The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/19/1995 8 A K E R S F I E L D Kevin McDermott, Chair Randy Rowles Patricia M. Smith Staff: Gall E. Waiters AGENDA URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE Monday, June 19, 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 MAY 1, 1995 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A, WARD REAPPORTIONMENT METHODOLOGY- Hardisty B, STATUS REPORT ON HIGHWAYS - R, Rojas C. UNDERGROUND UTILITY COSTS - R. Rojas 6. NEW BUSINESS A, VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVES - Councilmember Rowles B. HOSKING SEWER TRUNK ASSESSMENT - R. Rojas C. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN - R. Rojas D. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS OF CALIFORNIA - R. Rojas E. DRAINAGE ISSUE: KERN CITY/WESTWOOD ESTATES/ASHE ROAD AREAS - R. Rojas 7. ADJOURNMENT GEW:jp FILE COPY HOI~ES To: Mark Salvaggio Roy w. DIrGE]ER (/~05) /~34-3672 Re; Sewer Assessment Parcel #373-060-22-00-1 As per our telephone conversation April 24th I am writing with regard to the sewer assessment levied against the above listed parcel and the history surrounding it. When the Hosking Sewer Trunk was proposed for this area and the land eventually assessed based upon an "equitable formula", a number of land owners were present at the hearings to voice their concerns. Gordon Slater and I met with you regarding his eighteen acres across the street from the two acres in question, to son out the discrepancies in assessment amounts levied against different parcels in the area. It was apparent at that time he would be forced to sell the property for development as he would no longer be able to afford the taxes levied against it. AS a result he now lives in Idaho. But back to the item at hand. At the next heating Gordon and I engaged in a rather heated conversation with Ed Wilson, a so-called specialist hired from out of town, in the lobby of the council chambers. Kevin McDermott offered his assistance in trying to resolve the problem. Mr. Wilson was reluctant to back off his position, even though it was resulting in an assessment that was more than the subject property was worth. He told us it had the potential for high density development, and I'm sure that on paper it could be so construed. We argued that I intended to build a home on it for myself as soon as utilities were available to do so. The conversation ended with a proposal to assess it at an R-2 rate, $5728.34 per acre, with a deferment to R-l, $2864.17 per acre as long as the property was used for a single family residence when utilities became available. Kevin called us a couple of weeks later to assure us that what we had talked about had taken place. A letter, a copy of which I've enclosed, was sent to, but never received by Gordon. It has been inferred by members of the Planning Department that perhaps Gordon didnl share this information with me. That might seem like a logical way to escape the mess, but what they don't know is that Gordon not only wouldn't jeopardize the sale of the two acres, as he carries the note on it, but also a larger transaction in the development of Tract 5768 would also be put at risk. For the sake of a piece of property worth less than the assessment? Not prudent business sense! Aside from that, Gordon and I have a relationship that would preclude such a situation. At any rate. the letter was never received. It should be clear to anyone looking at its contents that it isn't what was initially discussed and had we known of its contents we would have immediately contested it. Gordon's next tax statement was unchanged from previous years and we were moving along with the development of Tract 5768. I took possession of the two acres in the fall of'94. I was unpleasantly surprisod to receive the next tax statement and find the whole situation rearing its ugly head again. I contacted Kevin regarding the matter and after several calls to him I received the letter from Raul Rojas ( enclosed ) stating the City's position. I met with Raul, Dwane Starnes and Jack Larochelle and the upshot of that was that they could do nothing, unless so directed by the council. Their advise was to contact you since it is in your district. Gordon and I had not tried to circumvent you by going to Kevin, it was he who had intervened at the hearing. Ultimately I would like to have the sewer assessment assigned to the property at a rate of $5728.34 per acre, with a deferment to $2864.17 per acre so long as its ultimate use shall be one single family residence for the entire parcel. Nothing short of this will be satisfactory. An inspection of the property will allow anyone with common sense in local economics to see its limited potential use. I am in no way an opponent of the sewer project, though the economic timing of it forced a lot of people to alter their planning and lifestyles, and I would think that the City. would show a little sensitivity. in dealing with each individual's concerns. I shall await word from you before initiating further action. Sincerely, cc. Gordon Slater B A K E R S F.I E L D PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXTUN AVENUE BAKER~FltzLD. CALIFORNIA 93301 RAUL M. ROJAS, DIRECTOR · CItY ENGINEER April 4, 1995 Roy Degeer 3101 Tomlinson Street Bakersfield, CA 93313 Re: Assessment District No. 91-1 (Hosking Trunk Sewer) Parcel No. 373-060-22-00-1 Dear Mr. Degeer: I have reviewed the history of the above referenced parcel with staff and reading through various documents. The way in which this parcel was assessed is consistent with the way all other parcels with the same land use within the district were assessed. This parcel was assessed based on its land use which is high density residential, the assessment was not based on zoning. A portion of the assessment on this parcel was deferred after the City Council levied assessments on all parcels within the Assessment District. This deferral could legally be accomplished only through a Council approved Resolution, which was drafted by our Bond Attorney with certain caveats. As with any deferral, payment has only been deferred to a later date, not deleted. this particular case, according to the provisions of the Resolution No. 30-93, that payment would become due at the time of any development entitlement, failure to annually request deferment by the owner, or sale of the property. I have enclosed a copy of Resolution No. 30-93 and a copy of a letter from this office to the previous owner, Mr. Slater. This letter was written to Mr. Slater as a courtesy to inform him of the restrictions placed on the above referenced parcel by Resolution No. 30-93. Whether or not Mr. Slater shared this information with you was beyond our control. At this point I am making a request to the Finance Director to reinstate the defee~uient. However, because the deferred assessment has already been billed to the tax roll, even if the deferrment is reinstated, we will be unable to make any changes on your current tax bill. We are continuing to review your situation and will contac,, you when we have more information. Very. truly yours, Raul M. Rojas Public Works Director cc: Jacques R. Larochelle MarianP. Shaw /t~,~c,_ ' '-'',, /t~~.~c~ / RESOLUTION NO..,...~. 0 ' 9 $ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CI~ OF B~FI~D ASSESS~ DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (HOSKING Ta~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY'COUNCIL (the "Council") OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD (the "City") as follows: WHEREAS, Resolution No. 191-92, A Resolution Adopting the Engineer's Report, Confirming the Assessment; and Ordering the Work, City of Bakersfield Assessment District No. 91-1 (Hosking Trunk Sewer) (the "Resolution,,) was approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Bakersfield on September 30, 1992; and WHEREAS, said Resolution confirmed assessments on various properties within the boundaries of City of Bakersfield Assessment District No. 91-1 (the "District,,) and a Notice of Assessment was filed with the County of Recorder of the County of Kern on October '1, 1992,.affecting the properties within the boundaries of said District; and WHEREAS, said assessments were to be paid in cash by November 2, '1992, or bonds would be issued against said assessments; and WHEREAS, assessments remain unpaid and bonds have been issued therefor'and the installments of principal and interest are to be collected to be paid in semi-annual installments on the tax roll of. the County of Kern; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, the City Council of the City of Bakersfield (the "City Council") may determine by resolution to allow landowners to defer payments of their assessments; and WHEREAS, 80 percent or more of the area has development entitlements permitting development of facilities that are using, or will use when in place, the facilities being constructed pursuant to the District proceedings; and . WHEREAS, Assessor,s Parcel No. 373-060-22-00-1 (As-~ss- ~ ~u~aemen~s cnac impact the use of' the sewer faciIities to be installed by the District but the parc~l size and zoning under the assessment formula requires a be~ef~ assessment in excess of 30 times the average residential lot as~sment and.the current R-2 zoning is substantially less. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED 'as follows: ~,.~a=~= .... .~.-2 "0 ?.-3 ~ ~,a ~_~se is the amount o~ $9,162.98 (herein the "Deferred Assessment") and c .urrently a part of the payments due for the installment of assessment to be collected with the COunty of Kern tax billings due December 10, 1993, and April 10, I994, on said Assessment No. 100 (the "Parcel") are deferred and the Deferred Assessment' payments will and can be made from the available funds of the District, including but not limited to interest earnings and unexpended proceeds. 2. If the City authorizes by parcel, map, site pla~ approval, building permit,- rezoning at the request of the .property owner of the Parcel or any other development entitlement, or if the Parcel is transferred, the .Deferred Assessment shall be due and payable, including interest at the rate applicable to prime rate at time of development entitlement (but in no event to exceed twelve percent 12%) plus applicable bond call premium. 3. At any regular meeting of the City Council occurring after April 10, 1994, and prior to June 30, 1994, the owner of the Parcel may ask to have the Deferred Assessment payments due in the fiscal year 1994/1995 of the City of Bakersfield deferred providing there is no change in the status of use or development of the Parcel. Approval of such deferral is at the' sole discretion of the City Council. and any and all such extensions of deferral' shall not extend beyond one year for any such extension given. Deferral requests must be sought and given on an annual basis. 4. In any event, the amount of the Deferred Assessment, including the aforesaid interest, shall be due and payable whenever the Parcel is transferred or at the time of the last maturity of the Bonds issued under the proceedings for the District. /// /// !11 " III _ ":: '~"~'~':~?::?~"~I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution Was passed .and adopted by the City' Council of the City of Bakersfield. at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ~DWAku~, um~u, ~i~, BRD~, ~, ~CD~, SALVAGGIO NOES: COUNCII/~EMBERS: N(I~E ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NC~E ABSTENTIONS: COUNCILMEMBERS: NC~E Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED this 3rd day of Mar~ . - MAyo~( 6f t~he City of Bakersfield APPROVED AS TO FORM: JACKSON HARGROVE EMERICH PEDREIRA & NAHIGIAN, Bond Counsel COUNTERS I GNED: CI.~Y ATTO]~NEY' OR the~- C~ty of B~kersfield< _ ~' '' / 700376RH. R01 ..... ~' ~ '~ ..... ~: ......... ~" ~- ' .' ........ ~ .....-...~ ..~ .~.~,,]~ .. · ' · ·-'?.· '~ ?""'·- '·L :,·-' ....... . :'",':.:¥?:'~ ,3~.-~..~.-'~-':.~.~ --, .%.. · '~: '? -~" ,'?_.~%~'?,'-':_,':~ '~~~~. ' '. "i-'~.':-,.. ...... -" - : :' . ~% .-: -.'~. ':.-.~'. ..~..:...,~...:.,.-_..~.;,,, . .. o'-~...~E~.:.=3~..~~ ..?:., :~.,..~=.~...... ,'.' ..... :.. . ~.'.. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 5593 I CREENLAWN CEMETERY R-1 R-2 R-1 ~ -- ~ A~N-EDISON C-.NVAL -- CH C-~ ~ - R-1 R-1 ~ ROAD A-20A T30S, R27E ~6 6~320 BAKERSFIELD PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 1501 TRUXT'UN AVENUE ED w. SCIqULZ. DIRECTOR * CITY ENGINEER July 9. 1993 Mr. Gordon B. Slater 3140 Beric.shi~ Rd. Baicersfield. CA 93313 Re: Parcel No. 373-060-22.00-1. Assessment Dismct No. 91-t (Hosldng Trunk Sewer) Dear Mr. Slaum. I have enclosed a copy of the ResoluUoa which the City Council adopted regarding the deferral of assessment on the above referenced parcel. Please note paragraphs 2 a~d 3 on page 2. This Resolution will reouire that upon any development entitlement or transter of owner~ip that the tull deferred assessment incluclin~ interest be paid. This Resolution also requires you to a~nually request deferral of assessment to tt~ next t~cal year. This request must be in wnUng ~nd may be addressed to my attention at the 'City Public Worlcs Department. As indicated in the Resolution. ~s must be brought before the City Cotmcil b'etwe~n April 10th ~d June 30~ ea~ year unul either the deferred assessment is parc1 or the term of the bonos has exp~rm. Should you have My questions regarding es matter, please feel tree to call me at 1805) 326-3.581. Very truly yours; .._ Ed W. Schulz Public Woric.s~Lrector ,; c , DeWayne Staruest Civil Er~gineer III ~CH 90A ' I :046~,~ '3.34 KERN HGH SC 8D90A I .00~9,~,~ ,35 K~ B990C I ;~3~ .28 ' ' ' 2097.60 ~ ~ X I~ 1 . 122~57 40.4~ 1 , 048.80 40.4~ 1 , 048.80 i' ~ ~ [ 7' ~ 208 t ' ( * t [ ~' i ~ * [ ] ~ [ [, [ i ] 208 373-060-22-00-1 001-334 94-292006-00-6 ~o~ C~C~L~O c~c~ ~s ~ou~ ~EC~t,~ NET ASSESSED VALUE 7208 ~';-' ~~D:As O~ ~R~ 1~ 12~1 A.M. :-; 5'~/ ~,T ' ~-'.'7~.- ~ME~ERS EXEMPT~N ' .' . .._;' :Z~I~5~' . ~14 2 2 ~ . .~ ~~~ ~..,.. GRO~ TAX PRIOR TO APPLICATI~ . ,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,. S~TER FAMILY TR ...... :.~~~ C/O S~TER GORDON B & ~ M ~S ...... ' TAX ~2 VISTA DR ~ s,~ o~ ~,~ ~PA ID ~ STATEMENT F~RST ~NSTALLMENT 1~089.26 ~E~O.~ ~,~ SE ~.E ~S ~ ~R P~PER~ TREASU.E. -- TAX COLL[CTO. ~T RES~S~BLE ~ ~ p*y ON W~G P~PER~ SECOND INSTALLMENT 1 ~089 26 LOCATION ' OF PTN LOT 23 TOTAL CURRENT OPER~ 25 30 27 TAX 2 ~ 178.52 .... ~-?? .......... , ~'-- ~ .v ; '~; ' ~.;,w--THIS AMOUNT DUE ''~ ' ' I :"- I FEB. 1, 1995 '' = ~.-. -. 373-060-22-00-1 001-334 94-292006-00-6 IDELINQUENTA~ER ],uu9.26 [ ~ ~ ' , ' ~ APRIL 10, 1995 ~ / ~ :~:~S:"???" ..-'-'?~.?;~.:. :-':'-: .... ~.(; .' ::'Y,'.S?~' ..'".: I [ ~ S~BAND R~RNWI~UR ' ' I, I REMI~CE . 2~ INST. ' BOTH INST DEL AMT. DEL AMT. 1 ~208.18 2~406.36 2942920060060000010892600000010892100000000108926000000108929 - REi'LJRN THi'§:~"~~~'~'NY ;"r: F~:~j;;~,~~~y-": ¥' FOL~ AND r~pT~.r~. · . '"".'-'-~'~-,' ~~: ..... ',""~ ' - ' '"-'¢-'~~:~:'.;' :~-~ '~ ~ .~' ..... -m'~: / ............ ~,,,.v~, ,w~ "' -" '~;~, ~ .- -._ " .... ."" .."' · .' .;' ;' :~¥;;.~h~;; ...... " .... .~;~..THIS AMOUNT DUE ' ':*'"~.' "~%-?,~:" ~-~:' .... %-. . .: NOV. 1, 1994 373-060-22-00-1 001-334 94-292006-00-6 ~f:-.t DELiNQUENT A~ER 1,089.2 ' : ~ ' ' '""'~' I DEC 12 1994 ' ' ' ' :' '~ .... ' "'" '" """ ~ '";~' ' ~" ~"'""~":~" ' - TA ' - , ' WH~ ~Y NG 1st INST~E~ ',' ........... .... ...... ;.' ~ .~,~ ,-' -"'~'~'" XPAYERS HAVE THE OPTION OF PAYING BOTH '.- I - I ..... .' '-'" ' "¢ ·" :'~ · ': '-'-"- t";'- '~"'¢'.' '""' ',' NSTALLMENTS WHEN THE FIRST'INSTALLMENT TAX SEND BOTH STUBS I' I'- , · % '.. ENT. ~ REM~ANC~ - . ' . .: '- .... lstINST.% lstlNS~DELA~. .... TOTAL OF BOTH ..- .. .'F.' . ' ".. - DELAM~ ~ &2ndlNST.' ' INSTALLMENTS . -.:'-.:.:..'~:"~F':'¥'-:'.: '"'-":;'.1,198.18 2,287.44 , ...'- ' ' ..... 'lJ ~/o~,~ 52 1942920060060000010892600000010892100000000108926000000108921 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Urban Development Committee of the City Council will hold a Special Meeting for the purpose of a Committee Meetinq on Monday, June 19, 1995, at 12:15 p.m., at City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California, to consider: 1. ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF MAY 1, 1995 MINUTES 3. PRESENTATIONS 4. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 5. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. WARD REAPPORTIONMENT METHODOLOGY - Hardisty B. STATUS REPORT ON HIGHWAYS - R. Rojas C. UNDERGROUND UTILITY COSTS - R. Rojas 6. NEW BUSINESS A. VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION INCENTIVES - Councilmember Rowles B. HOSKING SEWER TRUNK ASSESSMENT - R. Rojas C. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PLAN- R. Rojas D. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS OF CALIFORNIA - R. Rojas E. DRAINAGE ISSUE: KERN ClTY/WESTWOOD ESTATES/ASHE ROAD AREAS- R. Rojas 7. ADJOURNMENT .Gall E. Waiters, Assistant City Manager GEVV:jp GREATER BAKERSFIELD CHAMBER OF COMMERCI~ inn May 5, 1995 r:, I Ms. Carol Williams, City Clerk City of Bakersfield 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93301 Dear Ms. Williams: The Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce (GBCC) and the member businesses it represents have monitored the development of plans to construct a multi-use sports complex in Bakersfield. As members of our organiTation reviewed the various proposals for a future multi-use sports complex, it became evident that each would require substantial investment of public funds. At a time when government is in need of resources to fund essential government services, we believe that public support must be determined as to whether taxpayer revenues should be used to fund a non-essential project. Although our members agree that all proposals have merit, the GBCC Board of Directors urges you to consider the following suggestions: · Project Comp_ arison~ - It is ~ that cost comparisons be evaluated for both the southwest and Sam Lynn sites, so that differences in construction and other infrastructure costs can be easily identified. · Funding Sources Identified - Afkn' the identification of costs, funding sources must be identified and include the degree to which taxpayer revenues are to be put at risk. · Economic Benefits Determined. As a government official charged with representing a large and diverse constituency, it is incumbent upon you to give a clear indication of the economic benefits of developing such a sports complex. We believe that the public can fairly assess the merits of a multi-use sports complex, based upon cost comparison, revenue sources, identified risks, and economic benefits. We also believe that this decision should be made by the citizens of Bakersfield through the public voting process. The GBCC appreciates your dedication to the fulage of Bakersfield and looks forward to working with you in this important project and future activities. We welcome your response to these recommendations and would be pleased to meet with you as well. Sincerely, Bernard J. Hermat9 **~,s~.~,~% President ~ The Unified Voice Qf Bakersfield Business 1033 Truxtun Avenue · P. O. Box 1947 · Bakersfield, California 93303 · 805/327-4421 MEMORANDUM May 23, 1995 TO: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER HARDISTY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIREC~ FROM: JACK SUBJECT: WARD REAPPORTIONMENT We will be prepared to present the ward reapportionment program to the Urban Development Committee at its next meeting (July 12, 1995). Between now and July 5, 1995, staff will redistribute the new population by precinct and prepare a map of.the existing wards and three maps to illustrate how the wards could be balanced. If there are no serious problems in committee, the process could then be considered by the City Council on July 19, 1995. In case the Council wishes to follow the same process as last time, we are trying to find out if we can rent a better projector which would be brighter and more definitive to enhance legibility. The closest one may be in Los Angeles but we are still searching local firms. I have requested Gail's approval to acquire an ink jet map printer to produce the maps in preparation for this project as well as to provide timely response to City Council direction during the process of alternative consideration. The printer would become a part of our GIS and there is money in the GIS budget due to salary savings which could be used to acquire it. It would cost about $10,000. JH:pjt m\mat5.23