The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/08/2000 BAKERSFIELD Ala~n~d~, Cit~/~a~"er David Couch, Chair StaWf: Trudy Slater / Patricia J. DeMond Jacquie Sullivan AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Special Meeting Thursday, June 8, 2000 1:15 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room 1. ROLL CALL Called to order at 1:15 p.m. Members present: Councilmember David Couch, Chair Councilmember Patricia DeMond Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan 2. ADOPT MARCH 23, 2000 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION OUTLINING THE ANNEXATION PROCESS WITH CONSIDERATION OF SUGGESTIONS FROM THE ANNEXATION TASK FORCE Members from the public spoke on suggested changes to the current version of the proposed City guide on annexation. These included: add in the guide wording to the effect that when an individual did not protest an annexation effort support is legally presumed; in instances where Bakersfield provides extra considerations not required by state law to emphasize it; add a section indicating witnesses may be present during the counting of annexation ballots; ,ooo FILE COPY Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee June 8, 2000 Page 2 specify that handwritten signatures and dates are required on both property owner and registered voter protest forms and that signatures need to match the voter registration or the property tax rolls, whichever is applicable. Other issues voiced included the desire to have the City of Bakersfield not initiate annexations of inhabited areas unless people requested it, assurance in ordinance form that new attempts to annex areas which did not want to be annexed previously would not be made, prohibit the creation of islands, work out solutions for the City providing services outside its boundaries without having to annex, extend the amount of time required to pass before the City can make a new annexation effort in a particular area, and extend the 15-day noticing period. City Attorney Bart Thiltgen reiterated the differences between an ordinance and a resolution; discussed the requirements relating to counting votes, either as a property owner or as a registered voter; explained that under a protest hearing there is no time limit for speaking as is the case in a public hearing; answered questions relating to the value of a property-related vote when the property is owned by more than one person; explained the differences in requests for information under the Public Records Act and a request to be notified of meetings; emphasized the need for Council to be able to count ballots on either property owners or registered voters based on the individual conditions of the proposed annexation area; clarified state law prohibited the creation of islands; and stated that although the City of Bakersfield uses firSt and second readings on ordinances it is not a requirement of state law. He also mentioned that legislation is currently proposed at the state level which may make major changes in the current structure of annexation law (Cortese-Knox) with resulting changes at the local level. Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen indicated that proposed annexation areas were often not only residential but also commercial, industrial, or a mixture of many different zoning types and could be very complex. City Clerk Pam McCarthy explained the guide is proposed to be a reflection of current law and that the City follows state elections laws. City Attorney Thiltgen emphasized the guide focused on legally required procedures and not the pre-legal informational efforts of the City. Committee Chairman David Couch indicated that he felt a statement relative to the 15-day noticing period, such as "as soon as possible but no later than 15 days," would be workable. He indicated his desire to have a letter sent to Mr. Bill Turpin, LAFCo Executive Director, signed by Committee members, encouraging Mr. Turpin to work toward improving the annexation process. Councilmember Couch also indicated that various scenarios relating to the annexation process needed to be fully explored so that unintended consequences did not occur. Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan indicated that she felt annexation is a mutual benefit and supports the voluntary dialogue in which the City is involved. Councilmember Couch directed staff to update the guide and draft a resolution to be discussed at the next Committee meeting, which could be followed up with a televised Council workshop, to return to Committee for final recommendation back to Council. Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee June 8, 2000 Page 3 5. NEW BUSINESS A. OVERVIEW DISCUSSION REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POLICY OF CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS (CHDO's) Community Development Coordinator George Gonzales handed out a CHDO Certification Review form and a HOME Investment Partnerships Program project description housing application, explaining the City follows HUD regulations and seeks submissions which have met those 'requirements. HUD mandates 15% of the Home entitlement be earmarked for CHDOs to help finance HOME eligible projects. Failure to commit funds to an eligible organization within a 24-month period, would cause a local jurisdiction to lose that year's CHDO funds (the 15% earmarked). The City receives approximately $1,000,000 annually in HUD monies. Since 1992, five CHDO's have accessed available funds: Self Help Enterprises; KCEOC; Restoration Community Project, Inc.; Haven Enterprises; and Affordable Homes, Inc. Self Help Enterprises and Affordable Homes are not local. A non- profit organization can become a CHDO by meeting the HUD requirements. CHDO's can partner with other CHDO's to help establish a minimum one-year presence in the community. CHDO's can also partner with private for-profit organizations but stringent limitations are placed on how the funds are to be used. CHDO funds are normally only a portion of the total funding needed to complete a project. Assistant City Manager Christensen-explained that CHDO funding is'a project based program. The Council referral was reviewed to clarify what the request included: 1) to develop a policy ~ regarding certification of local CHDOs in accordance with federal regulations and include in the policy the requirement that all applications and projects be reviewed by the Budget and Finance Committee prior to bringing to the full Council; 2) provide a list of the houses and locations of the homes being purchased with CHDO funds; 3) staff to look into including a local preference clause into the policy. Community Services Coordinator Gonzales indicated he would provide a list of the houses and locations of the homes being purchased. City Attorney Thiltgen indicated he would review the issue of including a local preference clause into a policy. It was clarified that there was no federal restriction on making a profit on CHDO projects. Deputy City Attorney Janice Scanlan clarified that HUD formed the basis of the relationship of HOME funding with the City of Bakersfield. The City was required to follow HUD guidelines as part of that relationship. Staff was directed to draft a process on its project basis and bring back to the committee for review. Agenda Summary Report Legislative and Litigation Committee June 8, 2000 Page 4 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. Staff Attendees: Assistant City Manager Alan Christensen, City Clerk Pam Mccarthy, Assistant to the City Manager Darnell Haynes, Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater; City Attorney Bart Thiltgen, Deputy City Attorney Janice Scanlan; Community Development Coordinator George Gonzales; Planning Director Stan Grady Other Attendees: Ray Allen, Stuart Baugher, James Burger, Barbara Fields, Barbara Fowler, Becky Kaiser, Ginger Mello, Margaret Townsend (L&L\L000608. M lN.wpd)