Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1995 BAKERSFIELD Ksvin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gall E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMrR'EE Joint meeting with County Board of Supervisors Liaisons Wednesday, November 1, 1995 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room Second Floor - City Hall, Suite 201 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 17, 1995 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. MULTI-USE FACILITY 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. ADJOURNMENT DBT:jp BAKERSFIELD ~' _~~ Kevin McDermott, Chair stan Tandy, City Manager Randy Rowles afl: Gall E. Waiters Patricia M. Smith AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 'URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 17, 1995 12:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Call to Order at 12:34 p.m. Present: Counciimembers Kevin McDermott, Chair; Patricia Smith and Randy Rowles. 2. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 4, 1995 MINUTES Approved with one correction. Councilmember McDermott requested that all references in the minutes to "Sports Complex" be replaced with the phrase "Multi-Use Facility". 3. PRESENTATIONS None 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS Urban Development Committee Agenda Summary Report October 17, 1995 Page 2 A. MULTI-USE FACILITY Staff distributed two altemative proposals for wording of the advisory measure on the multi-use facility proposal. Alternative #1 simply asked, "Shall the City participate in building a multi-use stadium?" Alternative #2 included four site options and included basic cost and funding information on each site option. Voters would have to .mark yes or no for each of the four options. Staff indicated that Alternative #2 would be extremely confusing to voters and would likely not result in definitive support for any of the sites. Staff suggested that at least two, if not three of the options be eliminated to narrow the field to a maximum of two site options to vote for. In addition, at the Committee's request, staff summarized the draft financing plan which was originally developed for the Southwest and Sam Lynn sites. Committee members discussed the importance of getting a commitment from the County on their participation in the financing plan, subject to the advisory vote. Staff stated that in order to get a meaningful response from the County, the question should be clarified with regard to site, costs, etc. The Committee could not reach agreement on whether or not the County should be formally asked to participate in the financing. The Committee also discussed the merits of the ballot language alternatives provided by staff. Staff expressed some concern regarding Alternative #2C and 2D, because refined cost and site information were not currently available for those two sites. The Committee could not agree on which alternative to recommend back to the Council for consideration. It was proposed that both alternatives be referred back to the Council for further discussion. However, agreement on the cost information included within Alternative #2 could not be reached. Therefore, Councilmember Smith made a motion to recommend that both alternatives, as presented by staff, be referred back to the full Council. Councilmember McDermott made a motion to recommend that both alternatives be referred back to the full Council, but with adjustments to the costs provided by staff in Alternative #2, to include donations as cost components for each site option. Councilmember Rowles abstained from both motions, therefore, both recommendations will be made as minodty reports to the Council at the November 8, 1995 Council meeting. Urban Development Committee Agenda Summary Report October 17, 1995 Page 3 6. NEW BUSINESS None 7. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m.