation, the LAFCO Board approved the full area of Buena Vista No. 5 Annexaiion. · Kern River No. 10 AnneXation and Sphere of Influence Amendment No. 1-91 LAFCO mandated the city designate the entire site urban instead of leaving the .area agriculture. City withdrew thc request as a compromise to help ensure thc approval of thc Buena Vista No. 5 Annexation. · Sphere of Influence Amendment No. 1-93 Initial conversations with LAFCO on the environmental document for the proposed expansion have indicated that a negative declaration may not be adequate for the project. This opinion basedon the McAllister Ranch EIR which is currently under public review and that LAFCO should re~'iew SOI request as a portion of theY"overall project." It should be noted that Mr. Turpin will still rec6mmend denial of our SOI or all' areas not designated urban. General: Lack of Cooperation by LAFCO is resulting in discontiguous urban develOpment and comes at a time when this City of Shaftcr annexed several square miles (over two square miles left in agriculture) and California City annexed 25 square miles mostly without services or urban designations. p:annex .. DISCUSSION WITH LAFCO 1. Sphere of Influence - premature and excessive justification to amend. The sphere of influence is to define the probable ultimate Physical boundaries and service area of the city. The determination of "ultimate" and "probability" is not constrained by the general plan for future development of a. city unless the plan makes that determination. In Bakersfield's plan 2010 was selected as a horizon year for purposes of referencing a future milestone which is certainly on the near side of our ultimate future. Reliance on "probability" rather than existing capacity or near term service plans is to acCommodate a broad scope of options, Opportunities and changing conditions. In areas where, cities are close together, the sphere of influence serves to focus planning efforts on future growth of cities and minimize competition over lands between them. In a ~case like Bakersfield's where the towns around are Tehachapi, Arvin. Taft and Shafter, the probable ultimate service area of Bakersfield is a tremendous area well beyond its existing city limits. You need only look at a few larger cities to understand not just the probability of growth but the reality of it. Any city larger than Bakersfield was at one time the same size or smaller than Bakersfield. The area of the city's sphere is one within which we have several interests. To require environmental reviews of speculative and variable growth scenarios to define probable ultimates with no concrete proposal to develop is irrational and'a waste of time and money. It is open ended. Even if we were to set hn artificial parameter of 3,000 years into the future bi) looking as far into the future as we have a written past how could those probabilities be assessed? Or being more reasonable, just project the history of the United States 600 years ahead. Rather than time, geography is more relevant to the city's ultimate boundaries. What is there that physically limits, the ultimate size of Bakersfield? ' Durin.o the 1980's the city was able to maintain a. sphere ahead of development proposals so developers would work with the city to coordinate its growth and development,, especially toward the south and west. More recently, LAFCO's reluctance to cooperate in expanding the city's sphere of influence and annexations has encouraged developers to obtain approval for their projects in the county. For instance, McAllister' Ranch and Northwest Rosedale. After land owners are committed to approvals by the county, they are not inclined to change jurisdictions. For example, once LAFCO made it knc~wn that the. area west of the city could not be included in the city without adopted plans for urbanization and environmental'review of the plan, McAllister Ranch spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on planning and engineering to obtain' county approval and now opposes annexation to avoid the shift in jurisdiction. Previously, they had promoted annexation to better coordinate expansion of the city. With the continued persistence of LAFCO to oppose city growth, we can look forward to another East Bakersfield in West Bakersfield and another Oildale/Rosedale in West Rosedale. Discussion with LAFCO Page 2 2. Requirement to adopt non-agriculture zoning prior to annexation. Bakersfield's general plan and zoning Ordinance contain agricultural zones, rural residential zones, 'open space zoning and mineral resource areas. These are not unusual for cities to have. They are included to meet state requirements for comprehensive planning and good Sense. Agriculture Within cities is encouraged or at least acknowledged by such state requirements that Agricultural' Conservat~ion Act contracts for lands be honored by cities after they are annexed. Areas are annexed ahead of development as agricultural areas to first determine the city's jurisdiction and ability to coordinate the land planning proceSs years in advance of the demand. Prematurely zoning the property, to urban uses escalates the price of the land and grants premature development rights to the property. If nothing else it requires speculative zoning and exPensive speculative environmental review without a sound need for them. A general plan might be within the grasp of reality but zoning should °nly follow when it is appropriate. The community's best interest is Served by Coordinated appropriate approvals of development. 3. The time taken by LAFCO between application and hearing is unreasonablY long. Considering the long time 'it takes to complete an annexation, the need is even greater to begin and complete that 'process prior to entering into serious work'on details of land use planning. The uncertainty of jurisdiction and now LAFCO drives developers to the county for approval where LAFCO's involvement is minimized and past-facto as far. as community growth. See attached memo. LAFCO STRATEGY LAFCO;s strategy of raising the price of annexation by demanding excessive study and justification and protracted delays or denials' does not discourage urban sprawl it encourages it in the worst way, One need only look at R°sedale and proposed West Rosedale to see it. And, rather than developing its. way out of budget deficits the county is digging itself deeper and deeper into a moneyless pit. If LAFCO were truly dedicated to efficient and appropriate delivery of urban services, efficient and compact urban development minimizing the impact of urbanization on agriculture, it would be supporting the incorporation of lands in and around the city rather than creating stumbling blocks for annexation. Discussion with LAFCO Page 3 STATE LAW AND LAFCO Excerpts from James Longtin LAFCO INDEPENDENT:. Although frequently using county, faCilities and staff personnel, a' LAFCO is not a division or department of a county. A LAFCO is an independent governmental body, intended to function without control by the county. See G°vC 56061 and 56325. Legislative Policy and Intent The legislature has expressly declared the policy of the state to be that a LAFCO is to discour~age urban sprawl and promote orderly growth and development by the logical determination of local agency boundaries. Further, the legislature has expressly declared its intent to be that a LAFCO implement that policy by.acting in a manner that encourages and provides planned, well-ordered, efficient urban development patterns while preserving open space~ lands to the extent appropriate for the proposal under consideration. GovC 56300. Annexations and Related Boundary Changes Although a LAFCO cannot initiate annexations or other boundary changes, it has extremely 'broad powers to approve (wholly or partially), with or Without conditions, annexations and other boundary changes initiated by private citizen petitioners or by local agencies. GovC 56375(a) and 56844. Spheres of Influence A sphere of influence is defined as a plan for the 'probable ultimate physical boundaries and service area of'a local agency, as determined by a LAFCO. GovC 56076 and 56425. The' sphere of influence of each affected local agency is one of many factors that a LAFCO must consider when acting on a proposal. A LAFCO must adopt a sphere for each city, county service area and district or special district* in the county, except school districts, communi.ty college districts, special assessment districts, improvement districts and Mello-RoOs Act community facilities districts. The adopted sphere of influence must set forth the commission's determinations on at least the following: (1) The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open- space lands, (2) The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area, · Discussion with LAFCO Page 4 (3) The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services which .the agency provides or .is authorized to provide, and (4·) The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. There is much less likelihood of a successful challenge to a LAFCO decision that precludes a development than to a decision occurring in most other parts of the development process. See Judicial Review, §§7.90 -7.94. DiscretiOnary LAFCO Action - Sphere of Influence In mandate proceedings to compel a Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to set aside a "sphere of influence" determination as to a city,, the trial court properly ruled. that the determination was not a project subject to CEQA where the sphere decision could not have a significant effect on the environment. The fact that spheres of influence are recognized as important factors in annexations does not compel the conclusion that they are per se projects. The determination was exempt under guidelines defining a "project" as "the whole of an action which has potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment." City of Agoura Hills. v. Local Agent? Formation Comm'n (1988) 198 CA3d 480, 243 'CR 740. However, there have been earlier opinions by the Attorney General in 1980 and another court in 1986 that the setting of.a sphe. re. of influence was subject to CEQA. And the State law does refer.t° Compliance with CEQA with the obvious intent that CEQA applies. ~ Boundary 'Changes Subject to the Act Most local agency boundary changes are subject to LAFCO approval, after commission review under the procedures specified in the Cortese-Knox Act. Boundary changes not subject to LAFCO approval and not governed by the 'act are those of school districts, community college districts, air pollution control or air quality maintenance districts, special assessment districts, improvement districts, Mello-Roos Act community facilities districts, and fire districts when the alternative procedure of the Fire Protection District Law of 1961 (Health & 'Sar Code 13800 - 13999) is elected. GovC 56100, 56115, 56036(a) and 56119. In General A proposal for a boundary change is' initiated by application to a LAFCO either by a resolUtion adopted by the governing body of an affected local agency or a petition signed by a specified'number of individuals. Discussion with LAFCO Page 5 Commission proceedings are deemed initiated on. the date a petition or resolution of application is acc. epted for filing by the commission's executive officer issuing a certificate of filing. In addition, an application by an agency must include a plan for providing services to the" territory' to be annexed: Upon issuing a certificate of filing for an application, the executive officer must set the matter for a noticed public hearing before the commission. The hearing must commence within 90 days of the issuance of the certificate of filing. GovC 56828. Factors to be Considered When acting on a proposal (to annex), the commission must consider a number of factors, including population, population density., land area and use, proximity to other populated areas, the likelihood of significant growth in the area, the need for organized community .services, present cost and adequacy of governmental services, the probable effect of the boundary change on cost and adequacy of services in the area, the effect of the proposed action on adjacent areas, th~ effect of the proposed action on the local governmental structure of the county., the conformity of the proposal with any adopted commission policies regarding orderly and efficient patters of urban development, the effect of the proposal on maintaining t~he physical and economic integrity of agricultural land. the new boundary lines that.would be created by the proposal, consistency of the proposal with city or County general and specific plans, the comments of any affected · local agency, and any local agency's sphere of influence which may be applicable. GovC 56841. When a proposal could reasonably be expected to result in the conversion of open-space to' uses other than open-space, the commission must consider that the policies of the state are to guide development away from prime agricultural lands where such would be consistent with orderly and efficient development and to encourage development of vacant and not{-prime agricultural lands within the boundaries or sphere of a local agency before approving proposals that would foster development of open- space land outside an agency's boundary or sphere. GovC 56377. "Prime agricultural land" is defined as land not developed for a use Other than agriculture and which meets any of a number of'sPecific criteria specified in.' GovC 56064. Consideration of Spheres of Influence of Affected Agencies LAFCO determinations regarding an annexation or other boundary change proposal must ·be consistent with any spheres of influence which c°ntain the territory that is the subject of the proposal. GovC 56377.5 and 56014. Discussion with LAFCO Page 6 Conditions Imposed on boundary Change Proposals When apprOVing a proposal, the commission has extensive powers to impose conditio,ns, most of which relate to financial matters concerning the affected local agencies. See GovC 56844, 56843(a) and 56375(a). Conditions imposed by the commission take precedence over any inconsistent provisions of GovC 57300 et. seq., which are the statutory terms and conditions governing the effect of a boundary change. GovC 57302. However, a LAFCO's conditions cannot directly regulate land use, property development, or subdivision requirements. GovC 56844 and 56375(a). Also, a LAFCO cannot impose any condition on an annexing agency regarding road' standards or 'maintenance, requiring improvement of a public facility not owned by the agency or, in the case of an annexing city, requiring the provision of Services to the annexing territory unless the',.territory is within the city's sphere Of influence or unless the condition could mitigate.effects directly resulting from the annexation. GovC 56376 and 56376.5. Furtherl a LAFCO can require an annexing city to prezone territory to be annexed, but the commission cannot specify_ how or in what manner the territory shall be prezoned. GovC 56375(a). Constraints on Boundary Changes Although a LAFCO has very broad legislative power to approve (wholly, partially, or with modifications) a ~variety of boundary changes for most local agencies and to impose a number. of conditions when doing so, there are a number of express legislative constraints on that power. The limitations on a LAFCO's power to impose conditions are discussed in the preceding section. Other constraints are discussed in the following sections.' 7.54(1) Contiguity of Territory to be Annexed. Except for a few very specialized Situations (see,.e.g., GovC 56111, 56111.5 and 56114), territory to be annexed to a city must be contiguous to the city boundary and must be entirely Within the county. GovC 56110 and 56031. However, a "cherry-stem" annexation is not permitted where the territory to be annexed is contiguous only by virtue of a strip of 300 or more feet in length less than 200 feet wide (exclusive of highways). G°vc 56031(b). Creation of "Islands" Upon Annexation Territory cannot be annexed to a city if the annexation would create an unincorporated pocket surrounded by the city or the city and the Pacific Ocean.. GovC 56109. However, a LAFCO can waive this restriction if precluding the annexation because of the restriction would be detrimental to the orderly growth of the community and the territory that would become the "island" could not reasonably be annexed to another city or incorporated as a new city. GovC 56375(0). Discussion with LAFCO Page 7 Mandatory LAFCO Approval of Certain Annexations to Cities Upon receiving a proper application by resolution; a LAFCO must approve an annexation to a city if the territory to be annexed meets the following criteria:. (1) It is contiguous to the annexing city and surrounded or substantially surrounded by that city or by that city. and a county, boundary or the Pacific Ocean, (2) It is substantially developed or developing, (3) It is not prime agricultural land, as defined in GovC 56064, (4) It is designated for urban growth by 'the general plan or the city, and (5) It is not within the sphe, re of influence of another city. GovC 56375(a)(1). Upon receiving a proper application by resolution, a LAFCO also must approve an annexation to a city if the territory to be annexed meets the following criteria: (1) It is contiguous to the annexing city, (2) It is not prime agricultural land as defined b'y GovC 56064, '(3) It is located within an urban service area (GovC 56080) which has been delineated and 'adopted by the commission, and (4) It is designated for urban growth by.the general plan of the city. GovC 56375(a)(2). p:lafco.jh MEMORANDUM .. - ~ March 15. 1993 TO: JACK HARDISTY. PLANNING DIRECTOR ., FROM: MARTIN ORTIZ. ASSOCIATE PLANNER SUBJECT: PROCESSING SCHEDULE FOR LAFCO'S Per your request. I have phoned other LAFCO agencies within the State of California to determine their processing times tbr annexations. All have stated that the schedule for processing is located in the Cortese Knox Reorganization Act. I have attached a copy for your information. The following was compiled from the phone survey. Tulare County LAFCO:. All cities within jurisdiction have a "standing" property tax agreement. Processing time is between 3 to 5 weeks from the time they receive an application to the hearing date. The board meets once a month. Application consists of a resolution, map, environmental document, legal description and plan tbr services. Once received, check for completeness, if complete, issue a certificate of filing and distribute for review. Notices sent and posted 15 days prior to hearing. San Bernardino LAFCO: Processing time is between 3 to 6 months from the time they receive an application to the hearing date. The application consists of a resolution, map, environmental document, legal description. Once received, check for completeness, issue certificate of filing and distribute for review. Notices sent and posted 15 days prior to hearing. Fresno County LAFCO: For the cities that have a "standing" property tax agreement, processing time is about 45 days from the time they receive an application to the hearing date. They must meet the 15 day noticing deadlines. Sacramento CounW LAFCO: Thc timing tbr processing an application varies on a case-by-case basis. The LAFCO does a separate environmental review and document from thc city's (this is similar to what Kern LAFCO used to do). A certificate of filing is issued when thc application is complete, in most cases a letter is sent to the city wanting additional intbrmation. The review of the application takes about 30 days then the 21 day notice for the environmental document occurs. Their board meets once a month. Jacl/' Hardistv March 15, 1993' Page 2 Madera County LAFCO: Processing time is between2 to 3 months from the time they receive an application to the hearing date. The board meets once a month. The application consists of application, legal description, maps, filing fee. prezone resolution and environmental document. Once received. review for accurac.'y and set hearing. Fifteen day notice for hearing requirement. Inyo County LAFCO: Processing time is about 45 days from the time they receive an application to the hearing date. They must meet the 15 day noticing deadlines. Kern County LAFCO: Processing time is between four to six months, with the average time being 5-1/2 months, from the time they receive an application to the hearing date. The application consists of resolution, legal description, map, filing fee, prezone ordinance, environmental document and for additional information submit a copy of the Planning Commission staff report. Once received, a copy of the map is submitted to the Kern County Assessor's Office in order to acquire the tax area code. LAFCO sends out application for review. Then submit to County Auditor-Controller to formulate property tax split (processing time about I to 2 months). The Auditor-Controller notifies City Finance Department and CAO's Office to provide tax split within 30 days of letter. Once LAFCO receives resolutions for property tax split, then schedules the noticing for a public hearing. Noticing requirements is 15 days and they just submit notice in the paper. The board, as of March 9, 1993, meets once a month (the fourth Tuesday of each month). MO:pit l\mjh ANNEXATiON/DE'rACH&IENT/I:TEORGANIZ-A, TION PROC;I-:DURE DIAGRAM AnnOy pre-notice idly Ol S/lltllt~ci DY ~ ~pl'OOoflent flamutmfl o~ pearson. oaf ore rtsoiutton ADoption . unless 100S consent,. Sectt on 66800 (O) R~tlTIMI Oli lpptiGltlOfl bY affected Petit,on with required I~onatures of lafl~. IOClt #SKY. (SKtion 66753) Applir, itlon to LAFCO in form nQulrld by ¢ommmiofl to include resolution or A.~encv ~re-notIce · pllttiofl, mid end dlStnonofl,iPPhclbll Hit i e~ not I ce o)' "[JecuT. t ye teal r~mMiincl with ~ i ' 61ctiof166852) 0fftcer to suO,lec'C aAiS -----' .......... tnteresteci aeencles i I __ __ 1east ~0 dayS oefore fssutn ~1 .... · £erctf~cice of Filing - · q unless 100S consent or L nil within 30 daw bY Executnm Off.or; Section 66628 It)) ~ _~ _~ Comm"wn hMflnl wMttA gO dlyl Of Clrtifi- . ~' O CSKtion 66828) NotiCe given Dy i~xlcuuve Officer Dy mliiifl9, · - ~ publiclUofl, end pOSllflQ. , q lSe~onJ 66834.' 66835! J RlOUest for information from other igeflciel or a ac! .__.h,~_ ~'~J~ ' -- --~-- ' COtJfltll$; Executive Officer Prepares faoort end racom- I mlnciltlOn On propoul;report mllilCI It llUt 5 days prior I to Miring. (Section 56833) ' J --'-I--' Al the hiafinq the Commmton will considlr: staff report -Y end taCtOq rilltld tO proooui, talTinlonY of affected c iglflCila Inci OlrlllJ, service pile, CI:~ documint~tzon. ~"~J* i '~ Mekl alTIrmlnlfione required by ilW.  ~i ' ! (SfltlOfll 66:375, 56852] - I Commission Aoorov~s Pre'DOl'~jt Comm~siofl Denies It OlnllCl, no sfmllir proposat may bi mlOi Miy Bi iOorovIO wttfl rrvts,ofls witfliflOfllvelr, lions; Commtutofl Designates con:~u:ttflc}' (Section 56855) lutflorIty for furtfllr OrOClldm~; expires within Dill yeir if riot Conlmls3lofT rlSOflJTlOfl malia~ :o :OIIgdC1.. leo iutr~orttv. ~oC _ t (;ONQUL"T~N~ AUTHORITY pROCEP~IN§.S '~ NotiCe Vr~n by cte~t ot conooctmg' eootorrw of Comm~on n~rm~; not~ g~n Oy me~, lumor,z~ bY Commm,on w~t noel ~d 10~ lingwr ~lOn 67002. 57025, 57026) Conouc:~ng dui. notify near~ncj neia an ante and ~M of not,ce: =~Y ge con=~nuea up co 60 .~t~cen.~rotes~s fJleO w~Tn cler~ ~rior ~o. the conclusion of The neer~n6 ann each ~sc nave ante, s~gna~ure,' and iaaress; value of written protest ,aete~neo Dy ConouctJn9 authority aha resolution aeopteo v~tA1n ~0 alys of ' nelrtnO, mlKinq rKu~reO findings, (Section 57050) Te'rmifltfian' . ~e . II ~n ~rmm mrm mWon~ of: far m~a mmiori~ 1. vom~ if inh~itm~. ~~~ ~lsmr- R~iution ant to ~FC0. Nm by.~FCO. ~lCtiOn6?l~) ' wmmn, propoul Propel ~initld. fl~iubon COndUCting ari~ IdOP~ lent to ~FC0. . ~lUtion pi lppr~l. ] m~ Wl~ I yllr. COMPLETION OF p~OCEEDINGS The conducting lY~Orlty Clerk m~l IlflO t0 the minion office I certified cody of .me conducting lumor~ ~soiutlon and S~tl t~s ~lctlon 54902.5). The Executive Officer Snail dltl~ml compliance wlth,thl Comml~lOO rlSOlUtlon, if Jn cPmPllance a cl~ifJutl of complltion ~ j=uid ina recorded with Counw Records. if no o~er efllCtlVl altl ,s named, thl ~cordino dl~ B ifllCttve dill. EXKUtWe ~UIi ~lNmlnt of boundl~ ~lngt Ind ~nds to Still 8gird of EquliiZltlon. County Auluor end Auditor. Stlflmlnt pn~ to SlCrl~ry o~ State tot city InnlxltlOn. (Section 672G0)' All citations referlnCl tnl C&hfornle Gonrnment CoDe 'Protest provisions for changes of organization other than annexations, oetacnment~. aha reorganizations consisting soJey -. znnexatlon: aha aetac~men~.are different. Pte~e consult aoolica~[e se:T]~s of 't~e ia~. Jf terminatea ~ue to ~rot~t ~.3Hure at an e~ecDon, the waiting Period for an incorooratlon or c;;'; c;n~c:;~,;c~ ts ~'o vear;. - 227 - I~'" I i"-- I I"-- I I'-- I I"-- I I'-- I I'-' I I'--' I I'--' I I~ I I~ I I~ I I~ I I~ I I~ II I~ I TO'" fl11 '5ouLh San Joaquin Division CiCies ~ ~FRO~'. ~it~ o~ Delano ~ SUBJECT' ~ou~h San Joaquin Division ~ League o~ Ca]i(oPnia Ci~ies Cenera] He~bePship Hee~in~ _~H E N: .... Apr i.l. -i 5,--t g-9,3 .- - ......... TIME'0'00 - 7'00 ~.m. - Social 7'00 ~.m.- DinneP WHERE: Elk's.Lodge 708 Cecil Ave. Delano, C~ 932t5 $t7 .pep pepson ~ R~VP' B~ ApPil t2, t993 J e a n n e B u d~ a t a ~ ~ ~ Cit~ O~ Delano ~~~ (805) 72t-3'303 ~t, ~s~ on the a~ o~ ~e~tio~ ~Se. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 2700 *M' Street. Suite 225. P.O.Box 1229. Bakersfield, CA 93302 , --=--,m~,-'~-- - Phone (805) 861-2774 Fax'(8~05) 861-2817 ch-~-- Date: March 20, 1993 RAYBURN S. DEZEMBER Director Wells Fargo Bank To: KEDC Board Members/Alternates KEDC Public/Private Membership s,~r~t~ry ~ity Managers Assodation JACK HUNT Manager, Kern CoUnty Board of Trade Preside,t Directors, Kern County, Board of Trade Tejon Ranch Kern County Board of Supervisors Bakersfield City Council 'rr,,.,,,.,',.r Community Advisory Council TOM G. caoss Other Interested Parties Gen. Mgr./Vice President . Pacific Bell C~mpany From: Sharman I(rauter Cummins Vice President & Client Services Manager Kern Economic Development Corporation WARREN CARTER Chairman , Subject: KEDC February 1993, Client Activity Report Watson Corporation ' Twelve (12) prospect files were opened and six (6) client visits were conducted in the C;XT~Y PROUT month of February. The following is a brief desmption of the new projects started this Council Member cie or Sharter month, client visits with updates on selected ongoing projects. ~oB PRICE , New Projects Mayor c;~. of B,k~r,~.~d DecisiOn Time Frame Under 6 Months RoY ^SH5~R~ 02/022/93 Manufacturer. An East Coast company is interested in establishing a large S~ve~,.i,o~. Vismct i vehicle fabrication and assembly facility. Project Requirements: Purchase 10 acres with a Co~nV or Kern 100,000 square foot facility, rail access is preferred, employ approximately 100 people. ~-STa~R TORRES 02/021/93 Manufacturer - Precision StoneProducts - TACA. This northeast company is Rea as,-te, ~oan Ofn~er searching for a new location. Project Requirements: Lease or purchase 20,000-30,000 ~ank or Stockdale square feet of space with an overhead crane, access to major transportation routes, employ 15-20 people. TOM ~razz- LOGUD~C~ Co~n~, Member 02/020/93 Manufacturer * Paper Products. A site selection consultant is assisting a firm Ca~ro.~i, c~v with their expansion plans. Project Requirements; Lease or Purchase an existing 700,000 GLEN T. m~R~-~EmR . square foot facility or 200,000-300,000 sqUare foot with room for expansion or will President ' ' consider build to suit proposals on 30 acres, employ 200 people, invest about $25 million Castle & Cooke Development ' in equipment. ~ART H~LL 02/018/93 Office. A Southern California Realtor has a client that is interested in setting' President Kern Co~n~ Bo.rd or Trade up an office in Kern County. Project Requirements.; Lease 10,000 square feet of office space. DAN SABOVICH Chairman 02/017/93 Manufacturer - AviationRelated. An existing company is looking to expand Moja~e Oesert Ba.k their operations in Kern County. They are interested in sources of financing. Project Requirements: Construct a 20,000 square foot building, create an additional 800 jobs. ' VERNON STRONG Owner Strong Reai~'y Company A I~Ur,:~LiC-PF~IVATi''. PA RTXERS! HP [iRINGL\'G NEW/~U$/NE$S TO KERN COUA~']' / New ProjeCtS Decision Time Frame Under 6 Months (continued) o2/013/93 Manufacturer - Home furnishings. This SoutheaSt manufacturer of home .:furnishings is conSidering establishing a facility to supply customers in the Western half of the Unite~t States. Project Requirements: Lease or lease with option to buy 30,000 square foot facility with 16' minimum ceiling heights, dock hi truck doors, will employ up to 25 people. · New ' Projects Decision Time Frame Over 6 Months 02/024/93 Manufacturer. This existing Kern County business is searching for additional space. Project Requirements: Lease 4,000 square feet of space for light manufacturing with small area for outside storage, need only 10% in office space, employ 7-8 people. Targeting Mojave, Tehachapi and Bakersfield for additional space. 02/023/93 Service - Retail. A conSultant is working on be-half of a retail operation and is gathering information on Kern County as a potential location for a store. 02/019/93 Warehouse/Distribution - Bulk Food Products. This midwest company is searching for a location for a warehouse/distribution center for bulk food'products. 02/016/93 Manufacturer. A business conSultant has a client that is interested in potentially siting a manufacturing facility in California. 02/015/93 Service - Temporary Help. A company in the South East is exploring the possibility of establishing a branch office in Kern County~ 02/014/93 Service - Re~:~ii~ A Southern California Real Estate Broker is assisting a client the search for retail space. Pro~,ct Requirements: Lease 8,000-!0,000 square feet of space. Client Visits 12/224/92 Manufactttrer - Precision F_qgine Parts. A meeting was held on Feb~ 2. 1993 with Paul Sippel, Kern County Community Development and Karen Jones, Employers' Training Resource, to discuss municipal financing and labor availability. Project Requirements: Lease 15,000 square foot facility, employ up to 15 people, Wants training 01/004/93 Recycler - Used Tires. Meeting held on Feb. 3, 1993 with representatives from Kern County Waste Management to discuss the County's RFP for waste tire disposal. Project Requirements: Purchase 20-25 acres, conStruct a 80,000 square foot facility, employ about 20 people, approximate investment of $4 million. 02/013/93 Manufacturer - Home furnishings. A meeting and available property tour was arranged on Saturday Feb. 6, 1993. Project Requirements: Lease or lease with option to buy 30,000 square foot fadlity with 16' minimum ceiling heights, dock hi truck doors, will employ up to 25 people. .t PUR! I(7. PRIVATE P.4RTNERXIIIP BRINGING NEW BUSINESS TO KERN COUNTY Client Visits (continued) 12/226/92 ManufaCturer. A follow-up tour and several meetings were arranged on Feb. 8-9, 1993. The consultants have narrowed the sites down to 4 and two are in Kern County. The site consultants are conducting a search for a large manufacturer. Project Requirements: Purchase 30-40 acres, with available adjoining acreage (20 acres) for expansion, construct 145,000 square foot building, good truck access (100 trucks per day), 'available water for process and fire protection (70,000 gal./day), electricity min. 1500 KVA transformer w/480 Y/277 volt ~condary, 3 pH, 60 Hz capable of delivering 1800 A/phase continuously, employ 120 people, $27 million investment. 0/7008/93 Manufacturer -Clean Fuels. Two energy companies are considering establishing a co-generation facility and a clean fuels manufacturing plant.. Project Requirements: Purchase 100 acres rail served M-3 property, 2 milli°n gallons of water · required per day, will treat, waste water on site, must be close to natural gas pipeline, employ 200 people, project investment would be approximately $500 million dollars. 07/152/92 Manufacturer - Food ProcesSing. A follow~up meeting was held On Feb. 18 to discuss the progress on this project continues to move forward. Kern County Waste Management is working on several issues on this project and financing has been Update on selected on-going projects 07/152/92 Manufacturer - Food Processing. This project continues to move forward. Kern County Waste Management is working on several issues on this project and financing has been arranged. '~ 10/188/92 Manufacturer - Food Processor - TACA. A site consultant has been hired by the company and a tour of five sites in Kern County is currently being planned for April. 12/221/92 Manufacturer - Textile Mill - TACA. The Taiwanese textile company representatives are planning a tour in April. Project Requirements: Purchase 7-10 acres of land, employ between 100-150 people. 01/001/93 Manufacturer - Ag Products - TACA. We are preparing a tour in April for this prospect. Project Reqmr' ements: Lease existing building (20,000 square feet), 16 foot minimum ceilings, two truck docks, prefer rail and existing storage tanks, employ 22 people and use about 7,500 gallons of water per day. Unsuccessful Projects 12/214/92 Service - Oil Field Supplies & Parts. The company was not able to generate enough interest in existing oil companies for their services. They have decided not to expand in Kern County. A ,PUBLIC. PRIFATE PARTNERSIIIP BRINGING NEW BUSINESS TO KERN COUbI~J'Y Additional Items ~ International N.0~osition for Food Processors was held in Chica~o from February 21-24, 1993.. I represented Kern County in the Califorrtia Cenll'al Valley Economic Development Council booth at the trade show. Over 17,000 people attended the show and several good leads were obtained. In addition to the trade show a mini-mission was arrallged by the Califorrtia Trade and Commerce Agency. The group called on 19 companies and made a joint presentation at PHH Fanms (a large site selection firm). Please give us acall ff you have any questions on these projects. A PUBIJCzPRIPATE PARTNERSlllP RRINGINGcNEW BUSINF. S$ TO KERN COUNTY KERN ECONOMIC · DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FEBRUARY 1993 ACTIVITIES REPORT KERN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. Kern Economic Development Corporation Economic Development Activities Report Summary of Client Activities Month ending Februar~ 28,1993 Fiscal Year Results Febmar~ Summar~ of Client Activit~ 89-90* 90-91' 91-92' 92-93* 24 Total Prospects Year To Date 173 205 257 114 Number of Prospects 12 February Prospects 8 13 13 5 Number of Locations/Expansions 6 February Client Visits 4.62% 6.34% 5.06% 4.39% Success Rate Successful Locations # of Jobs Investment Buildin~ Size Acres Comments None to re]~ort in the month of February. Total 0 $0 0 0.00 Client Activity Summary: Includes all new vrosvects and current vroiects with ~ver 20 emvlovees or 15,000 sq. fL building size with progress made within the last $ months. Decision Time Frame Within Six Months · 02/022/93 Manufacturer 100 ttlA · 100,000 10 Cenera! Demographics and Property lnf°rmation. 02/021193 Manufacturer - Precision Stone Products - TACA 20 II/A 30,000 2 Genera! Demographics and Property Information. 02/020/93 Manufacturer - Paper Products 200 25,000,000 700,000 30 Genera! Demographics and Property Information. 02/018/93 Office IlIA Ilia lO, O00 UIA General Demographics and Propert!l Information. 02/017193 ManufaCturer - Aviation l~elated ' 800 ilia 20,000 II/A General Demograpatcs and Property Information. 02/013/93 Manufacturer- Home Furnishings 25 il/A 30,000 IlIA General Demographics and Proper~j Information. 01/012/93 Manufacturer/Recycler 100 7,000,000 13/A 20 Assistance with municipal financing. 01/008/93 Manufacturer - Clean Fuels 200 500,000,000 U/A 100 General Demographics and Property Information. 01/005/93 Service - Recreation 50 U/A 25,000 U/A General Demographics and Property Information. 01/004/93 Recycler - Used Tires 20 4~000,000 80,000 25 General Demographics and Property Information. 01/001/93 Manufacturer -Ag PmdU.cts - TACA 22 U/A '20,000 U/A General Demographics and Property Information. 12/228/92 Manufacturer - Steel Processing 15 U/A 60,000 2 General Demographics and Property Information. 12/227/92 Warehouse/Distribution - Paper Products 300 LI/A 55,000 2 General Demographics and Property information. 12/226/92 Manufacturer 100 25,000,000 140,000 60 General Demographics and Property Information. 12/224/92 Manufacturer - Precision Engine Parts 15 U/A 15,000 1 General Demographics and Property Information. 12/221/92 Manufacturer - Textile Mill - TACA 150 13/A U/A 10 General Demographics and Property Information. 12/219/92 Manufacturer - Asphalt Batching Plant '30 U/A 13/A 20 General Demographics and Property Information. 12/216192 Manufacturer - Poultry Processing - TACA 1,000 U/A LI/A 75 General Demographics and Property Information. 11/208/92 Manufacturer 10. 20,000,000 LI/A 50 General Demographics 11/206/92 Warehouse/Distribution 80 U/A 150,000 U/A General Demographics and Property lnformation. 11/205/92 Manufacturer - Equipment U/A 19/A 25,000 1.J/A Available Property Information 10/197/92 Manufacturer - Food Processing 60 U~A 60,000 2 General Demographics and Property Information. 10/194/92 Manufacturer - Chemicals. 120 U/A . 90,000 12 General Demographics and Property Information. 10/193/92 Office - Processing 30 U/A U/A U/A General Demopraphics 10/!91./92 Manufacturer- Ec[ui~ment - TACA 4O t~/A ~0,000 2 General Derno~ra[ohics and Pro~rt¥ Information. Page I Kern Economic Development Corporation Economic DeVelopment Activities Report Summary of Client Activities Month ending Februar~ 28, 1993 . DeCision Time Frame Within Six Months (Continued) 10/188/92 Manufacturer - Food Processing - TACA 1,500 U/A 1,300,000 100 Labor Market and Available ProPerty Information. 09/187/92 Office - Insurance Claims Processing 35 U/A 6,300 U/A General Dem0graphics and ProPerty Information. 09/186/92 Warehouse/Distribution U/A U/A 300,000 10 General Demographics and ProPerty Information. 09/180/92 Office - Data Center - TACA U/A U/A 60,000. U/A Available Property lnformati0n ~/182/92 Manufacturer - Electronics 30 U/A 20,000 U/A General Demographics and ProPerty Information. 09/177/92 Manufacturer - Paper Conversion - TACA 230 U/A 125,000 U/A Labor Market and Available Property Information. 08/168/92 Manufacturer - Plastic Pipe U/A U/A 400,000 U/A General Demographics and ProPerty Information. 08/165/92 Manufacturer - Food Processing 110 U/A U/A U/A General Demographics and ProPerty Information. 08/166/92 Manufacturer - Labels -TACA 20.. U/A 20,000 U/A General Demographics and ProPerty Information. 08/164/92 Manufacturer -Textiles U/A 15,000,000 90,000 10 General Demographics and. ProPerty Information. 08/155/92 Warehouse/Distribution -TACA U/A U/A 200,000 U/A General Demographics and ProPerty Information.. 07/152/92 Manufacturer -'Food Processing 250 . 50,000,000 200,000 640 Permit Research and Assistance ' 07/145/92 Manufacturer- Equipment- TACA '10 500,000 30,000 U/A General Demographics 07/142/92 Manufacturer - Co-Generation 14 60,000,000 U/A 2 Permit Research and Assistance 07/141/92 Manufacturer - Circuit Board Assembly 65 200,000 15,000 U/A General Demographics and ProPerty Information. 06/129/92 Manufacturer - Lighting, 550 U/A 500,000 17 General Demographics 06/126/92 Manufacturer - Automotive Interior - TACA 40 U/A 25,000 2 General Demographics 05/!07/92 Warehouse/Distribution -Medical Products 15 U/A 70,000 U/A General Demographics and ProPerty.Information. 05/096/92 Warehouse/Distribution -Consumer Products 100 U/A 100,000 U/A General Demographics and ProPerty Information. 04/084/92 Manufacturer - Metal Parts 25 U/A 30,000 2 General Information and ProPerty Search.' 04/081/92 Warehouse/Distribution - Printing - TACA 6 U/A 15,000 1 Reviewing information looking at other states. 04/077/92 Manufacturer - PaPer Products - TACA 1,000 500,000,000 U/A 2,000 General Demographics and ProPerty Information. 03/063/92 Warehouse/Distribution U/A U/A 350,000 U/A Available Property Search 02/040/92 Manufacturer - Steel Fabrication - TACA 35 4,000,000 40,000 3 Reviewing potential sites in Central Valley. 02/032/92 Manufacturer - PaPer Coatings 6 U/A 20,000 2 Searching for sites in Nevada. 01/008/92 Warehouse/Distribution U/A U/A U/A 10 Available Property Search. 01/007/92 Manufacturer - Plastics U/A U/A 50,000 U/A General Demographics and ProPerty Information. .11/154/89 Rec~,clin~ - Used Motor Oil 150 25~000,000 U/A 10 Permit Assistance and Property Information SubTotals 7,678 . 1,235,700,000 5,606,300 3,232 Page 2 Kern Economic Development Corporation Economic Development Activities RePort ;ummary of Client Activities Month endin~ Febma~ 28,1993 ::~ .......... ~:~l~t~:~..:l~ ...... -~::::~ .......... ~.'--~:;:.-'- ........ ~- ........ ~-:::: ~ ........... t~t¥~!J~.f::::::~:t~:~ ~:l~t~ ......~ ~:::::: ........................................ .':~ ~ :~ ~ ~ :~ ~.'.::~.~-'..~!!:~:~.::~:~.: ~: Dedsio~ Time Fram~ Over Six Months 021024193 Manufacturer 8 U/A 4,000 il/A . Preliminary Research for New Facility. 02/028/93 Service - Retail [I/A ll/A II/A ll/A preliminary Research for New Facility. 02/019/93 Warehouse/Distribution - Bulk Foods~ II/A il/A UIA_ ll/A Preliminary Research for New Facility. 02/016/93 Manufacturer ll/A [I/A IlIA IlIA Preliminary Research for New Facility. 02/015/93 Service - Temporary Help ll/A Ilia ILIA. [I/A Preliminary Research for New Facility. 02/015/93 Service - Retail il/A U/A 10,000 [I/A Preliminary Research for New Facility.. 01/009/93 Office 50 U/A 25,000 U/A Preliminary Research for New Facility. 01/007/93 Office 500 U/A 100,000 U/A Preliminary Research for New Facility.. 12/212/92 Manufacturer - Precision Engine Parts U/A U/A 20,000 U/A Preliminary Research for New Facility. 11/198/92 Office 200 U/A 100,000 U/A Preliminary Research for New Facility. 09/182/92 Manufacturer - Electronics . 30 U/A 20,000 U/A Preliminary Research for New Facility. 09/179/92 Manufacturer - Electronics 100 U/A 25,000 U/A Preliminary Research for New Facility. 08/163/92 Manufacturer - Plastics 40 U/A 48,000 U/A Preliminary Research for New Facility. 06/135/92 Manufacturer - Food Processing - DOC U/A U/A 1'00,000 5 Preliminary Research for New Facility. 04/087/92 Manufacturer - Aluminum Wheels 300 U/A 180,000 10 Preliminary Research for New Facility. Sub Totals 1,228 $0 632,000 15 Unsuccessful Projects # of Jobs Investment Buildinl~ Size Acres Comments 12/214/92 Service - Oil Field Supplies & Parts 8 U/A U/A U/A Could not generate enough business for facility. Fotal 8 U/A 'U/A U/A Date Febmar~ Call Report Number of Calls No Los Angeles calls were made in February 0 z 1992-1993 Los An~geles Mission Results Fiscal Year Total 91-92 Results 90-91 Results Number of Days 0 17 27 Number of Calls 0 25 57 Number of Tours as a result of LA Mission 0 1 2 Number of Locations as a result of LA Mission 0 1 . 0 Date Febmar~ Trade Show Rel~ort Trade Show Affiliation Comments Feb.21-24 International Exposition of Food Processors CCVEDC Over 17,000 people attended the trade show. Report Notes: · · ltalic = Major Client File Opened in February, 1993 * = Fiscal Year is from July 1 to June 30 U/A = Undisclosed by Client . Source: Client Discussions and Research. SKC 3/20/93. Page 3