HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 125-82RESOLUTION NO. 125-82
RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELDPROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 288
(PARK STOCKDALE).
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield desires to propose a
change of organization, to wit, the annexation to the City of
Bakersfield of the hereinafter-described territory, under the
authority of Section 35140 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Bakersfield
hereby resolves, finds and determines as follows:
1. That the City of Bakersfield hereby proposes the
annexation to the City of Bakersfield of the territory described
in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution
as though fully se~ forth herein.
2. That a map of the territory proposed to be so
annexed, marked Exhibit "B", is attached hereto and made a part
of this Resolution as though fully set forth herein.
3. That a Plan for Providing Services within the
affected territory of the proposed annexation, in accordance with
the provisions of Section 35102 of the Government Code, is marked
as Exhibit "C", attached hereto and made a part hereof as though
fully set forth herein.
4. That this proposal for change of organization, to
wit, annexation, is made pursuant to the Municipal Organization
Act of 1977 (Part 2 of Division 2 of Title 4 of the Government
Code of the State of California, commencing with Section 35000
thereof), and it is requested that proceedings be authorized for
annexation in accordance therewith.
5. That the reasons for the proposed change of organiza-
tion are that the owners of the affected territory desire to
receive, and in some instances already are receiving, municipal
services from the City of Bakersfield, and the City desires to
receive tax revenues for benefits given and to be given to the
territory proposed to be annexed.
6. The zoning upon annexation of Park Stockdale will
allow the same uses as presently existing in the county.
7. That the names of the officers of the City of
Bakersfield who are to be furnished with copies of the Executive
Officer's Report and who are to be given mailed Notice of Hearing,
if any, are:
Philip Kelmar
City Manager
City of Bakersfield
1501Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Richard J. Oberholzer
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(Legal Counsel for Applicant)
8. That the appropriate City officials shall file ten
(10) copies of this resolution, with Exhibits, with the Executive
Officer of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Kern County
at 1110 Twenty-Sixth Street, Bakersfield, California.
o0o
J
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was
passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of November, 1982, by
the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: BARTON, CHRISTENSEN, ~]~S, PAYNE, R/~t~/, ROCKOFF, STRONO
NOES: CO'UNCILMEN: /'~]~C-e
ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: ~
C I T 'Y~ ES~r k
of
Council of the City of Bakersfield
Ap~~'?' D 'this~'~ day of November, 1982
,~_,~_...~ ers ield
APPROVED"a~ form:
the
.ANNEXATION NO. 288
PARK STOCKDALE
A parcel of land situated in the County of Kern, State of California, being
a portion of Section 34, Township 29 South, Range 27 East, and Section 3,
Township 30 South,-Range 27 South, M.D.B. & M., more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Section 34, said corner
.being the Point of Beginning for this description;
THENCE (1) North 00° 36' 19" East along the west line of said Section 34 a
distance of 85 feet to a point on the existing Corporate Boundary. of the
City of Bakersfield, said point also being a point on'the north right of
way line of Stockdale Highway;
THENCE (2) generally northerly, easterly, and southerly along the last named
Corporate Boundary to intersect the south line of the.north 25 feet of said
Section 3, said intersection being a point on the south right of way line
of Stockdale Highway;
THENCE (3) departing the existing Corporate Boundary of the City of Bakersfield
westerly along the last named south line and right of way line to intersect
the west line of said Section 3;
THENCE (4) nort.herly along the last named west line to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 181.72 Acres -+
EXHIBIT "A"
/.
'[' ~:: il I~;;' i'lL
r
,J
~ ~, -~.
~ o ~
, o~
Id
uD- ...,
X
d
>
0
(D
C)
>
S-
× X
4-.>
$.-
r' c-
OJ
x
C.) C..J f..J ~,J
0
f,J
.i,..i "'~
0
0J ¢; 0
CJ
.m
×.
4-->
X X
C)
>- >-
W
W
W
L.LJ
r~
I,
>-
F-'
I,J
LU
~ WW
I
n."C_~
W~-.~
'-/...J
r-nn
O--r.L~
>--
i__-r-W
~.--wC_~-
'"'r"T':D
I.~ll.--;~=
W~_.l-"'"
,::~C_)
LLJ
0
F.-
x
2= ·
~-.:>..
,:::~1--.
_J
I_rv-
DILl
~->..
~'LL..
D_'
LL.IO
n,'Z
'r'._l
>-C.~
.--JO
wt---
~-.../
n.'
n .
C:L.>-
c::ry · -
,:¢:
n.'::::D,--~
.-JZC..)
,--~--~c/')
D_IX
F--b4F.-
D..JZUJ
0~0~'
~ ~=
:~)--r
I"I'-
Dry'
c~..._J
c:~C_J
>-,-.-~
n'>-
r'Y'L,LJ
CDL-.U
LL
~-..~LL
c~CD
t'-'-
LLIC.,.r)
"T'L.U
1--"~,
.!
r-~
2=t'-'--
LLIC,r)
nc:~
-'r'>
C::)
x
I'--'
Ul--'-
L.LJ>-.
C:YLLI"r
C:~LL,JN
U
U
0
0
I:=
0
U '
r'.'
U
0
III.
~hat dffects, if all would annexation of this tcO. ory h~ve on existing level
ef~city services (~,e., need for additional emergency setvide personnel or con-
struction of new facilities, etc.)? The annexation of this territory will not
affect the .near term level or capacity of the City to provide needed services.
Since the.area"is flilly developed, the"demand for-~ervic~s is not expected to
exceed the current ]e~_el'provided by public agenci~L_
Would city require any upgrading or change in facilities to serve affected terri-
tory (roads, fire hydrants, mains, etc.)? If so, would city or residents be
responsible for financing? Yes. The City will install 46 fire ~vdrants at aD
estimated $110,400 cost in order to upgr~d~ fire protection to
City standards. Th~s cost will be absorbed b~ the C~ty from Gemera] Reven~e
sources.
Indicate lnd eXp'iain existing zoning in affected territory. See attached
zoning.map 102-34. The area ~s primarily zoned R-] and R-3 P-D reflecting its
residential character. The Van Horn Elementar.y School is zoned A-1 (Agricultural~.
VI.
Indicate and explain proposed prezoning in area. (List effects on present land
use that would occur'as a result of annexation such as maintenance of livestock
on property, etc.) The Bakersfield Metropolitan Area Genera] Plan (BMA~P) Land
Use Element designates the existing residential portion of th~ annexation proposal
as Low Densit~ Res-ident~a] use. Any pp~7~n~ng ~f ~his area would reflect
the Land Use Element designation'and present urban usage.
VII.
VIII.
List city.services area wilt directly or ind! Ltly benefit from such as
decrease-in fire insurance rate, shorter emergency response time; use of com-
munity facilities, etc. City police should be able to respond in a more
timely manner than present County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol services.
Current Cjty police'standard j.§ 1.66 sworn officers per 1,000 population com-
pared to C6untv standa_rJ ].]5 sworn officers peLj.O00 population. Refuse ser-
vices are currentJy without charqe to City residents for an annual savings of
to $126 depeUding on 2 or 4 ~an Services, ~he_~_alnlua] surcharge for City'
sewer collection and treatment and an average annual $66.96 water surcharge will
be elimi.nated. The CitMwill provide street maintenance and lighting at no cost
(CSA #59 charge of $20.24 will be eliminated) and provide street sweepinq at
regular intervals.
Please provide the following info~nation relative to city and county taxes:
List existing tax rate(s) in area. There is no difference in taxes to be
accrued to the County or City because of the annexation. Proposition 13 set a
one per cent of market value limit on the general local qovernment property tax.
The existinq rep~esentatiy_e_~_rDpertV tax rate of 1.147488% per market va]ue includes
special zones and s.~L_.~onds. Countv Service Area #59 (see above) and #12,2
(Crossinq Guards a~_$3.67 annual]K) wi]] be absorbed by City General Revenues.
List city. tax rate(s).
SEE ABOVE"
How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with a market value of
~50,000 NONE
0
0
ZONE ~.':;~ I02~
CRIS Model.'Evaluation of Park Stockdale Annexation
The Park Stockdale Annexation comprises 179.5 acres of fully developed
territory adjacent to the City of Bakersfield on the north side of Stockdale
HighWay. It is a portion of an uninc~rporated County island of approximately
one square mile located in Southwest Bakersfield. The annexation application
area is.residentially oriented with a 1980 population of 2,178. The area
includes 721 housing units of which 584 are single-family detached. The
project area also includes the 10.5 acre Van Horn Elementary School and a
5 acre recreation/social'center operated by the Park Stockdale Improvement
Association and financed by Park Stockdale residents.
Since another portion of the same unincorporated County island territory
is under consideration for annexation, known as the Kern City No. 2 Annexation,
it was determined that a combined Cost-Revenue analysis be provided to assist
the.City Council in evaluating the full impact of both areas. AS the service
area and population increases, the need to expand City resources increases
in order to maintain current City service levels and standards. For this
reason two CRIS summaries are provided-~-the first exclusively for Park Stock-
dale and the second includes Kern C-ity. The summaries account for the recent
State decision to retain two-thirds of the Vehicle tn Lieu Tax in the current
year. That same proportion of retention was projected throughout the term
of the analysis.
The following provides a short summation of fiscal and service level
considerations.
POLICE:
The projected increased activity will not require additional
police personnel in Park Stockdale; however, the combined
affect of both Kern City and Park Stockdale annexations will
requi.re an additional patrol officer.
REFUSE: Refuse collection, Will be provided by the City through a
contract service at an estimated cost of $66,576 annually.
STREETS: Nearly 13 lane miles of streets will be added to the City
system. This includes 1.7 lane miles (4 lanes) of Stockdale
Highway. The $53,565 to $59,709 cost includes aH additional
street maintenance person, added street and traffic maintenance
and proportionate improvement to the areawide storm drainage
system.
FIRE:
In the first year of annexation, the City will install 46
'fire hydrants at an estimated $110,400 cost (1982) in order
to upgrade the system to City standards. With the unification
of fire services in the metro area, there will not be any
additional capital and operational costs.
FISCAL
After th'e first ye_~r, the Park Stockdale annexation should
p'roauc? a hi~!ily ~ -~:ive net benefi+ ~:!e',~een ~66 581 (in 1988)
to $79,024 (in 1984).' Total City revenues are generated fairly
CRIS Model (con't)
FISCAL
IMPACTS:
con't.
equally between property taxes and Other revenue sources.
No attempt was made to-predict increases in property tax
revenue although gradual increases, under the present City-
County property tax distribution formula, should occur
through the normal turnover of property through reassess-
ment according to market value. Proposition 13 permitted
assessment increase up tO 2% annually on properties not
involved in sales transactions.
The fiscal impact of annexing the combined territory of
Park Stockdale and Kern City is closer to the break even
point. The initial year deficit arising from Fire service
improvements will be largely recouped over the next six
years to 1988o Relatively small negative net fi. scal fig-
ures in the years after 1988 should be offset by increased
property taxes through property sales. This factor was
not included in the summary.
.;