Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002City of Bakersfield City Manager Delta Microlmaging, Inc 9961 N Lower Sacramento Rd Stockton, CA 95210 209-478-3600 BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager August 2, 2002 Mr. Scott Jones County Administrative Officer County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Scott: I am plea~ed'to notify you ~at at the July 31, 2002 Council meeting the City Council authorized 'the concept.s outlined by the BUdget-& Finance Committee for the City to provide sewer services to the Rexland Acres neighborhood7 As stated in my previous letter, the City would provide City sewer service to residents_in Rexland Acres area contin~gent on the County of Kern agreeing to the terms outlined .in your June 11~ response to me, and with the County committing $300,000 to the Jefferson Park Pool project by january 1, 2003. This authorization to provide City sewer serviqe to the Rexland area would 0nly be available until June 30, 2004, after which if you do not.have the program funded the City offer would expire. I would like to stress again how-important it is that the City receives a cQmmitment for the $300,000 needed' forlmprovements to tl~e Jefferson Park Pool as soon as possible and no later than January 1, 2003 in order to adequately incorporate the additional improvements using. these'funds into the construction plans [Or the project, we ~re currently developing construction cost estimates and plans and the sooner we know the funding is available, the sooner we can develop the final project design. Uncertainty regarding this funding makes proceeding with the final layout and design of the project most difficult. The action by the City Council reflects the desire of the City Council to work cooperatively with the County to assist with Rexland Acres sewer service problem and the upgrade of the Jefferson .Park Pool which serves City residents as well as those in the unincorporated areas surrounding Jefferson Park. Please contact me if you need any additional information. I look forward to hearing from you soon regarding the County's contribution to the Jefferson Pool project and working with you to develop a final agreement to provide sewer service to the Rexland Acres area once you have received your grant funds. Sincerely, cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney Raul Rojas, Public Works Director City of Bakersfield · City Managefs Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax 1661~ gr;~-?cl~13 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT MEETING DATE: July 31,2002 AGENDA SECTION: Consent Calendar ITEM: 8:'i'i. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: July 22, 2002 CITY A'n'ORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Authorization to Provide City Sewer Service to Residents in.Rexla~d Acres area contingent on the CoUnty of Kern agreeing to the terms outlined by the City Manager, and the Count,./ committing .$300,000 to the Jefferson Park Pool project by January 1,2003 and that the authorization to provide City sewer service to the Rexland area would only be available until June 30, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: The Budget and Finance Committee recommends approval. BACKGROUND: As part of the improvements proposed to City aquatic facilities, Kern County was requested to jointly fund improvements needed for Jefferson Pool since over half of the pool patrons-come from the unincorporated areas adjacent to the Park.' The County responded.with a request that the City allow residents in the unincorporated area of Rexland Acres to connect to the city sewer system. The County also indicated the Rexland project would be completed using an USDA Rural Development grant and loan program using about $ 4.8 million in grant funds and $1.5 million in loans for Sewer system construction. In response to the County, staff indicated that the City has an ordinance in place which directs that we do not provide sewer service to areas that are not annexed. Staff expressed concerns about establishing a precedent where the city would be expected to bail out other unincorporated areas that may have sewer service problems in the future. This type of action could also serve as 'a possible deterrent to annexation by the City. Staff indicated that the Council could make an exception to the ordinance through an intergovernmental agreement. This could be considered since Rexland Acres is a Iow income area and the Council does want to cooperate with the County. Staff further provided a set of conditions wh. ereby, an agreement could be considered. They included: 1) The City would allow for the 688 homes in Rexland Acres to flow to Treatment Plant #3 under our intergovernmental agreement. 2) The County would obligate itself to pay the full amount of the connection fees within nine months after the physical connection, and 25% of the total should be paid at the time of connection. Those fees are $2,400 per residence in 2003 and $2,500 in 2004. 688 homes x $2,400 = $1,651,200 or 688 x $2,500 = $1,720,000, depending on time of connection. 3) The County would also pay the City the trunk sewer fee for that area of $400 per acre x 150 acres, or $60,00O. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2 4) The County would obligate itself to paying the annual costs for the 688 homes for our operation and maintenance charges, at the out of City rate .as it would be established each year. It is currently $146.25 x 688, or $100,620 annually. Inmost years, there is an inflationary increase added. This amount to be adjusted per item 5), below. 5) The County would own and maintain the lift station and the lines serving' Rexland Acres. To offset the costs associated with'that service, the rates billed would be at 79% of the above rates (21% in our system is normally allocated to the costs for services they are providing) or $119.85 x 688 - $82,456.80, plus future increases. 6) Only the 688 homes in Rexland would be served. There would be n° additional connections to the system, and both parties would agree in the document that this is a one-time action for special circumstances. This does not establish a precedent for future cases. The County sent a favorable response to staff regarding this proposa! with some clarifications regarding the number and typeS of users to be served (755.2 .ee~uivalent single f~tmily dwelling units changed from 688 homes), and essentially agreed to the terms outlined bythe City. They also indicated that County CDBG entitlement'funds could be "freed-up" for the Jefferson P. ad~ pool project. ThiS item was referred to the Budget and Finance COmmittee for consideration. The Committee met with County representatives several times and discussed the proposal and the City's policy regarding providing sewer services outside the City. At the Committee's JulY 18th meeting the County representatives said they did not receive the USDA grants and loans they had applied for and although they would reaCply for these funds they would not know if they would be funded until March'of 2003. They were also told that only a maximum of $2 Million in grant funds would be available to them next year. The Committee indicated they supported authorization of the proposal to allow the Rexland Acres area to receiv(~ City-sewer service as outlined in correspondence between the City and the County pending the approval of the USDA Grant, however they wanted a time certain for the County to commit to funding for the Jefferson Park pool project and a date of with'drawal of the City's offer to provide sewer sevice.' Staff indicated they would need to know by January 1,2003 if the County funds would be available in order to incorporate them into the design work for the Jefferson Pool project. The Committee therefore recommended authorizing the proposal to provide City sewer service to Rexland Acres subject to the terms outlined by the City Manager, and the County committing $300,000 to the Jeffers~)n Park Pool project by January 1,2003 and further, that the authorization to provide City sewer service to the Rexland area would only be available until June 30, 2004. The action recommended by the Committee would authorize theproposal and conditions in concept and an agreement detailing the specifics of the City providing sewer service to the Rexland Acres area would come back to the Council at a later date for approval if the County proceeds with the project. BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy * City Manager ' July 23, 2002 Mr. Scott Jones County Administrative Officer County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Scott: This is in re_sponse ~to 'your letter of June 11, 2002 regarding the provision of sewer Services by the City to the Rexland Ac~'e~s neighbo~h°od. As you are aware, we have met With the Council's Budget and Fi_naiqce Committee on July 18, 2_002 and they are recommending authorization-of the concept you and I have discu~eO'-in previo,.is correspondence. The City would provide City sewer service to residents in Rex, rand Acres area .contlngent on the County of Kern agreeing to 'the terms outlined in your June 110, response to me, and with the~ County C°mmi[ting $300,000 to -the ~efferson Park Pool prc~ject by January 1, 2003. As discussed, by the Committee, th~ authorization to provide City sewer service to the-R'exland a?ea would only be available-uin~il ,~une 3i3, 2004, after which if you do not have the program funded the City offer would expire. 'This is alIof course subject tO approval by the City Council. I understand your desired change from th.e 688 "r.-_esider]ces' or -"homes' to 755.2 "equivalent single' family dwelling units" (ESFD,U's). This chdnge would be acceptable to the City and will be incbrporated into an agreement which would be finalized between the City and COunty subsequent to authorization of the sewer project concept by the Council and commitment of funds for the Jefferson Park Pool by the County. As you know from the Budget and Finance Committee meeting, it is important that the City have a commitment for-the $300,000 needed for improvements to the Jefferson Park Pool by January 1, 2003 in order to adequately incorporate them into the construction plans for the project. Due to the complex nature of the pool renovation and upgrade it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to add the proposed water features to the project after that date and complete the project within the necessary time frame. It is the desire of the City to work cooperatively with 'the County to arrive at positive resolutions to the sewer service issue and the upgrade of the Jefferson Park Pool. I will notify you of the Council's action at the July 31, 2002 Council meeting where the Budget and Finance recommendation will be considered. Please contact me if you need any additional clarification. I appreciate your willingness to work constructively towards 'a mutually beneficial outcome to these issues. SinF-~er.91y, ~ ,// City Manager / cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Bakersfield · City Mana§efs Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (661) 326-3751 · Fax (661) 852-2050 B A K E R .S F 'I E L 'D OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM July 8, 2002 TO: Budget and Finance c°mmittee.~ FROM: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~'/ SUBJECT: City Services to County Areas -- In response to our request to provide financial assistance for the Jefferson' Pool rehabilitation, Kern County countered with a request to provide sewer services for the Rexland Acres area. I have attached copies of the correspondence between Scott Jones and myself on this subject. I haVe also attached copies of Administrative Reports which indicate that if any such request is made, City policy requires the property owners to record a covenant binding current and future owners to take Steps toward annexation pdor to a connection to City services. This information is provided to you for review in preparation of the regularly scheduled meeting of July 18, 2002. Attachments BAKERSFIELD Alan 'randy · City Manager May 21,2002 Mr. Scott Jones County Administrative Officer County of Kern 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Scott: We are in receipt of your letter of May 2'~d concerning Jefferson Pool and the Rexland Acres subdivision. We also thank you and your staff members for visiting us on this subject on May 13th. To recap, the City asked the County, after we funded the County Airport ($1.5 million), the Lake Ming bike path ($450,000), the str'eetscape in front of the Kem County Museum ($250,000), and a budget allocation for Stramler Park ($~80,000 - not yet approved by City Council) for $300,000 for the Jefferson Pool from County block grant funds. You have responded by saying the County might be able to do that if the City provides sewer services to Rexland Acres. In an ideal wodd, the four unilateral actions of good faith might be enough to prompt the County to respond positively to a pool to serve lower income County residents without further conditions. Nonetheless, we want to cooperate on what now becomes a faidy complex issue. The City of Bakersfield has an ordinance in place which directs that we do not provide sewer service to areas that are not annexed. We have sent a delegation to Rexland Acres in the past and offered seWer service with annexation, which we would continue to offer. There are several reasons for the ordinance: 1) One is the failure of previous efforts to make these types of agreements work. In CSA 71, the City reserved plant capacity and agreed to serve a County area. With the exception of one test area, the County has not adopted standards' that result in the construction of sewer trunk lines, so there have been almost no connections. The plant capacity that is reserved is being paid for by the City but without reimbursement from users. Homes are built on septic tanks~ and dow~ the road, the contamination that exists in Rexland Acres will exist in CSA 71 also. The City therefore believes CSA 71 is a failure. City of Bakersfield · City Managers Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Scott Jones May 21, 2(~02 : Pacse 2 2) There is the issue of precedent. The County of Kern, through today, continues to allow urban density subdivisions on septic tanks - a future time bomb exactly like Rexland Acres. The only difference is how long it takes for the ground to become saturated, the septic tanks to fail and the groundwater to become contaminated. If the City bails out the error made by the County in Rexland A~cres, where does it stop? There have been 30 years of County subdivisions built since Rexland, many of which will eventually have Rexland's problems. If we bail y~u out here, the likelihood is we will be asked to bai! out.the many others ~.. .wt~en saturation problems become severe. We would prefer to see the County deal with the long-term problem by requiting sewer service. 3) The City has found that giving, specific serv[c-es away is a deterrent to annexation. It-allows ~roups to take what they most strongly desire, but not to annex for efficiency and consistency of services. The City Council~ could make an e×ception to its-ordinance for Rexland Acres through an intergovemmenta! agreement. The above issues would be the negative concerns.' The offsetting argument, of course, is that Rexland 'is a Iow-income area, and our · Council does wish to cooperate with the County. Staff cannot predict how the Council would decide given those competing interests. Nonetheless,-it seems beneficial to format the general terms of an intergovernmental agreement with you so the parties would know the conditions they were voting on at the time the decision is reached on va~ng from the policy. Based on our discussion of May 13m, the following would be the general terms: 1) The City would allow for the 688 homes in Rexland Acres to flow to Treatment Plant #3 under our intergovernmental agreement. 2) The County would obligate itself to pay the full amount of the connection fees within nine months after the physical connection, and 25% of the total should be paid at the time of the connection. Those fees are $2,400 per residence in 2003 and $2,500 in 2004. 688 homes x $2,400 = $1,651,200 0r'688 x $2,500.= $1,720,000, depending on time of connection. 3) The County would also pay the City the trunk sewer fee for that area of $400 per acre x 150 acres, or $60,000. 4) 'The County would obligate itself to paying the annual costs for the 688 homes for our operation and maintenance charges at the out of City rate as it wo[~ld be Scott Jones May 2'1, 2002 Page 3 established for each year. It-is currently $146.25 x 688, or $100,620 annually. In most years, there is an inflationary increase added. This amount to be adjusted per Item 5), below. 5) The County would own and 'maintain the lift station and the lines serving Rexland Acres. To offset the costs associated with that service, the rates billed Would be at 79% of the above rates (2t% in our system is normally allocated to the costs for services you are providing) or $119.85 x 688 - $'82,456.80, plus future increases. 6) Only the 688 homes in Rexland would be served. There would be no additional connections to the system, and both .parties' would agree-in the document that this is a one-time-action for special circumsta:dces. This does net establish a p~cedent for future cases. If these are a correct summary of the terms, ptease let me know and we will ask the Budget and Finance Committee of the City Council to start deliberations on the policy issues. ' - - , We respectfully ask that the Jefferson Park funding move forward based on our four past actions of funding County projects and because the .project has the merit to stand on its own. Sincerely, Alan Tan City Manager / cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Dave Price, Kern County Resource Management Agency Chuck Lackey, Kern Count/Director of Engineering 'and Survey Services Bart Thiltgen, City Attorney Start Ford, City of Bakersfield Recreation and Parks Donna Kunz, City of Bakersfield Economic and Community Development Dept. Kern County Administrative Office County AdmJnlstrat~e Center 1115 Tmxtun Avenue, F~:h FIoer. Bake~field, CA 93301.46~9 SCOTT L JONES Telephone 661-868-3198. F~, 661-868-Y{ 90 · TTY Relay 8CX3-735-2929 County Mmlnlsl~6ve O~cer May 2, 2002 Alan Tandy, City Mmager Ci~ of Bakersfield I501 Tm'cmn Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Proposed Ci.tyK;ounty Cooperatiwe Projects Dear Alan: This responds to your letter of April 24 requesting consi'd~afion 0f a $300,000 financial contribution from the County to cover 50% of the cost for rehabilitating the leffe-rson Park swimming pool located in Southe~t Bakersfield. We are very appreciative of thc City's past participation in joint, cooperative projects that have benefitted our citizens. County staff is prepared to recommend Board of gupetwisors' approval of your proposal, using Community Development Block grant funds allocamd to the Fifth Supervisorial District, in conjunction with your consideratibn and approval of mother City/County cooperative project which ha~ previously been discussed with your staff. Super, hsor Pete Parrais supportive of this reciprocal cooperation proposal. The concurrent City/County cooperative project for which we are requesting City approval, at no cost to the City, entails the connection of the Rexland Acres area of Southeast Metropolitan Bakersfield to thc City'.s existing sewer system. Residents of the Rexland Acres area would pay sewer connection fees to reimburse the City for the cost of constructing treatment plant capacity, and sewer service charges would pay for the related operational costs. Another option for reimbursing the City is the possibility of exchan~ng sewer flows between the Kern Sanitation District sewer system (to accept more sewage from City residents) and the City sewer system. As you know, the two systems already share a common trunk line and sewage diversion structure. We hope that you and the Council will consider the following compelling circumstances: 1. A grant application to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Rural Development Loan and Grant Prolp'am) for the construction of 'sewer infrastructure, for the Rexland Acres area is currently pending. If approved, this grant is expected to provide $4.8 million in grant funding and $1.5 million in loans for sewer system construction.. In order to qualify for these l:cderal grant and loan funds, the area must be unincorporated (thus precluding knme.di'ate Alan Tandy,.City Manager Ma7 2, 2002 Proposed City/County Cooperative Projects Page 2 annexation), l=urther, there is no means of-financing the project absent these grant/loan funds. 2. Approval of.the City to connect m your sewer system would save approxi_mately $800,000 of the lo[al.pro,ecl cost, and w oukt reduce the project cost to a level that likely can t~¢ funded within the expected ~rant amount. In addition to directly benefiuinl~ the public, this will also improve the chances for grant approval. 3. If the P, exlanct Acres trea i_s ever ~nnexed to the City, the sewer infrastructure will already- be-constructed and funded. 4. Providing the 'necessary sewer infrastructure will prevent further deterioration of groundwater quality in the area, and will improve the .general appearance of an area immediately ~jacent to City boundaries. - ! fi. We can see no disadvar~tages or cost., to th~ City related to the sewer connection proposal. I I hope you will favorably consider this proposal, in concert with our favorable consideration of your funding participation request for leffenon Park. This appears to be a rare win-win-win oppommity for the City, the County, and the citizens we serve. I am available at your convenience to meet with i you and discuss these proposals in greater detail. .. Sincerely, '... Scott E. Jones County Administrative Officer SE J/randy9 : cc: Members, Board of Supervison Harvey Hall, Mayor, City of Bakemfield Bakersfield City COuncil · Dave Price, Director, Resource Managemen~ Agency Charles Lackey, Director, Engineering & Survey Services -- BAKERSFIELD Alan Tandy · City Manager Apdl 24, 2002 Mr. Scott Jones County Administrative officer County of Kem 1115 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Scott: In a letter to the County' of Kern Board of Supervisors dated February 5, 2002, the 'Community Services C6mrnittee of the Bakersfield City Council requ. est~ financial assistance with the rehabilitaUon of Jefferson Pool. That Carticular facility'is blocl~ grant eligible, as it serves a Iow income neighborhood. It is also surrounded on three sides by unannexed portions of Kern County. A copy of the letter i.s enclosed. I am writing this letter at the request of the Committee. We have not yet received a response to the letter, and they asked that I call several things to the attention of County officials. In the spidt of intergovernmental cooperation, the City of Bakersfield has done the following for-Kern County projects in recent years: 1) Given $100,000 for lighting improvements to the Kem County soccer complex outside the City limits; 2) Pledged $250,000 for the streetscape in front of the Kern County Museum; 3) Pledged $1,500,000 for the new terminal at the Kern County airport; 4) Committed $ 450,000 to building a bicycle path around Lake Ming outside of the · - City limits; 5) Tentatively placed, in our draft budget, $80,000 to purchase playground structures in the County owned Stramler Park. City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 Scott Jones April 24, 2002 Page 2. The Jefferson Park project is a perfect candidate for continuing this pattem of cooperation, given its direct service to County residents and its eligibility for federal funds. We hope it is given favorable consideration. Sincer y, ~ J' Alan Tandy City Manager cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Dave Pdce, Kern County Resource Management Agency Stan Ford, City of Bakemfield Rec~;eation and Parks Donna Kunz, City of Bakersfield. Economic and Community Development Dept. BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA February 5, 2002 crrY COIJNC]I, The Honorable Peter Parra ~-.~L~r.~ Kern County Supervisor ~,,yo~. 1115 T'~xttm 'Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Mark Salvaggio I/'~e-Ma~or """' _ km Cam~,, Dear ~arra; Ward l · The Community Services Committee 'of the Bakersfield City Council met on Susaa ~L Be~,-~m j- t~ · ' . - - ' w,,,~2 anuary 25 0n tt're ~ssue-of C~ty swimming pools and aqu~c needs. We are "seriously exploring th3 rehabilitation a-nd enh'ance'rhent of mariy of the aging M~.~'Cagga~ City pools using Proposition 12, block grant, and other available ~ources. w~-,~3 We have identified at least $4.5 million in very real needs in this area - our Proposition 12 allocation is less than halfof that. David Couch w~.~4 The Jefferson Park pool is the most heavily attended among all City facilities ]~,oldW.]Z,,,~, with over 10,000 users per summer. An attendance report is attached for w,,~s reference. It is also used by East, . Foothill and Highland High Sohools, as well as the Riptides Swim Club. That pool is also unique in that it is Jac~,ies~¥a, surrounded on three sides by unincorporated areas of Kern County. It is our w~,d~ belief that the attendance at the pool, in all likelihood, has a citizen usage from unincorporated areas at welt over ¼ and probably ~ of its patronage. Jefferson Pool also has the highest repair costs for Code-related items of any pool in our system. A report is attached on the Code-related items only. In addition' to the Code-related repairs, we would like to enhance it and make it better by adding a slide, spray areas, and perhaps even more water surface. The combined cost is currently .estimated at $600,000. The City and County have made great stddes in recent years in the area of intergovernmental cooperation. The Ci~ has financially assisted the County on the new airport terminal, and is planning to provide some new play equipment at Stramler Park. The County offered (when it was active) some assistance to the City regarding the City Center project, and there are numerous other examples. '- The Honorable Peter Parra Page 2 We know.money is tight and times are difficult for all. We, howe,~er, are facing $4.5 million in need. Since Jefferson Serves a very large portion of County residents, we respectfully request that you consider providing 50% of the $600,000 repair and enhancement costs. Proposition 12 monies are eligible and the area is certainly within eligible census tracts fo'r use of block grant-funds. A pool that serves over 10,000 per summer, and three high schools! How perfect a statement it would be to jointly fund. What a wonderful dedication ceremony and statement to the community it would .be about our ability to work together! Please give this important issue nsideration., , Y Ja~quie Sullivan, Chair Community Servfces 'C'6mmunity Services Community Services Com['nittee C~m. mi.ttee member Committee member cc: Kern County Board of Supervisors Scott Jones, ·Kern County Administrative Officer Dave Pdce, Kern County Resource Management Director Alan Tandy, Bakersfield City Manager Stan Ford, Bakersfield, Recreation and Parks Director Donna Kurtz, Bakersfield Economic Development Director ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT , MEETING DATE: September 8, i993 AGENDA SECTION: Deferrtd Business YYEM NO:, l' TO:. Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: 'Carol Wi/h'ams, City Clerk V£P~TMEh'r HEAD~ DATE: .August 27, 1993 ClTY A'I'roRNEY N/A CITY MANAGER SUBJECI': Ordinance amending_Section 14.04:030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code-relatin~ tO water service to County residents. (Wards 1-7) RECOMMI~NDATION: Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance. BACKGROUND: There are many instances whereby owners of property in the unincorporated area request connection to the City Domestic water system. This Ordinance reinforces City policy requiring property ow!~. ers of unincorporated areas to record a covenant binding current and future owners to take the neces.saq, steps toward annexation prior to connection to the City system. The Ordinance make City requirement for water service co. nsistent with other utility services presently provided.by the City. The City Council adopted a similar ordinance for sewer service to County residents on April 2~, 1993. The City of Bakersfield Water Board at its August 3, 1993 Special Meeting reviewed this Ordinance and covenant and recommends City Council adoption of the Ordinance requiring the recording of a covenant. · This Ordinance was given fa'st reading at the Council meeting of August 25, 1993. .DB 93-07 W.B. o xs cz so.' 3 5 6 0 AN ~ ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14.04.030 OF THE BAKERSFIELD : MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO WATER SERVICE TO COUNTY RESIDENTS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as f011ows: SECTION 1. Section 14.04.030 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following subsections: 14.04.030 Connection to pro~rty in unincorporated areas. E. Whenever an application is made for a water connection to the City-owned sy. stem for property in an unincorporated area, the City Director of 'Water Resources is authorized to enter into-an agreement for such connection in accordance with this chapter. F. For such properties which are adjacent to the city, the property owner must enter into and record a covenant binding him or her and all future property owners to take all necessary _.steps to immediately annex the property served by City water to the .City. G. For such properties which'are not adjacent to the City, the property owner must enter into and record a covenant binding him or her and all future property owners to take all necessary steps to annex the property served by City water to the City at such time as the City becomes contiguous to his or her property, or the law otherwise permits such annexation. SECTION 2. ..This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty [30) days from and after the date of its passage. .......... ooOoo- Recording requested by and for the benefit of the CITY OF BAKERSFIELD When recorded return to: CITY .OF BAKERSFIELD Department of Public Works 150! Truxtun Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93301 Space for Recorder'-, Use Only CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Bakersfield, California COVENANT REQUIRING ANNEXATION THIS COVENANT is executed on this day of ,199, by . (hereina .fter"Owner/s") in connection with the extension o~ Water service to the here-in described property, located in an unincorporated area of the County of Kern. The real property herein de.scrLbed has been granted water service by the City of Bakersfield, even though the property is not located within the incorporated boundaries of the City. As a condition of extension of said .water service to this property, the property shall be annexed into the City of Bakersfield as soon as it may be included in an annexation which is contiguous to City boundaries. The property own.ers hereby waive their right to protest such annexation and shall take all necessary steps to immediately annex into the City the property served by City water once said property is contiguous to City boundaries. The City reserves the right to discontinue water service if the property does not annex into the City. This covenant may not be amended or modified without the prior approval of the City of Bakersfield. This covenant shall run with the land. Property description: OWNER(S) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Gene Bogart, Water Resources Director NOTE: All signatures must be notarized. 14.04.030 extent of thc utiUzing equipment or operations for which This contract shall at. ail times be subject to such the city is supplying water service shall immediately give changes or modifications by thc City of Bakersfield as the city written notice of thc extent and nature of the said city may, from time to time, direct in the exercise change, of its jurisdiction. D. Use of Water Without Application for Service B. Bill for Service. On each bill for service there Having Been made. Any person or f'u'm taking possession will be printed substantiaily the following language: of and using water without having made application to If this bill is not paid within fifteen (15) days after the city for service shail be held liable for the full amount presentation, service' may be liable to discontinuance. A of the service rendered, cash deposit and a reconnection fee may be required to E. Whenever an application is made for a water reestablish service. connection to the city-owned system for property in an Should the amount of this bill be questioned, an expla- unincorporated area, the city director of water resources nation should be requested from the city. If an explana- is authorized to enter into an agreement for such connec- tion satisfactory to the customer is not made by the city tion' in accordance with this chapter, and thc bill is still questioned, thc custbmer may deposit F. For such properties which arc adjacent to thc with thc City of Bakersfield, City Treasurer, 1501 city, the property owner must enter into and record a Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California 93301, thc covcll~nt binding him or her and ail future property amount, of the bill to avoid discontinuance of service. owners to take ail necessary steps to immediately annex Make remittance payable to City of Bakersfield and the property served by city water to the city. attach thc bill and a statement setting forth thc basis for G. For such properties which arc not adjacent to the the dispute of thc amount of thc bill. Thc Water Depart- city, the property owner must enter into and record a mcnt will review the basis of the billed amount and covenant binding him or her and ail future property disbut~e the deposit in accordance with its findings. owners to take all necessary steps to annex the property C. Customer's Deposit Receipt. Each receipt for served by city water to the city at such time ~ thc city cash deposit to establish or reestablish credit for service becomes contiguous to his or her property, or the law will contain the following statements: otherwise permits such annexation. (Ord. 3560 § 1, 1993: 1. Upon discon~nuance of service, the city will Ord. 3504 § 1, 1992: prior code § 1.46.030) refund thc customer's deposit or thc balance thereof in excess of unpaid bills for that service. 14.04.040 Contracts. 2. After the customer.has, during thc period of time A contract, as a condition precedent to receiving the deposit is held or for twelve consecutive months, paid service from thc city, will be required under any of the all bills for service, within fifteen days a.her presentation, following circumstances: thc City will refund thc deposit. A. Where required by provisions in a filed rate 3. Should thc customer establish credit initiaily by schedule; deposit and subsequcndy by other means in accordance B. When a main extension to be made under thc with Section 14.04.060 and then request thc return of his provisions of Sections 14.04.140 through 14.04.230 deposit, thc city will return thc deposit (ord. 2585 ~§ 1, requires an advance for construction; 1980: prior code § 1.46.0.50) C. For temporary service supplied under thc provi- sions of Section 14.04.130; 14.04.060 Establishment and reestablishment D. For standby service or service requiring the of credit. payment of an availability fee; . A. Establishment of Credit. Each applicant for E. For any service to be furnished at rates or under metered service will be required to establish credit, which conditions other than the rates set by the city; will be deemed established upon qualifying under any F. Under any circumstances where a contract would one of the following: benefit thc city and is directed to be prepared by the 1. Applicant is the owner of the premises upon director of water resources. (ord. 3504 § 2, 1992: prior which service is requested, or of other real estate within code § 1.46.040) the city's service area; 2. Applicant makes a cash deposit to secure pay- 14.04.050 Special information on forms, ment of his water bills as prescribed in subsection A of A. Contracts. Each contract for water service will Section 14.04.0'/0 under "Amount to Establish Credit;" contain substantiaily the following provisions: 3. Applicant furnishes a guarantor satisfactory to the city to secure payment of his water bills; 471 o ! HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL September 3, 1992 I · Page -4- Staff believes that adequate efforts have been made to accommodate the developers and that the decision of the Planning Commissi,on should be upheld. DEFERRED BUSINESS Item lla" Ordinance relatin~ to ~ater Service to Count7 Residents. lhis Ordinance was given [irst Reading at the Council Meeting of ~uguSt 25, 1~3. ~_~Thts Ordinance reinforces City policy requiring property owners.of unincorporate~ areas to record a covenant binding current and future owners to take the necessary, steps tpward ~nnexa~ion prior to connection to the City system. This requtrgme~t, ts consistent with other utility strvices presently provided by the City. Item lib. Ordinance relatin9 to Prezoni~9 property southwest of Calloway Drive and Bti'mhall Road (CallowayNo. 6). This is the Ordinan~ewhich provides for the prezoning of Calloway No. 6 annexation. The Ordinanc6 was given First Reading at the August 25th City Council .Meeting. 'Item llc. Amendment to Land Use E~ement of the 2010 Plan from LR to HMR on 8.5 acres at th~ s~thwest corner of Distritt 'Boulevard and Gosford 'Road. At the last meeting, the Council directed the City Manager's Office to hold a neighborhood meeting to see if the two parties' interests could be accommodated. That was done on August lsd. While the issues were not resolved, the property owner and neighbors agreed to work together over time to see if common ground could be found. Based on that, staff recommends terminating this proceeding. We will work with ithe two interests in the hope that a positive solution can be found. Items 11d., e.~ f.~ g. and h. Formation of Special Assessment District (Stine- .Harris). These items pertain to the formation of a special assessment district. The Stine-Harris portion of the district provides for the design, construction and acquisition of street, stormdrain, sewer and'parksite improvements. This portion was deferred from the August 11, 1993 Council Meeting, and is being resubmitted with a letter-from the developer, St. Clair Development, accepting responsibility for street improvements on Panama Lane along the Arvin-Edison Canal In addition, the California Avenue/Oak Street portion of the assessment district is being included to provide for construction of curb, gutter, sidewalk and on additional lane of traffic along the north side of California Avenue west of Oak Street. It also includes a commercial cul-de-sac street with access to California Avenue and modifications to Freeway 99 northbound on-ramps and adjacent traffic signals. Item Iii. Draft Letter to the Plannin~ Commission. During Council Statements at the August 25th Council Meeting,.the Council asked staff to draft a letter for Council's consideration which would bring to the Commissioner's attention .Council's concerns and expectations. We have drafteda letter, as requested, for your consideration. 'TO: DOH;; 'HATER AND SA'N~TAT~ON FR~: .::~ ,TANDY, CITY ~NAGER SUBOECT: ' ~nterest .~ ~e .on .~o levels. ~he ~o~ne2s ~scuss ou~ options .tnfo~atio~ I Will want a meeting with t° 'regard .to,~.~th armms mentioned above. , ~::t::':' ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT HEKTZNG DA'Z~ ~ · ,A~ril 14, AG~ W~ BustneSs TOt Honorable Mayor and City Councilnenb~r8 H~AD IqtOl(~ Ed Sc~u!z, Public Works D/r~tor Cl~ S~CTz O~nance ~ending Section 14.16.02'0 of ~ho ~kersfield _Munici~l C~o rola~lng to 8~or 8o~lce ~x~s ~o~o a~o uny t~ancos vho~e~ ~e~ og uninco~ra~ aroe r~os~ co~ec~lon .~o City coingo~co, city ~i~ r~lriflg ~o~y ~o~ of ~inco~et~- r~o~ a covenan~ binding curron~ e~ future ~o~ ~o ~ako s~e~ t~a~ A co~ og the Covo~ Is at~ch~ for rego~e~e, A~I4~WI .n CI~ OF B~~E~ ~-n~, ~S CO~N~ is cxe~ted o~ t~s ... ~y of ,1~, ~ (hcrcina~er~ *~cr/s*~ in ~c~ion ~th thc c~c~ion of sewer sc~ to ~c herein- ~fi~d pro~, l~tcd in an u~n~ratcd ar~ of ~c Co~ of Kern. ~e re~ pro~ hcrein-dc~d h~ ~en ~ant~ ~er ~ ~ ~e CiW of ~c~fiel~ ~en ~u~ ~e ~~ ~ ~t l~tcd ~n ~c CiW. ~ a ~n~on of c~e~ion of ~d sewer ~ to ~s pro~, t~e pro~ shall ~ ~nexed into the Ci~ of ~c~ficld ~ ~n ~ it may ~ inclu~ ~ ~'~~ ~ ~ ~ff~ to Ci~ ~un~fi~. ~c p.ro~ o~c~ hereby waive their ~t to protest such ~cuffon. ~s ~vcnant may not ~ amcnded or m~cd ~thout ~c p~or appro~ of the Ci~ of ~c~ficl~ ~s ~cn~t shall ~n ~ thc lan~ Property ck~:ription: Bakersfield, California 933 OWNER(S) CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ED W. SCHULZ, Pubik Works Dirtctor NOT~ All sipmtures must be notarized. · ~'. :' ~HONORABL~ MA¥0R AND CITY COUNCIL . Page OEFERREO BUS%NES~, Item 11a..Ordinance Relat~ This is the propOsed adoption of an Ordinance ~'~a'~T~ to mineral rights and subdivisions. It appears to be noncontroversial, as various issues have been worked out with the impacted comun i ti es. · . . . O~~ ~~ng up Council .action ~ eliminate ~he "collec:o~-s:~ee:" des~gnaC~on of Berkshire Road, be~n South "H" S:ree~ and W~ble Road. The Resolution was no: ~n p~oper fo~ a: ~he ~ :he Counctl ~oo~ ~s vo~e, so ~h~s is a conf~in9 ac~on necessary unde~ S:a~e law. I~em 12a. O~d~nance ~elat~n9 Co Model Homes and T~ac~ Sales O-flUtes. Thts ~s an O~d'~Hance whiCh ~endS ou~ Codes so ~ha: .~evel~ers no l°n~er have ~o go Chrough a C.U.P. proc.~dure ~n o~der Co have ~emporary mo~el h~e sales offices. Th~s allows model homes by ~ght, under l~m~:ed ~me constraints. Th~s ~s an action to make ou~ developmen: ~egul a~ ohs more accepC~ble ~o ~he developmenC and mo~e ~ea~'Onable. We believe ~ has been, and will be well ~ece~ved. O~d~nance P~ezon~n- p~o,e~v WesC of Call,ay D~ve be~een Rose~a)e ' H~qhwa~ ~n ~onconCr~vers~al'. ~~h~~.t?~: This woul d be , new Item 12c. regar ' ~ads. Cu~een~l~, we have no special requ~r~en~ for ~hose c~rc~s%ances and 5-foo~ setbacks are possible. Th~s h~s been'~aken ~h~ough %he B}A and :he Planning C~ission. I~would ~mpose a m~n~mum setback of' 30 fee:, rem 12d. Ordinance ~elat~n~ ~o S;~ Service to Coun~ Resident. This is a roposed Ordinance ~ich would ~end the Bakersfield ~un~ctpa~ Co~e re~ attng to . providing s~er service to County resiaents. In the past, the City Counct~ approved the provision of sewer services to County ~esidents and later criteria adopted ~tch a~lowed the staff to do so ~ ' ' about g~v~ ~ valued C~tY seduces annex to'" e"C {~ In the past, ,e "x to the City, but that does not ry~~h~d andJ willingness to anne the n~ '~~:er{~ of t~'ese therefore, there is no obligation on properties to annex to the C~ty ~n* exchange for the sewer service. u~re that_a ~d cQvenant be put on ' ~s p~tPa~P]d..reg~ ..... ~-~*~' .* ' '. the ~ov~'s~bn of se~ sf ~e 'rece$veou~r setv{~ ~erefore p ann~atlon {h~ T~nd - y ' ' future service under th~s Ordinance becomes an enhanc~nt procedures, rather than the detriment $t currentl~ ts. This concept has had ver~ little discussion at Council leve~, but the staff has been ~rktng on tt and has c~ up with ~at ~ belSeve ~s a reasonable solut$on to a prob3m. this to be adopted by the City Council so that St Ss clear to required of thm to get service. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT ~EETIN~ D~TE: April 28, 1993 AGENDA 8ECTION~ Deferred Business AGENDA ITEM: ll.d. TO= Honorable Mayor and City COuncil APPROVED FROM~ _ City Clerk DEP]tRTMENT HBAD DATE: April 12, 1993 cITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Ordinance amending Section 14.16.020 of the B~er/fi eld Municipal Code relating to sewer service to county residents. (Wards 1 - 7) RECOM~ENDATION~ Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance. BACKGROUNDs There are many instances whereby owners of property in the unincorporated area request connection to City sewers. This Ordinance reinforces City policy requiring property owners of the Unincor~_9~e~ecprd a covenant binding current and future owners prior to the sewer connection. This Ordinance was given first reading at the meeting of April 14, 1993. nil AP29CC4.DB, 4/16/93 9,00am ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 14.16.020 OF THB BAKERSFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SEWER SERVICE TO COUNTY R~SIDENTS. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: SECTION 1. 'Section 14.16.020 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 14.16,020 Connection to property in unincoroOrated areas. A. Whenever an application is made for a sewer connection to the city-owned sewer system for property in an unincorporated ar6a, the city engineer is authorized to enter into an agreement for such sewer connection in accordance with this chapter. are B. For such prouerties whi¢ the property owner must enter him or her and all future property owner~-%6"'take all ~ecessary s%eps to in%mediately ~nn_ex the propert~ served by the city sewer to %ne city. C. For such properties city~ the property owner must enter'"'lnto'"and binding him or her and all future property owners to. take all necessary'steps to annex the property served by the city sewer to the city at such ~imeas =he city becomes co~tigUOUS ~o his or her property, or'the law'otherwise permits such annexa~iSn. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be posted in accordance with · provisions of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and shall become effective thirty (30) days from and after the dat'e of its passage. -o0o- ......... I ~.~Y CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was passed and adopted by the. Council of the Ci.t~qf~=rv~ ~ersfield at a regular meeting ~hereof held on , by the following vo~e: CI~ CLE~ and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of. Bakersfield APPROVED BOB PRICE ~ bf~Bakersfield ~ Mayor of the Ci~t APPROVED AS TO FORM: · Attorney of the City of Bakersfield rb\ordinanc\water. 812 ORIGINAL .' 14.16.010 Chapter 14.16 C. For such properties which are not adjacent to the city, the property owner must enter into and record a SEWER USE BY NONRESIDENTS covenant-binding him or her and all future property owners to take all necessary s~eps to annex the property Sections: served by the city sewer to 'the city at such time as thc 14.16.010 Applicability. city becomes contiguous to his or her property, or the law ' 14.16.020 Connection to property in otherwise permits such annexation. (Ord. 3521 § 1, 1993: nnincorpor~ted ar~l$. Ord. 2576 § 1 (part), 1980: prior code § 8.72.010) 14.16.030 Persons paying service charge to sanitation district exempt from 14.16.030 Persons paying service charge to user and capacity charge, sanitation district exempt from user 14.16.040 Disconnection where no and capacity ehnrge. agreement. Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter to the 14:16.050 Rates and charges, contrary, whenever any such property mentioned in Sec- 14.16.060 Occupancies listed in Section . ' tion 14.16.020 is within a sanitation district, which sanita- 14.16.050---Del'.med. tion district is paying a fee to the city pursuant to the 14.16.070 Occupancies not listed in Section terms of a contract with the city for the use of the city's 14.16.050--Rates charged, sewer line, the owner of the property shall be exempt 14.16.080 Contract--Execution after from the payment of the annual charge to the city if the approval for connection, owner pays a service charge to the sanitation district. 14~16.090 Contract---Conditions and (Ord. 2576 § 1 (part), 1980: prior code § 8.72.020) provisions. 14.16.100 Basis and purpose of rites and 14.16.040 DiSconnection where no agreement. charges. A. All'private sewer lines heretofore connected to 14.16.110 Change in occupancy or use. the out-fall-main sewer system of 'the city, without the 14.16.120 AgreementtRight to Terminate. owner of the property having entered into a written agree- 14.16.130 Agreement--May contain ment with the ciVj for the payment of sewer use and additional provisions not in capacity charge connection, shall be disconnected under conflict with chapter, the direction of the city engineer upon thirty days' written 14.16.140 Agreement-Failure to comply notice to the property owner of the property, given by the with---Notice--Court action, city engineer, unless within that time the owner of the property executes an agreement for the payment of charg- 14.16.010 Applicability. es in accordance with the adopted schedule of rates and Theterms and conditions specified in this chapter shall charges set forth in Section 14.16.050. apply only to contracts to be entered into from and after B. Notice sent by registered mail to the property the effective date of this chapter, and to all renewals of owner at his last known address, or to the occupant of contrac~ now in force and effect. (Ord. 2576 § 1 (part), said property, shall be Sufficient notice under this chapter. 1980: prior code § 8.72.100) (Ord. 2576 § 1 (part), 1980: prior code § $.72.030) 14.16.020 Connection to property in 14.i6.050 Rates and charges. unincorporated areas. The annual rate and charges for connections to a city A. Whenever an application is made for a sewer sewer outside of the city limits shall be 'composed of the connection 'to the city-owned sewer system for property sum of a capacity and use charge, as follows: in an unincorporated area, the city engineer is authorized A. A use charge, which shall reasonably represent to enter into an agreement for such sewer connection in a measure Of the applicant's use of.the system. The use accordance with this chapter, charge shall be as per schedule adopted by the city coun- B. For such properties which are adjacent to the cil annually, plus. city,, the property owner must enter into and record a B. A capacity charge, which shall be for the purpose covenant binding him 'or her and all future property of reserving a portion of the city's trunkline and sewage owners to take all necessary steps to immediately annex treatment facilities for the applicant. The capacity charges the property served by the city sewer to the city. shall be as follows: 501 From: Pam McCarthy To: Denise Pennell Date: 2/15/02 4:39PM Subject: Joint Meeting Items Denise, The following items were tentatively agendized for the joint meeting of March 18, 2002: 1. High Speed Rail Terminal location (1 Hour) 2. Use'of 10% STIP funds for roadway rehabilitation (20 Min) 3. 2010 General Plan update (15 Min) 4. Report on Kern Co. Museum (20 Min) 5. Schedule for 2002 Joint Meetings (15 Min) 6. Update on Airport (15 Min) 7. Coordinating roadway improvements (Abate-a-Weed left turn) 5 Min The Mayor has indicated as host, we will do Public Statements at the beginning of the meeting. By way of this e-mail will you copy to Ross. He is going to speak to the Board and then get back with us. I will not formulate a "formatted agenda" until I get info back from the you or Ross. Please call if you have any questions ..... Pam CC: Alan Christensen; Alan Tandy; Bart Thiltgen; Darnell Haynes; Jean Parks; John Stinson; Roberta Gafford BAKERSFIELD Irma Carson, Chair Mike Maggard Jacquie Sullivan Staff: Alan Christensen · SPECIAL MEETING INTERGOV. ERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Friday, February 15, 2002 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference-Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA A G 'E N D A 1; ROLLCALL 2. · ADOPTION.OF JULY 16, 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee 'recommendation to prioritize agenda items for future Joint City Council/Board of Supervisors meetings 2010 General Plan update process ,/b'~ ~£/~zZ~' ,' · 1. · ,(~. Use of 10% STIP funds for roadway rehabilitation '/~f' _.__._~'-3. Cooi'di.-.~.qg City roadway impruve~.enls with C~i.ii-~[y 4, :'~.. ~ High Speed Rail Terminal location ,--~~/~'~o;~ ' 1¢~/_.~0~,,~ 5: Sm~he~id41se pfeO~ Ce0;~ joint meetings'~ity staff proposing two 6. Other Committee suggestions 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT S:~.C~--~:)021GRC~Jr02feb 15agen DRAFT BAKERSFIELD ~ ~ Irma Carson, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Mike Maggard John W. Stinson, Assistant City Manager Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT SPECIAL MEETING INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMrl'rEE of the City Council - City of ~Bakersfield Monday, July 16, 2001 12:00 noon City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 12:19 p.m. Present: Councilmembers Irma Carson, Chair; Mike Maggard and Jacquie Sullivan 2. ADOPTION OF FEBRUARY 21; 2001 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Empowerment Zones Economic Development Director Donna Kunz gave an overview of the application process for Empowerment Zones (EZ), which is very comprehensive and the due date to HUD is September 28, 2001. The application has to go through several layers of approval process and the County and the State-have to nominate the City's application for the EZ designation. Communities must meet certain thresholds to receive a designation. The City would be required to design a strategic plan, organized into two vOlumes. It would have to include visions and values, a full community assessment with goals and strategies. An implementation plan would have to be submitted with the application, which would have to be a very detailed solid plan of how you intend to carry out all of your projects and programs to achieve your vision from the strategic plan. Then you must have actual projects and programs that have identified firm commitments of resources, and identify the following: lead agencies, innovative collaborative solutions, and realistic budgets and firm commitments for financial resources and staff. DRAFT INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATION8 COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMM^RY REPORT July 16, 2001 Page -2- Thirty points of the application, new to City staff, is called the tax incentive utilization plan. Basically, this plan has .to integrate all of the tax incentives that come with the zone designation into-the community assessment needs and the goals that were identified in the plan. It is very project specific. Part of the application includes a governance board and a governance plan. The governance board is actually the body that implements and earmarks resources over the time the zone is in place. A governance board must be established and actual points are given on the plan, rated, on how we came up with the governance board. Also required area Leadership Development Program, a capacity building plan on how training and technical assistance are going to be given, and show how we plan to assess performance each year. The last part is resource commitments, for example, the recent $1 million CDBG funds earmarked for a targeted area would constitute as a real commitment. Also, they would want commitments from private industry and non-profits, so we can show a leverage of their tax credits with ratio to private, activity commitments. This effort will be very comprehensive and would probably require a consultant. If it is successful, there are nine that could be awarded, two of which will be rural and seven will be urban. The City has census tracts which meet the criteria. If an area receives a designation, businesses that locate in these zones qualify for special federal tax credits. Paul Sipple, Kern COunty Community Development, spoke regarding Kern County's experience in their efforts to apply for Arvin, Lamont, Weedpatch, and part of Shafter and. explained some of the difficulties they have encountered in the 'application process. Their office has been working with the communities of Lamont and Weedpatch since 1997, when a consultant was hired to assist in putting a plan together for what was then called an Enterprise Community Designation. For the first go-around they submitted the Lamont-Weedpatch Revitalization Blueprint, which is a very comprehensive strategic plan document and included community participation. In 1998, the rules changed and in order to be competitive, a regional plan was needed so they added the City of Arvin and part of the City of Shafter, as the program at that time allowed for three noncontiguous areas. There was a benefit, however, having the plan in place has helped them apply for rural development grant funds. Staff has concerns that in this short time-frame we may not be able to come up with a plan and be competitive. One consideration would be when doing the up-coming Charrette process, incorporate in the RFP the strategy, the community plan and the other needed elements, so .that we could be ready to go in the next annual cycle. Committee Chair Carson liked the idea of using the money set aside for the Charrette to start a community plan that could also be used in applying for the Empowerment Zone (EZ) designation. DRAFT INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT July 16, 2001 Page -3- ~' There are three or four census tracts in the southeast that would qualify under the requirement that 70% of the census tract have to be Iow-income. The EZ designation is on a federal level and .if the City has a designated ~map area, offers special federal tax credit incentives for businesses that locate there. It also allows 'added points for other grant programs when applying for federal assistance.- Economic Development Director Donna Kunz stated that we should develop a cOmPrehensive community plan as suggested by Committee Chair Carson and have it .in place for the next cycle. It was noted that the plan would have to be nominated by the County of 'Kern and the State. Development Services Director Jack Hardisty said it would not be possible to get a consultant on board before the application deadline of September 28, 2001 and it would .probably cost up -to $150,000 for a consultant.to prepare the EZ designation application. The Charrette process would only addreSs parts of the plan. Committee Chair Carson directed Economic Development Director Donna Kunz to work on an action plan with recommendations for funding and timelines for creation and 'implementation of the .EZ designation application, including possible funding sources for a consultant andbring back{o the Intergovernmental. Relations Committee. 5. COMMI~':n'EE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:59 p.m. Attendance .staff: Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes; Economic Development Director Donna Kunz; Development Services Director Jack'Hardisty; and Community Development, Development Associate .Hayward Cox Others: Paul Sipple, Kern County Community Development S:"~,C~001 IG RC'd R01ju116sumrnary.wpd PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Interqovernmental Relations Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No .action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker!s Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Irma Carson Name: Company/ Organization: Address: ~'~ /' I PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Intergovernmental Relations Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any one subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Irma Carson Name: Organization: Address: PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Intercjovernmental Relations Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with. a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any One subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Irma Carson Company/ Organization: ~>~--~'~' I I,r~ · ~ ~'~ Address: .,~'~'OO /~/~ I,/4 ,~' ~'~:::~ PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Interqovernmental Relations Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date Z/] ~/(~~' You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is listed on the Committee Agenda. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker with a maximum of fifteen (15) minutes, per side, for any One subject. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. No action will be taken; this Committee gathers information and reports back to the City Council. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Irma carson Name: Company/ Organization: Address: From: Alan Tandy To: Alan Christensen Date: 11/20/01 8:22AM Subject: Re: joint .meeeting remeber a packet and memo on each item!!!,H! >>> Alan Christensen 1 t/19/01 4:52:09 ~PM >>> JOint meeting is on. Tentatively, items include: 1. ~Museum Master.Plan 2. 2010 General PLan Update proce,s.~ .~.--3. High Speed Rail Terminal location ~.-.4. Use of 10% STIP Funds for-Roadway rehabilitation 5. Coordinating City.Roadway improvements with County (abate.a-weed left (urn lane) 6. Airport Term inal Project Funding (want to talk about,tim ing and ensure that,city still-planning .on financial support) /-7. Schedule for 2002 joint meetings (county and.city staff is proposing 2 :meetings per year) >>> Alan Tandy 11/15/01 11:17AM >>> our council -likes to .meet to make sure .if it ,is cancelled the county is the one! >>> Alan Christensen 11/15/01 10:59:28 AM >>> >>> Alan Tandy 11/14/01 16:38~PM >>> Ken .Peterson told the Mayor-it was likly delayed until after the hoidays- the ~MKayor Ihas some conflicts and would'like to know,the status- when youget back please see what'you can find out Ross Elliot with the County polled {he supervisors and none were :really excited about it. I asked Jean to contactthe Council members to determine -their interest.