Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/22/1991 B A K E R S F I E L D Ken Peterson, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia M. Smith Jack Hardisty (Staff) URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, March 22, 1991 10:00 a.m. City Manager's Conference Room CDDA Committee Members: Mel Rubin Herman Ruddell AGENDA 1. City Center Project 2. Status of Convention Hotel 3. Historic Preservation Fees 4. Set Next Meeting BAKE S F I E D June 26, 1990 Mr. Geary Taylor County Administrative Officer County of Kern 1415 Tru~tun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear M.~ T~_ln~- It has come to my attention that a County Department is exploring the possibility of acquiring or leasing the City Center Building. Although pleased about the possibility of the County increasing its presence in our Central City Area, I am concerned that the leasing or acquisition of this buildingI by the County could have a detrimental fiscal impact on the Central District Development Agency (CDDA). As you know, a long term lease or acquisition would remove this $12 million project from the appraiser's rolls. If you have tracked this project, you are aware that the CDDA made a substantial investment in this project. The elimination of this property from the rolls will jeopardize the Agency's ability to recoup its investment. Given its present fiscal condition, the Agency can ill afford the loss of the tax increment revenues being projected. In fact, this action would undermine current efforts to resolve the Agency's cash-flow difficulties. I would hope that the Agency would be notified prior to any decision by the County to use this property to meet your space needs. Your' consideration is appreciated. Sincerely, Dale Hawl eY~//-- City Manager JDH.alb cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Central District Development Agency Members City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield · California · 93301 (805) 326-3751 ° Fax (805) 323-3780 Wa. nts . money on bUilding sold to bank .!' - RedevelOpment. agency requests $1.2 million from Kern Countyi pOtential buyer'of City Center!:'ii?. By ~]REG CAMPBELL buying the.' building. However, GearY Taylor, county it both ways. I'd love to se~ tha~ bufldlng f~ll, active.and'" ";" '"" - - - and CHRISTOPHER KRUEGER administrative officer, described any reports that the drawing people downtown. We do have a considerable ' '. :" Californian stat[ miters county wants the building' as premature, investment of' over $2 million in the project .... 'It :cOuld .. The. city redevelopment agency -- which has about If the county buys the building, it will cut off tax only be vaguely considered if we could be refunded our" 2 million sunk into the still-vacant City .Center project -- revenue that would go to the financially strapped Central expenditures under the project, but I think it's Just /ill request $1.2 'million from the Co~mty of Kern if the District Development Agency, costing 'it about $70,000 a conjecture at this point." · Ountj~ buys the building at 17th and L streets, City year. Hawley said he would respond to a letter .from' -lanager Dale Hawley said Monday. "I think it would be disastrous if the district Taylor requesting clarification of the city's position witli However, the city has little muscleit can apply to attorney's office purchased that property, taking it .off the request for $1.2 million, which covers the agency ]at request now that the building is owned by. U.S. the tax. rolls for us," said redevelopment agency member investment in land acquisition and relocation o! 'the ancorp, which bought it .for $6 million after developer Diane Dunn at Monday's agency meeting. "That's not business that was on the site. ,'... eter Mosesian defaulted on 'the building loan. why it was built and that's not what the intention was. The agency also is trying to recover its Acquisition of the btfilding has been a topic of "Do the county taxpayers need to provide class A contribution to the project's parking structure from iscussion betwee~ county of{icials and the building space to the district attorney's office?" she asked. Mosesian, said city Economic Development Director wrier, U.S. Bancorp of Portland, Ore. Mosesian said- Agency Chairman Bill Paynter, however, said he Jake Wager. Other city contribUtions to the project were ~rlier that the district attorney's Office is considering x, ie~w~l it a little differently. "I think you have to look at Please turn to CITY / CITY: Redevelopment agency seeks $1.2 million for building Continued from iA7 that if the bill passes, the fines will passes in late August or S~ptember. city the $300,000 difference out of off-site improvements costing generate $7 million over 10 years to He said it was too early to tell the increased property tax revenue $138,0~0 and communication equip- finance construction of a new crime what role the city's concerns might from the project, Wager'said. In the meat relocation costing $100,000. laboratory for file DA's office. The play. He said the city's worries meantime, the Banduccis will pay Wager said that although the city current crime lab is overcrowded, about losing tax revenue will only interest only on that debt. cannot force, payment of the . Faced with this potential revenue come into play ff the billpasses and If the Banduccis fail to meet th~ $1.2 million, the county has an im source and the DA's needs, the the. building is still available, building value or schedule require- retest in the agency's debt. As long county might consider putting er- In other action, the redevelop- meats, they must pay the city as the agency has a debt, the erytldng together in one building, meat agency: $300,000 and interest within seven agency will conthme to collect prop- Heinrichs said. The DA's family · Heard a report, from Wager years. erty tax money;, which could go to ~upport division would be moved about a nearly completed deal with John Banducci said development the county, into the building -- allowing the the Banducci family that may lead will hinge on what happens to City Possession of a building was the county to save the rent that it Oays to construction of ,'mother downtown Center and all the office space that subje, ct of a court action Friday by on other ,facilities. office building. In the deal, the city it provides. A building of seven or M.osesian, who;is seeking to regain "That money may be enough .to and family exchange lurid'of un- more'stories with 50,000 to 70,000 control of the. building through a pay for the City Center building. It equal value. The city land, a park- sq~are feet may be built, he said.. Chapter 11 proceeding, may, in fact, pencil out," he said. ing lot at 17th and G streets, is · Heard from Wager that the city .Any county use of the City Cea- "Apparently, it (the buihling) will worth $300,000 more than the Ban- expects at least six strong proposals ter.'will await the fate (,f a bill in the. be on the market at a fairly cheap ducci propei'ty at 18th and K from companies to restart construe- state Legislature. The bill, AB 4057 price." streets. . lion of the long stalled Downtown by .Assemblyman Phil Wyman, R- Heinrichs said U.S. Bancorp If the Banduccis build an office Convention Center Hotel. Te~achapi, would ;qllow the county gave the county a "ballpark Price" building worth'at least $4.5 million · lteard that a developer is consid- to/impose an extra fee for 10 years for the City Center. lie emphasized on the current city land, start con- ering rehabilitating the long-~,acant · on certain kinds of traffic fines, that discussions of a Purchase are struction within five years and com- Tegeler Hotel in downtown Bake~s- Joel tleinrichs, director of policy "premature" because the revenue plete it within seven, the city. field and using it for housing for analysis for the county, estimates won't be available until AB' 4057 redevelopment agency will pay the low-income seniors. Kern: den s any,-..._------ in building.CENTER: Board diSpels rumor ...... Continued from B1 ~r ~e mee~g, A~tra- Supe i o. rs reject u.s. Banco~ of Po~i~d, Ore., i~ tire Officer Gea~ Taylor sad ,.' ~ '.".': - major f~cer. Bancorp approached the county Centerrumor Bakersfield developer Peter M~ ~ a s~e offer, ~d ~at w~ the sesian lost figh~ to ~e b~l~g e~ent of ~e~ion. Co~ty s~ is By J~S P. ~D~A ~ter defa~g on a' co~c~on precluded ~m nego~g, a::deai ~o~ a~ ~t~r loan, but he is a~p~g to re~ · ~out supe~so~' approval.' ' Supe~Or Roy ~hb~n, ang~ control through reorganization S~, ~ a J~y 2 letter to Bakers- over repo~':.of .~e p.osabie p~- ban~ptcy procee~gs, field City ~ger D~e Hawley, ' ~ors ~e ~t ~e co~ty Taylor s~d: "At ~ ~e, we are compie[ by: ~e..co~W, said ~ter~ted'~ b~g,'" ~- ev~g ~e 'prope~"~n. ~n the fs propos~.:f'dead.'.' " b~ s~d, refe~g to repo~ ~e tempt.~ de~e'.-whe~er it "[t.~.not,be~ ~c~ed by.~e.' office was berg co~idered to ho~e o~ capi~ proj~t econo~c and Board of..'Supe~is°rs,u. he.~sai~ ~e co~ ~trict at~mey's office, f~c~o~W profile? ~v.:~f~.J~ ~ ['mconce~e~;:. ' "I just want to say, as one Di~e D~,. a m~ber of the we. ~'~ not. ~. ~e'.~rket for.. a supe~sor, I'm not ~terested ~ ~e ciW's r~evelopm~t agent, said b~g'.of: ~t' t~e ~d -at ~t City Center b~g .... ~ere ~ no ~ we~ she be~ev~ it wo~d be ~.:co~:we~ ~de d~. having o~ s~f sp~d any t~e ~ ~ct atto~ey's office bought ~e : ~e .sup~ors'~'.?c~?t P~? ,. pursuing, the acquisition of that b~g b~a~e it wo~d e~ate at ~e ~:.of.:~e: ~o~; mee~., b~l~g." a so,ce of redevelopm~t ~x rev~ :~.;w~.~ed by..n~s. He said ~e office compl~ was hue. ... repo~:~e~c~tY,w~ mteres~ m not included in ~e co~ty's ~ace ~e Ci~ ~ter foreel~e planning study, which led to the ~e ~ blow to ~e ag~cy, w~ch 'c~pi~..at~l?~.~L s~ee~. ' . const~c~on of sever~ new co~ a~eady was sad~ ~ ~mg · . The:~ue..~e: to. a head wh~ offices, m~u~g ~e a~a~on revive the long-sta~ed downtown · e B~[d~en~a[ D~trict' D~ b~g now b~g b~t at ~t~ hotel project n~ to ~e B~e~ield veiopment 'Agency -- which was. Avenue ~d N S~eet. Conv~on C~t~. ~e ag~cy was conc~ed.about losing i~ $2.6 ~- Due for completion m Ap~ 1991, dep~g on ~e two ~jor pr~ ~on' ~ves~ent ~ ~e project ~d. the new a~a~on b~g ~ jec~ ~ re~e ~e econo~Hy $70;~0..per'year ~ accomp~ymg=' free up space for ~e ~ct attor- dep~ do~ prope~y ~es ~ said it wo~d ~k .- ney's office at i~ e~g location for s $~;2 million reimbursement . in ~e Bakemfield M~pal ~ ~e he suppo~ re~e~g ~e from.~e, co~ty ff it p~sed ~e b~g, 1~5 ~t~ Ave. p~e of ~e ciw c~r, ~s~- supe~sor ~ K. She~ agre~ ~t Db~ct A~mey Stephen M. b~g..' .... . ~ ~b~, sang she w~ g~d Ta~ ~d ~ ~ep~ent-wo~d ~e CiW Center project was put- not to be ~e o~y one f~t~ by be pro~d~ ad~. o~ce space chased by'forecios~e for $6 ~on ~om ~vol~g ~e co~. She wh~ o~de~~ ~e -- or ha~ i~ appraised value -- by added that spec~ation about ~e ferred to ~e new. a~tration Please t~. to C~TE~ / B2 county's intent was "entirely too b~ "'~. · . p~t~e." Howler, '..he :~add~, .p~ e~' ,' Sup~isom K~I He~ger ~d for ~e ~..a~mey's o~ce to B~n A~ added ~t ~ ~o~ move ~ a'ne~' b~g'some~e M- ~:~JEIRLL 2~-Feb--gO RCGUI?,[TION ~ OTHER COST - CITY CENTER P~OJECI' CITY CENTER MEMORANDUM March 20, 1991 MEMO TO: DALE HAWLEY CITY MANAGER MEMO FROM: JAKE WAGER ' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE On February 12, 1991 the Ordinance Review Committee of the Historic Preservation Commission and members of staff met to discuss historic preservation application fees. Based on that meeting the group made recommendations to amend the Historic Preservation Ordinance. After reviewing the ordinance's notification procedure for cultural resources which involved a mailing notification, it is the suggestion of this group that a single hearing take place at the Historic Preservation Commission level and have the City Council take final action. The ordinance as in effect requires two public hearings (one at the Historic Preservation Commission level and one at the City Council level). The group felt this requirement placed an unnecessary burden on any applicant seeking designation for a cultural resource. The example might be that of the owner of a single parcel who is seeking a cultural resource designation for his property. In this example cultural designation would not materially affect the property rights of adjoining neighbors. This opinion is shared by Mary Hoggatt, Executive Director of the Association of Realtors, through a phone conversation held this date. The suggested amendment would only delete the notification by mail for the cultural resource designation process. In regards to notification the group felt that publishing once in a newspaper of general circulation would be sufficient. The cost difference by changing the notification procedure for cultural resources would result in a cost savings $125.00. The notification fee associated with two public hearings and two legal notices in the newspaper would be $175.00. Whereas, the cost for~placing one notice in the legal notice section of the Bakersfield Californian would be $50.00.