HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARCH 5 MBHCP MINUTES
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan
Implementation Trust Group
MINUTES
Agenda Item 1
March 5, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.
County of Kern Administrative Center
Fourth Floor Hearing Room
1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
IMPLEMENTATION TRUST GROUP TO RECONVENE
Implementation Trust Group: Ted James – Kern County (Chairman)
Stanley Grady – City of Bakersfield (Secretary)
Julie Vance – CDFG Advisory Member
Tim Kuhn – USFWS Advisory Member
Donna Carpenter – Public At-Large Advisory Member
ROLL CALL: Present: Ted James, Stanley Grady, Julie Vance, Donna Carpenter
Absent: Tim Kuhn
STAFF: Bruce Divelbiss, Jennie Eng, Mitch Van Wyk, Pamela Elisheva, Melanie
Dunwoody, Debbie Scanlan, Dana Cornelius
*
CONSENT AGENDA/OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
*
1. Approve minutes for the MBHCP Implementation Trust Group meeting of
January 29, 2009.
*
Purchase of Habitat Mitigation Land (new acquisitions):
2. For each property
listed below, staff recommendation is as follows, with the specific purchase price
recommendation listed with the property below:
(1) MAKE FINDING THAT THE ACQUISITION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
PURSUANT TO §15313 OF CEQA; (2) UPON (A) SELLER’S SIGNING OF A
MEMORANDUM OF SALE AND ESCROW; AND (B) STAFF’S RECEIPT OF
DOCUMENTATION FROM CDFG INDICATING CDFG’S INTENT TO ACCEPT
TITLE TO THE PROPERTY AT THE CLOSE OF ESCROW, AUTHORIZE CITY
OF BAKERSFIELD FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ISSUE WARRANT IN AMOUNT
SUFFICIENT TO COVER PURCHASE PRICE; ESCROW COSTS; INCENTIVE
INTEREST OF .583% OF SALE PRICE PER MONTH UNTIL THE
RECORDATION OF A MEMORANDUM OF SALE AND ESCROW; REAL
ESTATE TAXES FOR PERIOD WHICH THE MBHCP IS RESPONSIBLE; AND
PRO RATA LIABILITY INSURANCE UNTIL THE CLOSE OF ESCROW, IF
APPLICABLE, TO TICOR TITLE COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING
THE SELLER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SIGNED MEMORANDUM OF
SALE AND ESCROW; (3) WITHIN 30 DAYS FOLLOWING CLOSE OF
ESCROW, TRANSFER THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT TO CDFG FOR
ENHANCEMENT; AND WITHIN 6 MONTHS FOLLOWING CLOSE OF
ESCROW, TRANSFER THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT TO CDFG FOR
ENDOWMENT, and;
(a) APN 045-230-15 (56.37 acres) — being a portion of SW ¼ of Section 34,
T 25 S,. R 22 E, MDM, County of Kern; located in northwestern Kern
County, south of Garces Hwy approximately 1 ½ miles east of Corcoran
Donald
Road, in northwestern Kern County. The property is owned by
and Deborah
Petty and the proposed purchase price is $56,370.
(b) Westerly portion of APN 045-110-18 (57.46 acres) - being a portion of the
SE ¼ of Section 13, T 25 S, R 22 E, MDM, County of Kern;; located on the
south side of Garces Highway, approximately 1 ½ miles east of Corcoran
Hansen et
Road, in northwestern Kern County. The property is owned by
al
and the proposed purchase price is $86.190.
(c) APN 058-010-20 (40 acres) --- being a portion of the NE ¼ of Section 1,
T26 S, R 21 E, MDM, County of Kern; located southwest of the Kern
National Wildlife Refuge, approximately one and one half miles east of
Harari Family Trust
Lost Hills Road. The property is owned by the and
the proposed purchase price is $46,000.
*
3. Approve payment to Mitch Van Wyk of an amount not to exceed $3,360 for the
purchase of a one-year subscription to MetroScan Online property data bases for
Kern, Kings, and Tulare Counties.
No one in the public presented comments to the Consent Agenda.
No one on the Board presented comments to the Consent Agenda.
Member Grady moved, seconded by Member James, to approve Consent
Agenda as read.
Motion unanimously carried by group vote.
4. Chairman Ted James to report on Kern County Tax Assessor’s notification of
“Escape Assessment” on the Netz-Pettegrew acquisition (APN 046-110-03).
He commented that at the last meeting there was concern related to an escape
assessment notification that was provided, and the concern that the prompt
offers go into an escrow and stay there sometimes for years, and property taxes
are paid on those escrows. In this particular Netz-Pettegrew acquisition there
was a 285% increase on the tax bill. During investigation of this situation it was
learned that the reassessment was done in 2007 and it was finally coming
forward in terms of going through this process. The Assistant Assessor advised
that it was not the fact that they were purchasing this property on behalf of the
State that trigged this issue. However, they would have to go through the
standard process of challenging the values if they wanted to seek any resolution
to this issue.
Mr. Divelbiss added that it is a timing question, in that when the market changes
so rapidly as it did from 2007 to now, it is inevitable that you’re going to find the
values of ’07 considerably different than the values today. However, if this same
process they go through is continued, and the Assessor has told the Board that
he is not necessarily waiting for property owners to request these Prop 8 reviews,
but, in fact, he’s aggressively going through the role, and down assessing
properties on an ongoing basis, the Trust Group will gain the benefit of that
automatically as they begin to get to those properties that are in the que, and
they are assessed down. Mr. Divelbiss commented that as an alternative to
contesting the assessment, they might be better off just ensuring that they are
vigorously Prop 8 reviewing all of those properties in the que. He further
commented that a two year process normally isn’t the kind of thing that effects a
real estate transaction. He said that it is a problem for the Trust Group, however.
They do have another option to state that the valuation is wrong because things
have changed since 2007 and we want to take it to the Assessment Appeals
Board. While this is a simple process, the problem is that you have to timely file
an appeal, and when the Escape Assessment goes to the property management
department of the County, which is where this property went, and it takes time for
it to go from there to the management of the Trust Group, which is now on the
City side, that process needs to be adjusted so that those Escape Assessments
on other property go directly to Jennie so the Trust Group has a more timely
ability to respond. He pointed out that with this particular property the appeals
timing has long passed.
Member James further added that if an appeal is filed there is a fee involved.
No member comments were presented.
No public comments were presented.
Member Grady stated that he liked what he heard, but needs the wording for a
motion to give Staff direction.
Mr. Van Wyk commented that this particular township and range prices are
currently being paid and range anywhere from $1,000 an acre to $6-7,000 an
acre. He commented that recently two of the Trust Group staff members and he
went down Garces Highway and one of the properties was listed for $5,000/acre,
and in talking to him he would be willing to take $4,000/acre, which Mr. Van Wyk
stated he thinks is still way too high. He further commented that this subject
property was approximately $1,000/acre in 2005, and the taxes would be on the
$1,000/acre.
Member James commented that the Assessor’s Office does have competent and
qualified appraisers, as opposed to the asking price of the starry-eye property
owners. He stated that he doesn’t fear too much what they’ve asked or what
they’re willing to sell for, as opposed to asking the Assessor to really look at the
comparables in a process like Mr. Van Wyk uses.
Mr. Van Wyk commented that what he would like to see on those particular
properties is to process through the State and have them accepted as quickly as
possible so it’s in the State’s hand, and therefore the Trust Group doesn’t have to
worry about this problem.
Member James commented that a week long or month long process will avoid
any of this problem. However, in the meantime he suggested the following
motion.
Member Grady moved, seconded by Member James, to direct Staff to contact
the Assessor’s office with respect to the costs involved in asking for a Prop 8
review for properties that we currently have in the que. If there is no cost then
Staff could be further directed to go ahead and request that review for those
properties if there is no up front costs. However, if there is going to be a cost then
Staff could bring it back before the Trust Group for discussion.
Motion unanimously carried by group vote.
5. Discussion on processing backlog issues involving the State’s receipt of
properties that remain in escrow and the possibility of the MBHCP
implementation Trust Group hiring contract staff at the Wildlife Conservation
Board for processing the closing of escrows of MBHCP habitat mitigation
properties.
Ms. Eng commented that Members Vance and James were going to go back to
discuss options and make contact with their respective departments related to a
possibility of a contract person, and what that process would mean.
Member Vance advised that the reason that there’s been a bunch of properties
cleared recently is because of the State’s fiscal crisis and the freeze on bond
funding. She also advised that in talking with a superior they agreed that if there
was a contract position funded that it should be in WCB, because the reason
they had a land agent in Habitat Conservation Planning Branch was to try and
help that backlog, but WCB continued to be a bottleneck. Member Vance also
expressed that her superior felt that WCB would probably be very interested in
short term funding for some of their agents. She further advised that she has a
call into Debbie Townsend at WCB to explore the mechanics of how to fund a
contract staff, or even part of an existing staff. Member Vance advised that she
was told that as of early February there were 117 backlogged transactions, and
since there’s been about 20 that have cleared. Ms. Elisheva commented that it is
about 98 in the queue. She suggested that it might be beneficial to be proactive
to set up a mechanism to process the backlog, because if a contract has to be
set up it is going to take some time. Member Vance stated that by the next Trust
Group meeting she hopes to have some really detailed information about how
they can do this.
Member James commented that he always understood that part of the backlog
was with Fish & Game as well as Wild Conservation Board, however it seems to
be on the WCB side. Member Vance confirmed this. Member Vance commented
that she had envisioned the contract position to be either a retired annuitant,
which can be just to get a specific thing done, and then they’re done. Or, it can
be a permanent intermittent, and maybe combined with other funding. Or, it
could just be a reimbursable contract where it is actually permit full time Fish &
Game staff but just a portion of their time is reimbursed.
Member James commented that he, Mr. Movius and Pamela will be meeting with
Julie and Jeff next Monday, and they will re-emphasize this issue with the
Regional Director.
No public comment was made.
No specific direction or action was taken.
Public Presentations
6. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons to address the
Implementation Trust Group on any matter not on this agenda but under the
jurisdiction of the Implementation Trust Group. The Implementation Trust Group
members may respond briefly to statements made or questions posed. They may
ask a question for clarification and make a referral to staff to report back to the
Implementation Trust Group at a later meeting. Also, the Implementation Trust
Group may take action to direct the staff to place a matter of business on a future
agenda. Speakers are limited to two minutes. Please state your name before
making your presentation.
No comments were presented.
Implementation Trust Group Member Announcements or Reports
7. No comments were presented.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
CLOSED SESSION
8. The Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan Implementation Trust
Group will hold a closed session (Government Code §54956.8) to confer with
and grant authority to its negotiators (Jennie Eng, Mitch Van Wyk, and Don
Anderson) regarding the purchase of real property. The closed session involves
the property identified below:
a) APN 045-190-05 (80 acres)—being a portion of NW ¼ of Section 25,
Township T 25 S, R 22 E, MDM. The property is owned by Charles
Hillman.
b) Proposal from Wildlands, Inc. to purchase 640 acres of mitigation credits
from the Ton Tanchi Conservation Bank in Tulare County (southern half of
Section 21 and all of Section 29 of T 24 S, R 23 E, MDB&M).
RECONVENE FROM CLOSED SESSION
Member James commented that they will send a letter back to Wildlands related to their inquiry
about purchase of property. The letter will indicate that the property proposal is not suitable for
several reasons: 1) They do not have approval from the Department of Fish & Game as of yet,
and 2) They have a high asking price.
Member Grady moved, seconded by Member James, to adjourn the meeting until the next
meeting on June 11, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
ADJOURN
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 11:06 a.m.
Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary
Jennie Eng, Trust Group Administrator
Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan