Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/21/2005 B A K E R S F I E L D Mike Maggard, Chair Irma Carson Harold Hanson Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Wednesday, September 21,2005- 10:00 a.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT AUGUST 31, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT , 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Staff report and Committee recommendation regarding FY 2005-06 Cost Recovery Development Related Fees - Stinson B. Discussion and Committee recommendation on potential sale of the City Airport 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6.. ADJOURNMENT S:~JOHN\Council Committees\05Budget&Finance\bf05sep21agen.doc D2AFT B A K E RS F I EL D ~ ~v~ ~~ Mike Maggard, Chair Staff: John W. Stinson Irma Carson For: Alan Tandy, City Manager Harold Hanson AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, August 31,2005 · 4:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Called to Order at 4:05 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Mike Maggard, Chair; Irma Carson and Harold Hanson 2. ADOPT AUGUST 22, 2005 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Staff report and Committee recommendation on the sale of the City Farm City Attorney Gennaro gave an overview on the changes to the draft memorandum of understanding the Committee had requested at the August 22nd Committee meeting. Committee Member Carson requested clarity from the City Attorney on what Redevelopment Law allows once the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) takes ownership of the property and how the City retains the' right to dictate use of the profits. She asked several questions including: What purpose does the RDA serve different from the City? Why would the property not just stay with the City? City Attorney Gennaro explained according to the outside counsel specializing in redevelopment,' the terms would be bound by the purchase agreement. The purchase agreement would include the RDA and the City, as well as the eventual purchaser. Simply because the property and the funds flow through the RDA, the City Attorney was not aware of any legal reason why the property could not be shared by the City Council and the proceeds go to the General Fund. However, to fully answer Committee Member Carson's questions, the City Attorney responded she could confer further with the outside counsel. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Page - 2 - Committee Chair Maggard stated he wanted assurance the Council would have control over where and on what the funds would be spent. He expressed decisions of this magnitude should rest with the City Council, which is the body responsible to the voters. Assistant City Manager Stinson stated the City Manager was available by phone and a call could be put through on the speaker phone. Committee Chair Maggard expressed there were too many unanswered legal questions so he was not comfortable at this time recommending to the Council that the City sell the property to the RDA. However, he was comfortable if the Committee wanted to move the sale of the farmland forward to the City Council, but wanted staff to provide answers to the Committee's questions to the whole Council. He requested staff to please avoid distributing a large document the night of the Council meeting that the Council has not seen and would not have time to review before the item comes up for discussion. City Attorney Gennaro thought the questions and answers could be summarized in a reasonably short format. Committee Member Hanson made a motion to move the sale of 1,280 surplus acres of farmland forward to the City Council at its September 7th meeting for discussion and possible vote and to have staff provide the answers to the 'Committee's questions to the whole Council. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. B. Staff report and Committee recommendation on potential sale of the City Airport Committee Member Carson explained she brought this back to the Committee for further information. She requested staff to contact the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for information on other sales of small airports similar to the City's in the Western Region. If there were sales, were the City's required to pay back any Federal grant money. Also, she would like staff to request an answer on whether the City would have to pay back all or part of the Federal grant money if the City were to sell the airport. Public Works Director Rojas explained, sometime ago, FAA funding was used to purchase the land the airport is located on from a private party. The City of Bakersfield has the title to the airport and operates it. However, the FAA has decision-making powers over the sale of the airport and the money any sale would produce. The cost to build a new airport is estimated at $30 million for construction plus the purchase price of the land. Two-hundred and fifty acres would cost approximately $7.5 to $20 million depending on the location. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - Page - 3 - Committee Member Carson requested staff to bring the requested information to the next Committee meeting. However, the formal request to the FAA asking to close the airport could wait until the Committee meets again. Committee Member Hanson expressed it would be good to explore whether a sale is possible or not and make a decision, because the decision will impact airport tenants and the new restaurant at the airport. Committee Chair Maggard expressed there are benefits for the City to have a municipal airport other than Meadows Field. He asked staff to explore if the City could own property that is not contiguous to Bakersfield and if we would acquire the property, could it be operated as a municipal airport. There are concerns that at sometime in the future there will be complaints from residents regarding flight operations as .development continues to grow in the area around the airport. Shane E. Ellis, Kern Charter Service, spoke regarding how to approach the City to get funds invested in improvements at the airport, if the City continues to operate it. Committee Chair Maggard responded with an explanation on the difficulty of making large investments in facilities that do not generate any funding directly back to the City. However, if the City continues at the airport, he suggested perhaps a meeting could be setup to brainstorm on ways to achieve needed improvements. John Harmon, Harmon Rocket LLC, spoke regarding the airport restaurant. Christina Phillips, Harmon Rocket, LLC, spoke regarding the important role the airport fills in the community. Committee Chair Maggard requested staff to bring the information the City received from Ray Bishop, Director of Meadows Field, on flight paths at the airport to the next Committee meeting and also provide a breakdown-on the investments the City has made at the airport from grants and from the General Fund (dates and amounts). 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. Attendance: Staff: Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen; City Attorney Ginny Gennaro; Finance Director Nelson Smith; Fire Chief Ron Fraze; Public Works Director Raul Rojas; Community Development Coordinator George Gonzales; Public Works Operations Manager Brad Underwood; AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT BUDGET AND FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, August 31, 2005 Page - 4 - Real Property Manager Don Anderson; ED/CD Business Manager Rhonda Barnhard; and Office Administrator/Public Relations Coordinator Rhonda Smiley; Others: Peter Rudy, KU77/KCWR; James Burger, The Bakersfield Californian; Harry Hackney, airport tenant; shane E. Ellis, Kern Charter Service; Christina Phillips, Harmon Rocket, LLC; John Harmon, Harmon Rocket LLC; Jim Webber, airport tenant; and Dale Bradley, hangar owner. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council S:~lOHl'ACouncil Committees\OSBudget&Finance~bfO5aug31summary.doc B A K E R $ F I E L D RECEIVED PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AUG 1 5 2005 MEMORANDUM CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER FROM: RAUL ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/~ DATE: August 15, 2005 SUBJECT: FY 05~06 Cost Recovery Cycle - Public Works Fees The Budget and Finance Committee met on July 11, 2005 and reviewed the city-wide proposed fee increases. After reviewing the proposed fee increases for the Public Works Department, the Committee recommended to remove six cost centers for further review at their next meeting. All six of these fees referenced "historical cost data"; the Committee directed staff to come back to them with more detail as to what changed in each of these cost centers. In each case, the "historical cost data" was the actual time and direct costs attributed to the project number, based on FY 03/04. Grading Plan Check - Staff proposes to increase the base fee from $300 to $315 and the per acre fee from $16.10 to $18.60. The fee structure is set up so that the base fee - $315 - is applicable to any project of 5 acres or less. For these projects (about 45% of the projects we review) this amounts to a 5% increase. For the remainder of the projects, the fee change amounts to an average of 8%. Staff is asking for the increase based on actual time spent on grading plan checks and to account for the increased complexity of drainage regulations. There are NPDES regulations that are coming into play, as well as the difficulties inherent in dealing with the steeper terrain as we develop into the northeast. Staff also recommends adding a revision fee (equal to the base fee) for this cost center. This revision fee is similar to the fee structure for improvement plan checks which already has a revision fee. The grading plan revision fee would be charged for those previously approved grading plans that are being resubmitted for review with a design change. Final Tract Maps - Staff is proposing no increase to the base fee and to increase the per lot fee from $29 to $31. This is based upon the actual time spent on this project number in FY 03/04. G:\GROUPDAT~Georgina\Fees~Budget & Finance Committee rev.doc Page 1 of 3 Pages The base fee has remained at $600 since at least 2003. The per lot fee has gone from $28 to $31 over the same pedod. Because this fee has two separate components it is difficult to determine the actual percentage increase in the fees paid by developers, and it has been difficult for staff to get the numbers to balance. However, a review of recent activity shows that final maps now have an average of 45 lots per map. This results in an actual change in the fees paid by developers of 7.3%. This compares to a COLA increase over the same period of 7.7% Lot Line Adjustment and Owner Initiated Parcel Merger - Staff proposes to increase this fee from $902 to $970. This is based upon the actual time spent on this project number in FY 03/04. This fee was last increased on April 30, 2003. It has been two years since this fee was last adjusted. The change in the fee is 7.54%. The COLA over the same pedod was 7.7%. Parcel Map Waiver - Staff proposes to increase this fee from $902 to $1,070. This is based upon the actual time spent on this project number in FY 03/04. The parcel map waiver fee was last increased on Apdl 30, 2003. The change in the fee is 18.63%. The COLA over the same time pedod was 7.7% Staff is asking for an increase over COLA for this fee because of several factors. Because of the increasing pace of development, there is incredible'pressure to create new lots. Because of the pressure to create new lots, more engineers are using the Parcel Map Waiver process on property that formerly would have been processed with a Parcel Map. In most cases, this is appropriate, but there are more complex issues relating to property descriptions and title with these transactions than there were formally. Basically, all of the easy stuff is gone and we are left with the more marginal or difficult properties to process. This requires more review time, which relates to a higher fee. Staff is asking for an 11% increase in the fee over the COLA increase to account for this. Street Encroachment Permits - Staff proposes to increase this fee from $150 to $190 per application. This cost center involves staff review of potential problems caused by encroachment of a private use into public right-of-way. This is based upon the actual time spent on this project number in FY 03/04. Until recently, these permits have been non-controversial and non-contentious. This is no longer the case. The encroachment permits have been increasingly complex with much more neighbor interaction than formerly. The additional increase over the COLA is to account for this additional staff time. Right of Way Vacations - Staff proposes to increase this fee from $1,235 per application to $1,730. This is based upon the actual time spent on this project number in FY 03/04. Each right-of-way vacation can vary significantly based upon vadous factors, and we do not have many vacations dudng any given fiscal year. Dudng the 2003 fee cycle, a non-summary vacation fee was established. This allowed staff to bill applicants for vacations that took more time than what was included in the base fee. For non- G:\GROUPDAT~Georgina~Fees~Budget & Finance Committee rev.doc Page 2 of 3 Pages summary vacations, the base fee is still charged, but separate project numbers are set up for each vacation and when the vacation is done an invoice is generated which bills the applicant for time and materials beyond the base fee. The proposed fee of $1,730 is staff's estimate as to the costs involved in processing a typical (summary) vacation. Vacations involve a determination that dedicated right-of-way, such as street right-of- way, easements, etc, is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was dedicated and the right-of-way can be abandoned (vacated). The work staff performs for street vacations include notices and correspondence with utility companies, the Fire Department, and adjacent property owners; preparation of staff reports and headng notices for the Planning Commission; preparation of staff report, plat and legal descriptions and the Resolution of Intention for the City Council meeting; preparation of Notices of Vacation for the City Council hearing; and preparation of the staff report and notice of headng for the City Council hearing. cc: Jacques R. LaRoche#e, Assistant Public Works Director Marian Shaw, Civil Engineer IV-Subdivisions Georgina Lorenzi, Assistant to the Public Works Director Melanie Dunwoody, Business Manager, Development Services G:\GROUPDA~Georgina\Fees~Budget & Finance Committee lev.doc Page 3 of 3 Pages