HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/24/2003 B A K E R S F I E' L D
Mike Maggard, Chair
Harold Hanson
Mark Salvaggio
Staff: Darnell Haynes
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
of the City Council- City of Bakersfield
Monday, November 24, 2003
4:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201
Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA
AGENDA
1. ROLL CALL
2. -*'AI:IOPT SEPTEMBER 29, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Review and Committee recommendation on outstanding issues
regarding park development fee - Rojas
a. Request from the North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District to
have construction of required developer street improvements apply to
the full street next to a park as it does in the City, instead of half the
street improvements
b. Request from the North Bakersfield Recreation and Parks District to
have fees waived by the City for permits and services
c. Request from the Building Industry Association to substitute open space
in multi-family projects with four or less units for developer required
public parkland and receive park development fee credits
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
S:\Darnell~2003Bud&FinCom~bf03Nov24agen.doc
D AFT
B A K E .R S F I E L D
Aia~ Tandy ~'ty ~er Harold Hanson
Staff: Darnell W. Haynes Mark Salvaggio
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, September 29, 2003 · 4:00 p.m. ."
City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall
1. ROLL CALL
Called to Order at 4:06 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Chair; and Harold Hanson
Absent: Councilmember Mark Salvaggio
2, ADOPT AUGUST 18, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Staff report, review and Committee re.commendation regarding reque,s.t
from Kern-Tech, Inc. to provide d,scounted payoff of the City s
· Economic Development loan from available sale proceeds
Economic Development Director Donna Kunz reported due to a variety of
unfortunate events, Mike Miller of Kern-Tech, Inc. has indicated the company
cannot pay the outstanding balance on its loan. The company was doing well with
work in the commercial aircraft business until 9-11, when that type of work stopped
completely. Their current contracts in defense work are not as profitable as the
commercial business.
The City has a lien on two pieces of equipment. One piece has a resale value
(found on the Internet) of $43,500 and the other no longer has resale value;
however, the City would have to take the equipment and try to sell it in an
uncertain market.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
.Monday, September 29, 2003
Page - 2 -
Kern Tech, Inc. has an opportunity to sell the company. The purchase agreement
is for $350,000 to be paid to Kern-Tech. After paying all other, secured debt and
rent, $32,235 remains, which the City could claim. The buyer has agreed to keep
the employees and continue work on existing contracts. However, the buyer will
not go forward if the City's loan remains in place and Will need the equipment the
City is holding for collateral. The federal block grant loan approved in March 1997
was for $169,797 and there is a loan balance of a little more than $154,000.
Staff recommended honoring Kern Tech's request for the City to declare Kern-
Tech, Inc. in default on the loan, release the liens on the equipment to allow the
purchase of the business to proceed and, in return, make a claim on the remaining
funds, $32,235, from the purchase agreement (escrow).
Committee Member Hanson expressed if there were more money involved and it
would not cause the sale to fall through due to a lengthy process, he would
recommend asking the banks to discount their loans, the same as the City is being
asked to do.
It was discussed there has been value received from the loan over the last five
years, as Kern Tech has exceeded its hiring goals of Iow and moderate-income
individuals. Since the loan was approved in 1997, Kern Tech has employed about
60 workers and currently employs 18. One of HUD's main goals is job creation in
depressed areas and that has been accomplished.
Mike Miller, President of Kern Tech, Inc., spoke regarding the sale and the fact he
may need to declare personal bankruptcy because he personally guaranteed many
of Kern Tech's obligations and will have $200,000 in debts. He expressed it would
have been better for him to file bankruptcy for the business without the sale, but
the sale will save the business and allow the employees to keep their jobs.
Committee Chair Maggard stated he would accept staff's recommendation due to
the opportunity for the sale and it seems to be the best alternative. However, for
future loans with payment difficulties, he would like staff to see if it might be
possible to help the debtor do an offer and compromise with the government to
reduce payroll and sales tax obligations.
Finance Director Gregory Klimko explained the IRS and Franchise Tax Board can
take up to 18 months to make a decision, and in this case Mr. Miller had time
constraints.
Committee Member Hanson made a motion to approve staff's recommendation to
declare Kern-Tech in default, release the lien on the equipment to allow the sale to
proceed, and file a claim for $32,235 on the remaining proceeds from the sale.
The motion was unanimously approved (Committee Member Salvaggio absent).
· Staff was requested to forward an administrative report to the City Council for the
meeting on October 8th.
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT D~AFT
BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, September 29, 2003
Page - 3 -
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.
Attendance: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; City
Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Finance Director Gregory Klimko; Assistant to the City Manager
Darnell Haynes; Economic Development Director Donna Kunz; Principal Planner David
Lyman, Economic Development.
Others: Mike Miller, Kern Tech, Inc.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council
S:\Darnell~O3Budget and Finance~bfO3sept29summary
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Raul RoJas, Public Works Director.~~~~
DATE: October 22, 2003
SUBJECT: Park Development Fees -Three Pending Issues
At the August 18, 2003, Budget and Finance Committee meeting, staff was directed
to bring three pending issues on the park development fee to their October meeting. The
three unresolved issues were:
1. North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District (NBRPD) Issue: Is there a way to
cause developers to provide all street improvements for our facilities like they are
required to do for the city? If not, NBRPD recommends keeping street improvements
in as part of the estimated park construction costs.
2. NBRPD Issue: It was also requested that fees for permits and services traditionally
waived for city parks also be waived for NBRPD parks.
3. Building Industry Association (BIA) Issue: BIA indicated that they are interested in a
park fee credit similar to Title 15 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code for open space in
multi-family projects with four or less units. It is their opinion that the open space
requirement for this type of multi-family development should receive credit towards
public parks.
Responses follow:
1. For the most part, the City acquires park sites as part of the subdivision. The revised
park development fee eliminated the street improvements line item since developers
are required to construct local streets adjacent to a park site as a condition of
development. NBRPD normally acquires park sites by directly purchasing the land;
therefore, the park site is not part of land being subdivided. City and NBRPD staff
met on several occasions to discuss this issue. The Planning Director has proposed
a solution for parks surrounded by local streets which NBRPD staff found favorable.
The Director has proposed to amend the existing ordinance to require developers to
put in street improvements up to the property line for parks abutting local streets.
This proposal does not address funding of street improvements if the park site fronts
a collector or arterial which is the case for many of NBR_PD's proposed park sites. It
would be inequitable to have one developer fund all street improvements for a
collector or arterial with no type of reimbursement.
Perk Development Fesa -Three Pending I~ue~
Page 2 of 3
Staff does not recommend two different park development fees, one for the City and
one for NBRPD. NBRPD staff indicated that the best mechanism available to fund
collector and arterial street improvements would be to amend the City's ordinance on
park land appraisals. NBRPD indicated that the City's current appraisal guidelines
do not allow improvements to be included in the appraisal price. Although several
meetings between City and NBRPD staff have taken place on this issue, additional
time is still needed to review this issue because of its Complexity.
As a side note, the City's estimate for street improvements was $12,000 per acre.
This estimate includes mobilization, contingency, and design and construction
services. NBRPD's estimate, per the attached letter, is $20,000 per acre. The
reason for the large difference is that the City's estimate for street improvements is
for loc, al streets while NBRPD's estimate is for collector or arterial streets.
2. As an example, NBRPD summarized City permit fees they incurred for Liberty Park.
This summary is provided on page two of their September 19, 2003 letter. A total of
$13,747 was paid. In addition, there remains an unpaid median fee of $19,860 for
their share of future median island improvements along Brimhall Road, which is an
arterial. Median fees are charged for all development adjacent to an arterial. NBRPD
staff thought that it would be appropriate to add the median fee as an improvement in
computing the park land in lieu fee noted above. It is important to note that the City
funds its proportionate share of median island improvements when a median island
is constructed.
NBRPD staff asked if the City and schools paid the same type of permit fees when
the City constructs a park. Schools do pay permit fees. Since the City provides the
services typically charged on a permit fee, the City does not charge itself for these
fees. But the City does pay for its proportionate share of median island costs as
indicated earlier. The City has also paid the habitat fee on several City projects.
Staff recommends that permit fees not be waived for NBRPD since this may start a
precedent for other agencies to make the same type of request. In addition, staff
does not recommend adjusting the park development fee for this item since it is
staff's opinion that the fee should be the same in both jurisdictions.
3. Attached is a fax from the BIA where they have underlined the applicable section of
BMC 17.14.026 (Additional requirements for R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling
Zone). The underlined portion reads: Each multi-family development shall provide
and maintain a minimum of twenty percent of the gross area of the site as open
space. This shall include two hundred square feet of contiguous landscape space
per lot, not less than twenty feet in width or depth at any point ..... Required front
building setbacks and street frontage setbacks shall not be included in calculating
usable open space. ."
For background information, twenty percent of a 10,000 square foot lot is 2,000
square feet of which there shall be at least one space measuring, at a minimum, 200
square feet in size. This could be measured as 20 feet by 10 feet. Ten thousand
square feet is the standard lot used for 4plex projects. If the lot is larger, then
correspondingly, the open space requirement will be greater than 2,000 square feet
when the 20 percent rule is applied..A standard parking space is 9 feet wide and 18
feet deep. The open space requirement is slightly larger than a standard parking
space. The 2,000 square feet can include patio, and side/rear yard space, in
addition to the one space required to be 200 square feet.
G:\GROUPDA'r~Georgina~Park Develolxnent Fees~Park Dev Fee - Pending 3 Issues.doc
Park Development Fees - Three Pending Issues
October 22, 2003
Page 3 of 3
At this time, staff recommends a park fee credit not be allowed for the open space
requirement in the new multi-family ordinance. Section 1.5.80.120 of the Bakersfield
Municipal Code addresses credits for private park and/or recreational facilities.
Consideration of granting park credit should be made using that section as the
operating standard. Park credit is considered when substantial park facilities are
Provided. The request must demonstrate that the facilities are in substantial
accordance with the provisions of the Parks Element of the General Plan. Open
space slightly larger than a parking space does not meet this test *and therefore
should not be awarded any park credit. There is a difference between open space
designed, to redUce the bulk of a building and open space designed for park and
recreation purposes. The open space referred to by the BIA is designed to reduce
the bulk of buildings. It is staff's opinion that this open space would not lessen the
burden on the public park system. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the BIA's
request for a park development fee credit for the open space requirement for R-2
limited multiple-family dwelling units.
City staff met with the BIA on October 20th to discuss what would be staff's
. recommendation to the Budget and Finance Committee at their October 27th meeting
to ensure that the BIA had sufficient time to prepare responses for the Committee's
consideration. The BIA indicated that they thought the park fee credit proposal was
already approved by the Planning Commission. City staff informed them that this
was not the case. The confusion lies in the many changes that occurred in the new
multi-family ordinance during the discussion stages. Preliminary 'discussions on the
open space requirement for multi-family included language for "possible onsite
recreational amenities". The recreational amenities language was not part of the final
multi-family ordinance. The ordinance calls for contiguous open space only. City
staff informed the BIA that an ad-hoc committee was being set up to review park fee
credits for gated communities, which was referred to the Planning and Development
Committee (Since these two issues involving a park fee credit are similar, there may
be some merit in also referring this item to the same ad-hoc committee.)..
Cc: Stan Grady
Ken Trone
Georgina Lorenzi
G:\GROUPDAT~Georglna~Park Development Feee~ark Dev Fee - Pending 3 Issues.doc
North Bakersfield Recreation & Park District
405 Galaxy Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93308 (661) 392-2000
September 19, 2003
City of Bakersfield
Public Works Department
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California 93301
SUBJECT: Differences m Costs of One-Half Street Improvements in the City Estimate
Versus North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District Actual Costs & City Fees
Dear Georgina,
Based on the most recent street improvements this District has provided at its park sites,kit is
estimated that the fair cost for these is about $20,000 per acre or $200,000 for a 10-acre typical
park. This $20,000 figure is based on actual costs for: Madison Grove Park street improvements
of $90,264 or $7,522.00 per acre; Liberty Park costs of $321,312 or $15,085.07 per acre; North
Meadows Park costs of $175,197 or $19,908.75 per acre; and estimated costs for our Krebs Road
site not to exceed $65,000 or $21,452.15 per acre. Some street improvements for Liberty Park at
Jewetta Avenue were completed in 1997 - 1999, so they are somewhat dated. Madison Grove
Park work was performed in 2000 and 2001. North Meadows work is ongoing and currently
about 85% complete. Krebs Road is nearly complete; however, we have not seen an invoice yet.
Based on timing of the various projects, I consider North Meadows and.the Krebs Road Parks to
be closest to current realistic costs and therefore used $20,000 per acre as the estimated costs for
street improvements.
The estimate prepared by the City equates to $9,200 per acre for one-half street improvements.
The City estimate leaves out many things we had to pay for with our street improvements. .
Some of these include: grading and subgrade preparation for the roadwork; street lights; fire
hydrants; extension of utilities, such as sewer .lines, storm drains, water lines and other utilities,
sawcutting, signage, traffic signals and other street related improvements.
Also, based on our experience, the amount of pavement required is very conservative. The cost
per square foot of the concrete work is about $2 per square foot less than our current cost
experience.
The final item relates to fees paid to obtain all required permits from the City. Fees were as
follows:
Fee Description Date Amount
Street Plan Check Fee Jewetta Avenue 06-13-97 $2,634.00
Application Fee 01-07-99 $1,323.00
Restrooms Plan Fee 06-26-01 $855.36
Building Permit Fees #B01-04229 08-08-01 $8,400.29
Conditional Use Permit Appeal 05-17-02 $334.00
Inspection Fees 10-15-02 $200.00
TOTAL $13,746.65
Additionally, there is an unpaid median fee that is due at some future date in the amount of
$19,860.00.
Sincerely,
Colon G. Bywater
Planning and Construction Director
CGB:bc
Auo~-IB'~-03 09:32A BIA of Kern County '661 6331317 P.01
1415 iBm Street, Suite 420
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(661) 633-1316 fax (661) 633.1317
To: ~-~ ~ ~,- ~ "C-, From: )~-~ ~
Fax= Pages: ~_-
~U~ent ~Fer Review ~ Ple~e Comment ~ PI~ Reply ~ Please Recycle
Please call if you did not receive all
pages.
Thank you.
Au~'~-18-'03 Og:32A BIA of*Kern County 661 6331317 P.02
17.14.026 Additional requirements. Page 1 of 1
Title 17 ZONING
Ch_apter 17.14 R-2 LIMITED MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELLING ZONE
17.14.026 Additional requirements.
The following requirements shall apply to ali development permitted by this chapter:
A. All permitted and conditional uses pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to site plan
review as provided in Chapter [7.08.
B. Landscaping shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter ].7.61. In addition, Projects
with four units or less a block wall and landscaping is re.quired along arterial streets.
C. Off-street parking and loading shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.58.
D. Signs shall be subject to the requirements of Chapter 17.60.
E. For multiple-family dwellings with four units or less, the living room, main ent~*ance and
windows for the street-facing end unit and side units must face the street and public sidewalk.
For ail units, utility and other mechanical equipment shall not be visible from the street, and
architectural elevations for adjacent buildings shall be significantly different (i.e.: different
elevation, roof types, colors, or other structural elements.) This requirement shall not apply to
any lot less than ten thousand square feet and, that is not part of, or adjacent to multi-family
subdivisions or other multi-family projects that existed prior tothe effective date of this
ordinance. Duplexes and triplexes shall comply with these requirements regardless of lot size,
location or adjacent development. Refuse containers shall not be located within the front yard,
and if visible from the street sha~l be located within a masonry enclosure with metal gates.
//'F. Each multi.family development shall provide and maintain a minimum of twenty percent of
the gross area of the sire'as o~en space. This shall include two hundred square feet of
/r .~onti~uO~ranclscape space per lot, not less than twenty feet in _width 0~* depth at any point.
~Open space shall not be deemed to include buildings, driveways,-parking areas, or other
\surfaces designed or intended for vehicular travel. Required front building setbacks and street
/"frontage setbacks shall not be included in calculating usable open space. This require~nent
~' shall not apply to any lot I~ss than ten tho~-s~nd' square feet and, that i'§ r~ot part of, or
~. adjacent to multi*family subdivisions or other multi*family projects that existed prior to the
\,~.effective date of this section.
G. A solid masonry wall constructed at a minimum height of six feet from highest grade shall
be required for multi-family development proposed where the rear or side property line
separates a lot zoned R-l, R.2 of a single family character, MH or a PUD project of a single.
family character. Any wall located within or along the front yard area shall not exceed a height
of four feet. This requirement shall not apply to any lot less than ten thousand square feet and,
that is not part of, or adjacent to multi.family subdivisions or other multi-family projects that
existed prior to the effective date of this section. (Ord. 4101, §§ 1-3, 2003; Ord. 3925 § 1,
1999; Ord. 3875 §§ 3, 4, 1998; Ord. 3835 § 7, 1998: Ord. 2699 § [, 1982)
http://bpc.iserver.net/codes/bakersfld/_DATA/TITLE17/ChaPter 17 14 R 2 LIMIT... 8/18/03