HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 56-82RESOLUTION NO.
56-82
RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION OF THE COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD PROPOSING PROCEEDINGS
FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO-THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD, IDENTIFIED AS ANNEXATION NO. 284
(KERN CITY NO. 2).
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 set 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. That on March 17, 1982, this Council previously
adopted Resolution No. 27-82, an application proposing proceedings
for the annexation of territory to the City of Bakersfield identified
by Annexation No. 284, and that same application was submitted to
the Local Agency Formation Commission on March 18, 1982.
7. That the application has expired due to the inability
of the County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield to resolve the
allocation of property tax disbursement upon annexation as required
during a thirty (30)-day negotiation period, and the Local Agency
Formation Commission Officer has hereby requested the City to
resubmit the application.
8. The zoning upon annexation of Kern City No. 2 will
allow the same uses as presently existing in the County.
9. 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
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Richard J. Oberholzer
City Attorney
City of Bakersfield
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
(Legal Counsel for Applicant)
10. 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
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 26th day of May, 1982, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEN: BARTON, CHRISTENSEN, MEANS, PAYNE, PATTY, ROCKOFF, STRONG
NOES= COUNCILMEN= /y~ ~
AB$ENT: COUNCILMEN: J/l, ~..J~
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEN: ~ ~
CIT E Officio Clerk of
Council of the ield
the
KERN CITY ANNEXATION NO. 2
ANNEXATION NO. 284
A parcel of land situate in the County of Kern, State of California,
and being a portion of Section 3, Township 30 South,' Range 27 East,
M.D.B. & M. and more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of ~.outh line of the north 25 feet
of said Section 3 with the east line of the west 200 feet of said
Section 3; '
Thence (l) S 89° 02' 51" E along the last named south line, 2021.71
feet., to intersect the extension of the east right of way line
of Cherry Hills Drive, as said drive is shown on a map of Tract
No. 2560, recorded in Book 12 of Maps, pages 49 through 53,
records of said Kern County, said intersection being also a
point on the Corporate Boundary 'of the City of Bakersfield;
Thence (2) southerly and along the various courses of said Corporate
Boundary to a point on the west right of way line of Ashe Road;
.. as said Ashe Road is shown on a map of Tract No. 2562, recorded
in Book 14 of Maps, page 83, records of said Kern County, said
intersection also being distant as measured along the following
three courses, from the point of beginning;
Thence (3) departing from said Corporate Boundary (asSuming a bearing
of N 89° 02' 51" W for the north line of said Section 3),
N 9° 56' 06" E, 356.62 feet, along the last named west right
of way line to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave to
the west, with a radius of 5945 feet;
Thence (4) northerly along said curve and along the last named west
right of way line through a central angle of 9° 18' 2S" an arc
length of 96S.69 feet, to the end point of said curve;
Thence (S) N 0° 37' 41" E, 207S.S6 feet, along the last named west
right of way line to the point of beginning;
Containing 262.70 acres, more or less.
Amended February 17, 1982
EXHIBIT "A"
~SEMITE
DR.
/
r~
WAY
COURSE LEGEND
S. 89°02'51"E+, 202t.71'
(2) Corporate Boundary
(3) N. 9°56'06"E., 356.62'
(4) ~=9°18'25" R=5945'
.L=965.69'
(5! N.O°37'4f'E,2075.56
Boundcry
AVE ~ZZ)
\
\ \\\'\
· GORHAM
Z)
\
\ \ .\
_\_ .... .'x, \
\ \ \
\ \ '\;.
..-,-s \
(2) \
i (2) \
BE:LLE
NOROSC
FJORO
//~'~""':"" TO THEsCITYtOi~F BAKERSFIELD
262.70 Acres :1:
//////// Or Ore e oun Qr
~ "M ND~." '~2~"8~" 17, 1982
0
~ o
..-31 r,~
..r.l,--t
t.;, ~ -.-"~
:>-.0 ',"'{
0 .,"~ -rl 0
e~ 0 0
· -,-4 0 cJ
Z
0
rJ
0
Z Z
0 0
0
".,-'4'
U
0
S.-,' 0
,, D .LIBIHX3
X,-. r,.J ~
~ f. fi 0
· ,.-.I .H rJ
; 0
0 m
rn 0
-H,--I
,,c .H
o -H ,--.4.
.u ,u o
~ ·
-H ~J .H ,--i
~J-H p
rj,-i o~
~ ,-.H,..H
o u ~ ~
o~u -o
-H 0 --1'
,---I~ Z-co-
0 0
O~ -H-~
0 -H 0 o3 '~
mce<~
~ cj4j c,3u~
C.J
O 't~ ~
0 0
~_-.~ 0
O C:::
q,) O I:::
· H .H .nJ
I= '~ O
(1.) .H
· H ~ .Z:)
O r,J ,u
c0
0r.H ~ r..H
O ..U ','H
~ (1J O
~ O '~ C~
O l::: ~ (]J
O r~ O O ,..c:: O
,.c: O
-,T cO u~
aJ
~ ~ ~ 4-.J ~-I
ccl cD c'd ,H O
t-I -,.T ,,.Q CJ
::> Or'H ~ O
0 ~ O 2~ · r~ ~
~ c~O c0
OJ -,-I l:~ -r-.I
:>' ~ Q-Q O
O O c]J (1.) q.,i
..c= ...C =:J .r-I .r-t c0
q.) O .r'H ,u
O O O"J C: :::) O
,-'1 'H ,U '~ O C.) ~ .H ~
0
U
O
.~
c::J~OQ
0
h-HT-t O
u :>
O
,.a ~,-4"
,'-4 O
CJ.H.H
O '
C:
r'
.p
O
I
hO"O
~ O
"O .H
a:l I u
Q
~:>-,~O~
· H h
cU u 0
aJ oo,.-I
J:: .H .H
III.
of city services (i.e d i. a e c . personnel or con~
striction of new facilities, etc.)? 'The annexation of this territory Fill ~t
affect the near term level or capacity of the City to provide needed services.
Since the ~r~a is virtually fully developed, the demand for services is not
expected to_..(,-ceed the current level provided by public. agencies.
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. Seven new hydrants would require in-
stallation for acceptabl~ City standards and an additional 30 hydrants would _
require adaptation. The total cost for these improvements is estimated at
$19,500 to be paid for by the City.
Indicate ~nd eip]ain existing zoning in affected territory. See attached
zoning.map 123-3. The area is primarily zoned R-1 reflecting its predominant
residential and recreational character. The Kern County Superintendent of
Scbools Administrative Center and associated office buildings are zoned C-2 P-D
and C-O. '-
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 General Plan (B~GP) Land
Use.Element designates ~he existing developed residential portion of the annexation
proposal as Low and Medium Density Residential use. It also designates the Kern
County Administrative offices as Commercial and the Kern City Golf Course as Open
,.-'.'..'..., ........:Space' Any'prezoning.of this.area would reflect the Land Us~ Element designation. ..
and present urban usage.
VII.
decrease in fire insurance rate, shorter m g . , use of ccm-
m.nnity :facilities, etc. City police should be able to respond in a more .timell__
manner than present County Sheriff and State Highway Patrol servicas. Refuse
services are currently without charge to City rejidents. The surcharge paid
for. City s~wer collection and treatment and water supply currently as non-City
residents would be removed. The City will also assume responsibility for fire
hydrants, and street liShtin~ currently provided by a County service area charge _
to the property o~mer.
qlI'~"'plea'S'e"'prOvide'the-following-information .relative:'to..City and .County;.taxeS::.:..... ......
List existing tax rate(s) in area. Th'ere is no ~lfieLence in taxes t,'. be
accrued to the Coun__ty or City because of the annexation. Proposition 13 se_L_a
one percent of market value limit on the'~eneral local'government property tax.
The County service area charSe of $40 annually' for street lighting, fire
hydrants and landscape maintenance and the contract refuse collection charges
will be absorbed by the City from General. Revenue services. _
The existing representative property tax rate of 1.201541% per market value
'includes special zones and'school bonds. In addition $40 is applied per parcel
for CSA No.'t (hydrants, lighting, etc., ref. above), and $3.67 per parcel for
~' '~SA'No. 12.2 (school crossing guards), annually.'
List city tax rate(s). SEE ABOVE
How will the difference in tax rates affect a house with a market value of
gSO, 000 NONE
(.D''.e'
.J
!1
CRIS Model Evaluation of Kern City No. 2 Annexation
The amend6d Kern City No. 2 Annexation comprises 263.3 acres of nearly fully
developed territory adjacent to the City of Bakersfield on both the South and
East boundaries. It is a portion of a currently unincorporated County island
of approximately one square mile located in Southwest Bakersfield. The annex-
ation application area is residentially oriented with a 1980 population of
1,082. The area includes 667 housing units, ten holes of the Kern City Golf
Course (79 acres), including .related pro shop and restaurant, the Kern City
Civic Association recreational and social facilities (7.2 acres) and the Kern
County Superintendent of Schools Administrative Center (10 acres).
The earlier CRIS summary analysis submitted in connection with the March 17,
1982 Resolution No. 27-82 described a highly positive net benefit/cost ratio.
Since then we have determined that revisions to several subsystems were
necessary which increase projected costs to the extent that the annexation
may represent a nearly break even project from the financial standpoint.
Changes represented in the attached summary from the March 17 report are
explained within the discussion of each pertinent subsystem.
A note of caution is that general revenue figures are projected on the basis
of the latest City-County property tax distribution agreement for the 25-acre
original Kern City No. 2 Annexation application. If that entitlement transfer
is changed to a distribution less favorable to the City, the area may not
provide sufficient revenue to offset projected City service costs.
The following provides a short summation of the major project effects and
resulting fiscal impact on various City services and activities:
POLICE: The projected increased activity will not be sufficient
to require additional police personnel; however, any further annex-
ation of 25 acres or larger with similar or increased demands in
this area will require an additional patrol officer.
REFUSE: Refuse collection, currently paid for by the City forits
residents, will be supplied by contract service and is a significant
cost factor at an estimated $57,325 annually. This figure is an
increase of over $10,000 from the March 17 report since that figure
was based on municipal refuse service rather than contract personnel.
WASTEWATER: Wastewater revenue surcharges now paid by Kern City
residents ($31.25 per parcel) will be lost upon annexation. However,
since this account is operated on an enterprise basis charges to
City residents and users are recalculated each year to permit a
financial break even situation.
CRIS Model Evaluation of Kern City No. 2 Annexation
Page 2
STREETS: Nearly 15 lane miles of streets will be added to the
City system. Arterial and four-lane segments include a 0.65 mile
portion of Ashe Road on the West and Sundale Avenue on the South.
The total projected $59,964 cost is the most significant financial
obligation although it may prove in practice to be overstated
since City~wide standard costs applied to the lower traffic gener-
""ation'Of Kern City may not occur. The primary'reasOn for,.thiS "+""""" ..... ""
greatly increased cost projection over the March 17 report is
the cummulative effect of the entire annexation as opposed to
earlier calculations basedon the original 25-acre proposal added
to the remaining 238-acre portion. The net effect of the entire
project is the hiring of an additional maintainance person and the
resulting materials and charges applied to the increased personnel
(total street maintainance budget of $46,977). Since Kern City
has been contributing to the capacity of the City's storm drainage
system for some time, the cost normally attributed to an area this
size for storm drainage capital improvement is not included.
FIRE: Seven new fire hydrants will need tO be installed and
30 others will require adaption at an estimated $19,500 cost in the
.first year. This will be necessary to upgrade the area to City
Fire Department standards. With the unification of fire services
in the metropolitan area, there will not be any additional capital
and operational costs.
FISCAL IMPACTS: After the first year, the annexation should pro-
duce a positive 'net benefit between $13,000 to $15,000 annually.
Total annual City revenues, with an adjustment in wastewater charges
to reflect the loss of surcharge, range between $135,000 and
$139,000 during the nine-year period of projection. Annual City
costs will range between $124,000 and $143,000 - the latter will be
experienced in the first year because of the fire protection
improvements. 'Since the area is fully developed, the ratio of
revenue and costs should remain fairly constant. However, as proper-
ties are sold over time, the property tax returns as set by
Proposition 13 used as the basis for value input to the CRIS will
be replaced by higher market values thereby tending to yield higher
revenues than those projected.