The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/24/1992 B A K E R S F I E L D Ken Peterson, Chair Kevin McDermott Patricia M. Smith Staff: Jack Hardisty AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Friday, January 24, 1992 1:30 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. Rail Systems Study MOU 2. Annexations 3. Fireworks Stands 4. Southwest GET Transfer Station 5. Transportation Impact Fees 6. Set Next Meeting Ernl~re Tran$,t Distr,ct ~ CrT~ MANAGER,s OFFICE January 15, 1992 Mr. -J-. Dale Hawley r City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Mr. Hawley: Golden EmPire Transit District recently convened a meeting of Kern COG, CalTrans, Kern County, and Cities of Taft and Bakers- field representatives to discuss membership on the Interagency Management Committee and to administer a Long Range Public Trans- portation.Systems Study. This study is a continuation and exten- sion of the efforts of the joint agency committee that recently completed a Phase 1 report on possibilities of a light rail system for the urban area. It is important that the Long Range Public Transportation Systems Study be a joint effort of the affected and involved agencies. Appointment of an official representative to.the Interagency Management Committee by the City of Bakersfield would be most beneficial to completion of the study. Please advise. Sincerely, Steve Ruggenberg General Manager SR:ces 1830 Golden State Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 (8051 324-9874~ FAX (805) 324-7849 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE January 22, 1992 Mr. Dale Hawley City Manager City of Bakersfield 1501Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Dale: Enclosed is the promised Memorandum o~ Understanding. If you have any questions please let me know as soon as possible and I'll distribute the information to the others. Also enclosed is a letter I sent to Mr. Lee Fox expressing our need for notification. Sincerel'y, Steve Ruggenberg~-~ General Manager SR:ces £nc ~osure 1830 Golden State Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 (805) 324-9874 FAX (805) 324-7849 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FORMING THE INTERAGENCY FIXED GUIDEWAY PASSENGER SYSTEM CONSORTIUM FOR THE BAKERSFIELD-KERN COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA WHEREAS, the County of Kern and the cities.within Kern County are rapidly increasing in population; WHEREAS, this rapid growth places increasing demands upon the existing transportation system, maintenance of acceptable air quality conditions, public finances necessary to support the needs of the County, and other critical areas; WHEREAS, a coordinated transportation system cannot be developed and financed without the full cooperation of all affected governmental jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, a'Long Range Public Transportation Systems Study is being undertaken by the Golden Empire Transit District in full cooperation with the affected governmental units: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, the City of Taft, the City of Arvin, the California Department of Transportation, the Kern Council of Governments, and the.Golden Empire Transit District do hereby form an Interagency Fixed Guideway Passenger System Consortium to jointly evaluate and integrate fixed guideway transportation plans into the planning~process and operations of each consortium member. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED That each member organization shall appoint one representative to the Consortium Executive Committee which also shall be known as the Interagency Management Committee, and that the Golden'Empire Transit District shall serve as the staff to the Committee. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED That each member organization shall appoint one representative to the Consortium Policy Committee which also shall be known as the Transit Policy Committee, and that the Golden Empire Transit District shall serve as the staff to the'Committee. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED That each member organization shall approve by resolution, motion, or other proper action this Memorandum of Understanding ~either prior to or at the time it designates its representative to the Transit Policy Committee and the Interagency Management Committee. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE DAY OF , COUNTY OF KERN DATE GOLDEN EMPIRE DATE TRANSIT DISTRICT COUNTY OF BAKERSFIELD DATE CITY OF ARVIN DATE KERN COUNCIL OF DATE CITY OF TAFT DATE GOVERNMENTS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DATE TRANSPORTATION APPROVED AS TO FORM DATE ~Golden Empire Transit District -- January 21, 1992 Mr. Lee Fox 'Vice President, Asset Management Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway 1700 East Gold Schaumburg, Ill. 60173-5860 Dear Mr. Fox: As you may be aware, the Golden Empire Transit District in asso- ciation with the City of Bakersfield, the City of Taft, the City of Arvin, Kern County, the Kern Council of Governments and Cal- trans is in the process of undertaking a comprehensive study of transportation corridors with a view towards the potential for light rail transit applications in the metropolitan area. We expect to have a major amount of information from the study by July 1992 including which are the highest potential corridors in .Kern County, As you might imagine we are concerned about the status of all railroad rights-of-way in the County. Attached for your informa- tion and review is a resolution of the Board of Directors concerning the transit corridors and their relationships to existing railroad rights-of-way. Due to the status of our study and ~he importance to us of any pending or actual changes in rail corridors, I am hereby reques- ting that you place the Golden Empire Transit District on the notification list to be contacted immediately in the event of any proposed or pending sale or lease, abandonment, and/or'change in -operators of all rail facilities, branches, stations or main ~ines in'Kern County. For your information a similar request has been made of Mr. Ken Dixon of the Southern Pacific Transportation' Company. If you have questions or need further ~information, please contact me. Sincerely, .Steve Ruggenberg General Manager SR:ces Attachment BEFORE 'THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GOLDEN EMPIRE TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION 91-15 IN THE MATTER OF: NOTIFYING RAIL OWNERS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS STUDY WHEREAS, transportation issues are integral to ssues in Kern County related to growth and development, clean air, and many other quality of life circumstances; and WHEREAS, Golden Empire Transit is a public agency in Kern County responsible for public transportation; and WHEREAS, Golden Empire Transit has recognized the need for a long-range Pu'bli~ Transportation Systems Study for Kern County and has committed funding for the preparation of that Plan; and WHEREAS, said long-range Public Transportation Systems Study would include a comprehensive public involvement program, the setting of priorities, completio~ of policies and procedures for implementation of the Plan, and a framework for financing the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Kern Council of Governments also serves as the Kern Congestion Management Agency and is responsible for long- range transportation planning in Kern County; and~ WHEREAS, said Public Transportation Systems Study would, be s~heduled' for completion in'approximately twelve months, and could 'be integrated with Kern COG's transportation planning; and WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the Public Transportation Systems Study will include a rail element and consideration of the future of the Sunset Rail Line, a rail shortline located in Kern County, which runs from Southwest Bakersfield to Downtown Taft; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Rail Line runs through the incorporated areas of Bakersfield, Taft and Maricopa as well as unincorporated areas in the County of Kern; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Rail Line is currently being considered for sale to a private firm or firms, and such sale would irrevocable alter public opportunities for the use of said rail line; and WHEREAS, the Sunset Rail Line remaining in the public domain is vital for the future of Kern County and to all potential users of said rail line, both public and private; and WHEREAS, an informal consortium of interested agencies has been formed, consisting of the Kern Council of Governments, Golden Empire Transit District, the County of Kern, the City of Bakersfield, the City of Taft, and the City of Maricopa; with the goal of communicating with Southern Pacific Railroad to urge them to delay any sale of the rail line which would take the line out of the public domain, and further to work with the consortium on the future purchase of the line by a public agency or agencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED the Board of Directors of the Golden Empire Transit District hereby agrees to participate in the Sunset Rail Line consortium and to combine efforts with other member agencies to communicate with Southern Pacific Railroad to urge them to'delay any sale of the rail line that would take the line out of the public domain, and further to work with the consortiUm on alternatives for future purchase, of the line by a public agency or agencies. All the foregoing being on motion of Director Ashland and secon- ded by~ Director Gutierrez was authorized by the following roll call vote: AYES: Director Robinson, Michel, Silver, Gutierrez, Ashland NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CERTIFICATION The undersigned duly qualified Secretary of the Board of Direc- "tars of 'the Golden Empire Transit District certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the resolution adopted at a legally convened meeting of the Board of Directors of the Golden Empire Transit District held December 3, 1991. Secretar of Directors MEMORANDUM TO: URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FROM: ED W. SCHULZ, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: JANUARY 22, 1992 SUBJECT: COMPARISON OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FRESNO, VISALIA AND BAKERSFIELD In his letter to Councilman McDermott dated January 9, 1992 (attached), Mr. Gregory D. Bynum compared the proposed traffic impact fee for the city of Bakersfield to those currently used in the cities of Visalia and Fresno. Bakersfield, Fresno and Visalia have used widely differing methods to arrive at their respective transportation impact fees. These fees are also designed to raise different amounts of revenue. For the following comparison, each city's fee schedule for transportation projects was applied to the office building at 5201 Truxtun Avenue which has 54,248 square feet on 3.57 acres. This use generates 13 trips per 1000 square feet. An equivalent Fresno site at First Street between Alluvial and Nees was used to determine the fee in Fresno. City Revenue Fee/Sq. Ft. Fresno $ 99,000,000 $0.20 (1) Visalia $ 47,000,000 $0.50 (.2) Bakersfield $214,500,000 $0.69 (3) Bakersfield $214,500,000 $0.43 (4) Bakersfield $269,000,000 $0.96 (1) The fee shown shows that portion of the total fee paid by the developer. The remaining half is paid by the City of Visalia. (2) From $1135 Single-Family Dwelling Fee Schedule reviewed by the Urban Development Committee, January 9, 1992. (60% fee reduction for C-O and industrial development). (3) From $1179 Single-Family Dwelling Fee Schedule proposed by Committee Member McDermott, January 21, 1992. (75% fee reduction for C-O and industrial development) (4) From Fee Schedule reviewed by City Council 12/18/91 prior to revision of freeway costs. The City of Fresno's Urban Growth Management fees are charged on a per acre basis. The potential growth areas of the city were divided into numerous improvement zones. For each of these zones, the cost for the ultimate development of that zone was spread out over the undeveloped acreage in that zone without regard to land use or trip generation. This fee will generate approximately $99,000,000 for transportation improvements when the remaining acreage is fully developed. The fee shown in Bynum's letter is for the entire UGM program and includes sewer trunk fees, water well fees, neighborhood park fees and fire station fees. The City of Visalia's transportation impact fee is charged on a per trip basis. A determination was made of the additional number of daily trips in the year 2010. The cost of the required improvements was then spread over the expected number of new trips. In this method, a trip generated by a residence is treated the same as a trip generated' by a 7-11 or a hospital. This fee will generate $47,000,000 by 2010. Visalia is currently in the second stage of phasing in the full per trip fee of $116.44. The trip fee for this second stage is $77.62. Only residential uses pay this second stage fee in full. For all non-residential uses, half of the fee is paid by the developer and the other half is paid out of the City's General Fund. The City of Bakersfield's method is based on "roadway utilization" in which each specific land use is charged for the demand it places on the roadway system based on the number of trips per day (ADT) for that use, the average trip length and the percentage of "new" trips attributable to that use. This fee will generate $214,500,000 by the build-out of the 2010 General Plan. This fee includes $147,000,000 for freeway right-of-way and construction. Neither Fresno's nor Visalia's fee includes freeway costs. If the freeway costs were dropped from Bakersfield's existing fee basis, this would result in a fee for office commercial of approximately $0.13 per square foot based on the current fee schedule with a 75% reduction for industrial and office commercial uses. -2- Gregory D. Bynum & Associates, Inc. Real Estate Development ,/~ .:?/,/ ,~.,~ .... - ~ / , , January9, 1992 Mr. Kevin McDermott RE:Traffic Impact Fees City Councilman . ..~ 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California 93301 Dear Kevin, We have reviewed the revised (12/23/.9 liP)'0pi~§~d itiaffi~ impact fees .f°.r::com~ ~ercial office buildings and~the effect such feeS':Wi~rq~'~Ve '6~ i,h'~:Sa.-.r~ta'Fe:E~er~ilRe-:~0ti?~es- Building which we recently comr~leted at 5201 T~fU~:]~i~.h~e;[:i Iff"//dditibn~: we: eaI~l~fed what the traffic impact fe~s wo~td:' be foi~:c°n~t'i'~'::~f:':t~'-'i~/iine .buildihg'in'~b'/~h;'Fi~esno and Visaiia. The' result of our revieW: is Traffic fee as a cost per squar~"f(5~6t :°f.blhflding'~area: . _':; . .,..... .~,. Fresno ~::. .. $'~43:square foot Visalia ;'i' $i~5~' ~61t sqUare f6ot'. - Bakersfield proposed _~: :'. $.96'"[5'~i; squ~e fd'o't- The proposed fee for commerciaI:6ffiC~il}~'d!.~g-~'",~:"~.'~kersfield i~'?till' nearlY~doubIe'that of V/salia and more than double-i"tt//~t'?~'f.' ~r~esri.0'~'! !ri'].!he cornP'~f~fi~iii'fdr~ii'~w.:jbb's and businesses this f~'e level will pu/Ba.l~r-~]~'I~I':~'t-'];i:'*.~tg¢~i.~ant disa/f,J~i:~ig'e· t"o'iS?h'~bf these cities aud e~courage new source~'"0'~]~l~'?~:?i~/te.:th~r-~':f~t_.h~':tli~" iie'~re.,. Fbr larger buildkngs and' for medicat.'Sttil~g":hh'e:'i~-:fq~:"even g~eal::e'ri: .. While considering the adoption':-o'f.!:~{~"tis-.e.-~'::.~f.'-fi.'.'C.'!:~pact :~?S;~'~e. ,ui~g~:: tl'/e 'Urban Development. Ci3mmittee to al~_]~:.'i_d'~!~d_.__.~:?:'! {h~:!~6~.; :fee~ '~vhi~l/::'"~/?e_'i~,'~'g~d!.to.,~ new developmenti Our investigation::_~'di~¢~.ilh,".;~{;'~.ff~:?~.'~:~:' are-' the i'~:/t'ifi'~'"'f6i::'B~e~field.and Fresno, but ;that Bakersfield 'i~s'!~igl~g~t.~'i~,V'.'i}i~ii~5~i;:W Bakersfield Competitive with' the~'i-'6~l~'.~'r]']~id~.k]'if'~Zi'o;~etllt;tfi~O'~:l~'P.'aei'¥~!~s'~"a're· to be : Gre~D, ~_Bm Gregbry.~~l GDB/dId 5601 truxtun avenue, suite 190 · bakersfield;-califbrnia '93~09; ~"[805] 395~054¥'"&' facsfmi'ie (8"05] 395.0484 · ,~' TypE FEE PROJECTED NO. pER uNIT iNcoME LAND USE TYPE "' . SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED 1 $1,135 $136,376,828 MULTI-FAMILY 2 $797 $11,724,960 HEAVY/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL 3 $139 $6,856,978 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 4 $61 $7,442,669 OFFICE COMMERCIAL Under 100,000 sq. ft. 5 $53 100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 6 $62 $5,953,527 200,000 sq. ft. & over 7 $65 RETAIL COMMERCIAl Under 10,000 sq. ft. 8 $37 10,000-49,999 sq. ft. 9 $24 50,000-99,999 sq. ft. 10 $26 100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 11 $30 200,000-299,999 sq. ft. 12 $33 $46,177,598 300,000-399,999 sq. ft. 13 $42 400,000-499,999 sq. ft. 14 $51 500,000-999,999 sq. lt. 15 $62 1,000,000 sq. ft. & over 16 $68 kmtripf2.wkl $214,532,560 TOTAL REVENUE DEVELOPED BY FEE -- $214,532,560 Summary Sheet 09-Jan-92 west:.BeltW~i~i~!Se~n!li staridatd.t~i!Sbbtli. BeliW~Y. "~4 90~,000 $95,092,000 ($95,092,000) $4,908,000 50 0 $2,454,000 Crosst(~Wh:E!;eewaY ~:S.R~;:99.t~:S~:B?i~Si::!:~_?.:::~.i.;:ii~.i.i.?.!.~:,i: $169,653,000 $299,348,000 ($299,348,000) $169,653,000 33 0 $56,000,000 Kern River. Freeway.::~ Stockdale:Hwy to S~.~H~99~:::~::::::!:i::::~i~ $46,000,000 $150,000,000 $0 $196,000,000 50 20 $53,000,000 S0u!he!n B~!~aY:~:.wes~ B~ltwa~ t~.~t.t~i~d: i: iii;:::: $23,066,000 $85,730,000 $0 $108,796,000 50 20 $28,700,000 s. H- 178'i~i08we~ Street:toA~ . fred H~tt~.Fl~: ..... :: ~ $1,913,000 $36,249,000 ($36,249,000) $1,913,000 50 0 $956,500 S. H. 99'~ Ming A~eni.je tb's~i Hi 204;.!!.~i::~ ::!~::?? ::i ::~;!:::?.; $100,000 '$13,130,000 $0 $13,230,000 50 20 $2,676,000 S. H. 58- Real Road to CottonWoOd R~ad ;:: '~;::i::.'-.i~; ~;:: $0 $18,169,000 $0 $18,169,000 0 20 $3,633,800 SUBTOTAL~..Freeway Projects $245,640,000 $697,718,00d ($4301689,000) $512,669,000 $147,420,300 Page 1 09-Jan-92 I: 'i.li ii:: ii:~."i:,i'ii"!:i!~i'!iiiiiii!!i' iiii!ii!iiiii!ii!ii!iiiii!iiiiiiil !ilii !iiiiiii!i!ii? !!ii?iiiiiiii!i 2 $797 $11,724,960 recommendations of the Urban DevelOpment :!:~:i:i:i:::!:i:?i~:i:i:i:!:i:i:i:i:i::~;::~:::.:::.:::::::.::¥:::;~::::::.:~::::::::.:.;~:~:.:.:~:.:.:~:~:~:.:.:~;.:~:.~:.:~:.:~:~:~:.:...~.:.~..`.....~..~...~......``~........~.~.~.~.~ -. ............................... ~ ~i!~~i~i~ ~ ~!~i~i ?iiii!~iii ii!i ;!i!iii:iiil !iii~iii!i Committee to reviSe the cost Of the Kern · :'~iE~~'~i~i!ii~:~ii~i i!;iii ................................. ~ ..................................... ~'~'~'~ ....................... ~?~'~'~'~'~'~'::~:~:::~ River Freeway and the South aeltway to ~::~GH~i~:~i~:~;~:;~?;~;~;~;~?~?~?:;~ 4 $61 $7,442,669 reflect current information. The fee basis percentage for the freeways was also revised. :':OFFICE~CQM:MERCtAE~ ~ ;~;~ ~ ~ Fu~her, the fee per unit for the industrial ;;~d~:~0';00~;~'~!~;~? ~? ~??~? 5 $53 and office commercial uses was reduced by 600/0. '::::20~0~d~9:~~; ~;~i;~:~?:~?~;~;~~ ~ 12 $33 $46,177,598 ~'"pf2.wkl $2~ 4,532,560 TOTAL REVENUE DEVELOPED BY FEE = $214,532,560 kmtrip.f2.wkl Summary Sheet 13-Jan-92 $4,908,000 $95,092,000 ($95,092,00C ~,908,000 II 50 I 0 $2,454,000 $169,~3,000 $299,~8,000 ($299,~8,000) $169,~3,000/I 33 I 0! .ooo,ooo ,, o.ooo.ooo ,o sol $53,000,000 $1,913,000 $36,249,000 ($36,249,000) $1,913,000// 5o / oI $956,500 ~0 $~a,~sg,000~0 ~a,~69,000 II0 / ~01 ~3.~33,~00 ' $245,~0,000 $697,718,000 (~30,689,000) $512,669,000 I~ / I $147,420,300 $0 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $1,920,000 $1,920,000 $960,000 $0 $1,610,000 $1,610,000 $805,000 $0 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $19,530,000 $19,530,000 $9,765,000 $0 $300,00C $300,000 $150,000 $0 $320,000 $320,000 $160,000 $0 $340,000 $340,000 $170,000 $0 $340,000 $340,000 $170,000 $0 $510,000 $510,000 $255,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $250,000 $600,000 $600,000 $300,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $250,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $250,000 $0 $280,000 $280,000 $140,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $75,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $75,000 $0 $320,000 $320,000 $160,000 $0 $550,000 $550,000 $275,000 kmtripf2, wkl $0 $5,360,000 $5,360,000 $2,680,000 kmtripf2, wl~ 1 Page 1 13-Jan-92 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $17,000 $17,000 $8,500 $0 $17,000 $17 $8,500 $0 $17,000 $17,000 $8,500 $0 $25,000 $25,000 $12,500 $0 . $17,000 $17,000 $8,500 $0 $7 $7,000 $3,500 $0 $10 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $17 $17,000 $8,500 $0 $28,000 $28,000 $14,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $75,000 $0 $31,000 $31,000 $15,500 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $6,000 $0 $11,000 $11,000 $5,500 $0 $10,000 $10,000 . $5,000 $0 $31,000 $31,000 $15,500 $0 $150,000 $150,000 $75,000 $0 $31,000 $31,000 $15,500 $31,000 $31,000 $15,500 $0 $150,000 $150 $75,000 $0 $12,000 $12,000 $6,000 $0 $18,000 $18,000 $9,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 $17 $17,000 $8,500 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $13,000 $13,000 $6,500 $0 $13,000 $13,000 $6,500 $0 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 $20,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 $915,000 $915,000 $457,500 $0 $48,000 $48,000 $24,000 $0 $670,000 $670,000 $335,000 $0 $1,584,000 $1,584,000 $792,000 $0 $87,000 $87,000 $43,500 $0 $2,389,000 $2,389,000 $1,194,500 kmtripf2.wkl Page 2 13-Jan-92 so 598,000 598,000 0 50 ~9,000 ~...~ ................ . ....... . ............ : .......... . ............. s0 ~1,500,000 $~,500,000 0 50 $750,000 ::: ~ ~; ?::::: $0 $1,680,000 $1,680,000 0 50 $~0,000 51,580,000 0 50 s~o,ooo s0 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 0 50 $~50,000 ?:?~ M~H[~g'::Dti~.~ .Ailt~ H~(t~;.~; (i~¢~ge);~ $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 0 50 $1,000,000 ;: ?~::~:;~;~:':'~;~ ?: ~ $0 $6,000,000 $6,ooo,ooo 0 50 $3,ooo,ooo kmtripf2.wkl Page 3 13-Jan-92 -!~i ~.!.i~.i.~.;.~.~,~..: ..................... ..::.::.:: ~;;ii?.~ii~a!i.~.~ii.~;ii~ii~ii~iiii!i~i?.ii~iiii~i~i~:i::~ so $1oo,ooo $~oo,ooo o 50 ~o, o0o iii:!i::ii:Mt~ll~ifi~:~::@i:A~thii B~h:; ~ii!:iii~i!iiii; i::iiii i~ii!ii!~::: ~ $0 $100,000 . ~oo,ooo o so ~5o,ooo so s~ oo,ooo $~ oo,ooo o 5o ,5o,ooo :~? 8~5~.H~ ~::~ &:~::~::~.~i~ ~ 0~ ~ $o $~ oo,ooo $~ oo,ooo o 5o $5o,ooo ~?Ha~a~R°~::~?:~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~: $0 $100,000 $100,000 0 50 $50,000 :~ ?:~ ~~ ~. ~:~BO~0~iii~ ~e~n~h~ ...... ~o ~oo,ooo $1oo,ooo o .5o ~o,ooo :~ ~: ~?~ ? s~i~ ~i~~i~:e~:~L~:::: ,0 ,~.700.000 ,~.700.000 ,~0.000 :?~?N~:m~alla~'~l~t~O~)~:~ ~5 ~ 75~ $o ~,~oo,ooo ,~,~oo,ooo 0 ..... 50 ....... ~:o5o,ooo ~0~o~i~ J~o~.~. ~.. ~.~ .................. ~ .......... ,o ,~,~o.ooo ,~,~o.ooo o 5o ,675,ooo S0B~OT~e~:~:u~~UO~Uu~yS?:~:? ~::::~???:::?~] $0 ~ $~1.55~.000 I I $~11.5~2.000 ~ I I ~5.77~.000 kmtripf2.wkl Page 4 13-Jan-92 $1,738,221 $3,355,303 ?5_,_0_93,524 20 20 $1,018,70~--'-'-~'-~ $680,245 $3,077,184 73,75_ 7,429 20 20 $751,486, $137,300 $1,028,100 · _~.!'~?'4°° 20 20 $233,080 $2,862,500 $8,837,500 $11,700,000 . 20 20 $2,300,000 $7,125,000 $11,872,500 $ ! _8,997,500 20.L_~_~~ $3,800,000 $341,800 $2,232,100 ~~ $514,780 $3,750,000 $750,000 ~ ~ $900,000 $16,635,066 $32,555,735 $49,190,801 ~ $9,798,660 kmtripf2.wkl Page 5 13-Jan-92 2010 FACILITIES LIST- REVENUE TRANSPORTATION FEE ' $214,532,560 State Funding $77,654,000 Federal/State/Local Fundin $795,937,700 Local Funding $23,664,541 Local Funding (2.1%) Total FaCilities iiii!ii;ili~ii!~ii~:~ii~j~.i~i~iiii::~ii$23,664,54 TRANSPORTATION FEE REVENUE (19,,3%) $214,532,560 St. ate Funding (7.0%) $77,654,000 Federal/Stale/Local Funding (71.6%) $795,937,700 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Regional Transportation Facilities * $4,908 '": ......................................... :.:-:' ........................................... $550 :?:~:~:'~::~::::~:~:~::~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..:.:: .:::.:..... :,:. :.: :.:::.; .: .c~[ o made available for protection of rights of way, as needed, for each freeway.alignment. 13-Jan-92 Page I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR Regional Transportation Facilities $10 .. - $28 .............................................................................. : ......................................................... $150 · ................... $31 ......................................................... ' ..................................... ~15~ $17 $10 13-Jan-92 Page 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR Regional Transportation Facilities ............................................................. $2,000 13-Jan-92 Page 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN . FOR Regional Transportation Facilities ' ........................................................................................... $480 .. .......................................................................................................................................................... $6,000 ~ ........................................................................................................................................................................................... $1oo $1oo 13-Jan-92 Page 4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR Regional 'Transportation Facilities i iii iii iii!ii ~:~:~:~:~;~;~:~:~:~: ~:~:; ......................................... ~ '" ":: ........... ::"":: ......... ' ......................... .............................................. ............ ,,.,.,.,,.,.,.,.,.,' · ....................... · ..................... $2,574 13-Jan-92 Page 5 METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE - SUMMARY SHEET This Fee Schedule is the result of the recommendations of the Urban Development Committee to revise the cost of the Kern River Freeway and the South Beltway to 3 reflect current information. The fee basis 4 percentage for the freeways was also revised. Further, the fee per unit for the industrial 5 and office commercial uses was reduced by 75%. 6 _ 7 8 $39 $25 $28 $31 $35 $44 $53 $64 16 $71 kmtripf2.wkl $214,532,560 TOTAL REVENUE DEVELOPED BY FEE -- $214,532,560 Summary Sheet f 23-Jan-92 ~?:;?:~ ~H~:'~'~6~?~l::~t~.;t0::All~ Ha~rel H~ :: ~ ~ ~ $1,913,000 $36,249,000 ($36,249,000) $1,913,000 50 0 $956,500 :~ ::;~::~:; ~: $100,0°0 $13,130,000 $0 $13,230,000 50 20 $2,676,000 $245,~0,000 $697,718,000 (~30,689,000) $512;669,000 $147,420,300 :;~;~?:ManO~st~eatO~Rl~e~(~id~): ~ : · $0 $1,610,000 $1,610,000 0 50 $805,000 ~ ~:~:~:~ ~:~:~:::~?~:~.~:. · , u $300,000 0 50 $150,000 so 85~0,000 . SSlO,OOO 0 50 8285,000 s0 ~500,000 $500,000 0 so ~50,000 ............ ;.;;.~:.:. .................................. ............ . so s~5o, ooo s~5o,ooo o 5o 875,ooo kmtriof2.wkl kmtripf2'Wkl Page 1 13-Jan-92 $0 s~7,000 s17,000 0 50 s8,500 so s~ 0,000 s~ 0,000 0 50 ss,000 :::?:[?:AIi~:.RbN~ ~ ======================================================================================= ~:~' ~:::~ :::-~:: ::::~ $0 $31,000 $31,000 0 50 so S~l,000 s3~,ooo 0 50 s~5,500 .......... ;~,.~ ........... : : s0 s20,000 s20,000 0 50 SlO,OOO , SO ~o,ooo S~o,ooo o 5o S~o,ooo so ~,5~,000 s~,5~,000 0 50 s79~,000 kmtripf2, wkl Page 2 13-Jan-92 .......................................................... ~ ...~ .......... ~ ................................ ~0 $1,500,~0 $1,500,000 0 50 $750,0~ sO ~°:°°0"" ~so,ooo ·o 5b '624o,°0o ....... M ::":" ........... ...... ...... $0 $6,000,000 $6;000,000 0 50 $3,000,000 kmtripf2, wkl Page 3 13-Jan-92 so SlOO,OOO SlOO,OOOo 5o ~o,ooo kmtripf2.wkl Page 4 13-Jan-92 $680,245 $3,077,184 $3,757,429 20 20 $751,486 ~::~:: ~:~:~ $3,750,000 $750,000 ~,500,0~ 20 20 $900,0~ ..................................................................... :::.:'~ ~'::: · ~dwaY ~e~ents: $16,6~,066 $32,555,7~ ~9,190,801 $9,798,660 ............... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::?:::::::::?::::::::::::::::::::::::?:::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::: $262,275,066 i::;~?i;:;;~?~. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ================================================= ~: :~:~::: :::~:~:~:~: :~:~: :::~:~?~ :'~' ?:' '~ ~ ~-:'~'~ :'~.~.~ ~.~ :.~.:.~.:.~ $1,111,788,801 kmtripf2, wk 1 Page 5 13-Jan-92 2010 FACILITIES LIST- REVENUE TRANSPORTATION FEE $214,532,560 State Funding $77,654,000 Federal/State Funding $509,246,685 Local Funding (Sales Tax) $286,691,015 Local Funding $23,664,54! Total Facilities · ::' $1'11 ~i i;788,80i. Local Funding (2.1%)---$25,664,54] TRANSPORTATION FEE REVENUE (19.~%) $214,532,560 · Local Funding (Sales Tax) ('25.8%) $286,691,015 State Funding (7.0%) $77,654,000 Federal/State Funding (45.8%) $509,246,685 '*This funding amount is from the latest Ii. st oF 1/2 cent sales tax projects. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN~ ~ ~ Regional TranSportation Facilities $18,169 $5oo c~pf2.wkl *Funds to be made available for protection of rights of way, as needed; for each freeway alignment. 13-Jan-92 Page 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR Regional Transportation Facilities i~ii~!~i~i?~ ~ ~ i~@ B~ i~i~~ !i~i~ ........... i ................................................... $17 ~ ~ ~?~?~[~.~.~.~.~.~ ~ ~.~.~.~.-~ .......................................................... ............................... $17 ~?~!i~.~.~Ei~ii~ ~ .~ ......................................................................... $28 $17 - 13-Jan-92 -Page 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR Regional Transportation Facilities .................................... . ................. . ........................... . .......... ....... ..........-.:.:+:::: .... ............... .... ,..-.- .... .. ·. · ......... .... ::::::::::. ::::::::::::::::::::: ......................................... · ..,........... .., =============================== ............................ ...................... $1,584 :i!ili~ii?~?~i~i~i:~ill ~i~i~ i ~:~j~ ::i iiiii !!i ...... :~ ................................ $87 iiiii::DRAiNAGEi~:.UEVE~i BRiD~E~ AN~ :.::.:.:.:.:.:.:..:.+: ......... :...;.:.:;+:.:+:.:.:.;.:. :.:.:.:,;.:+:.:.:.:+:::;:::;: ::::::::::::: :::::: :::::::::::: :::::: : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~:~::~S~!A~*~*~ B~ ~~* (~ ~* ]~tiS~) ............................................................. $90 :;~;;~;~;~?~:~1~.~.~ ~.~. ifi~ti~'~) ....................................................... $77 , ' ........................................... ~:.::~:. .................... : ................. ~?~:??:~' ?: '~::.. ~.~. ~ ~: ~ ~:~:~:.. ~:.., :~::~:~::::....::~::,:,~:::.: · ............ : ........................ ~..: :.:.::~:~:~: ¥:::;.~ ................. ~ ......... ::::::::::: ..................................................... $ 62 13-Jan-92 Page 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR Regional Transportation Facilities .................................................................................................................................................................... ~$6,000 $6,O00 .......................................................... $1,054 $4,946 ......................................... $100 SlOO $~oo $~oo 13-Jan-92 Page 4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR ................ Regional Transportation Facilities $2,574 ........................................................................................... ~ .......... ~::,--.-g~:~ ............ ~ ........................................................................................................ $1,403 13-Jan-92 Page 5