FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS
AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
October 12, 2026, 12:00 p.m.
City Hall North Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Members
Larry Koman
Eric Arias
Andrae Gonzales
1. ROLL CALL
2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
a. Agenda Item Public Statements
b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a. July 20, 2026 Minutes
Staff recommends adoption of minutes
4. STAFF REPORT
a. Presentation Regarding the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Feasibility Study
Staff recommends the Committee make recommendations on the presented information.
To refer this item back to Committee with direction to return with the following:
1. A revised map that conforms to the scope requested by the Committee.
2. A more detailed net fiscal revenue analysis, specifically identifying the projected fiscal impact (net revenues versus costs).
3. The per-capita cost associated with the proposed growth.
4. A clarified explanation of the new Public Finance Authority's role in this matter, including what that role would specifically entail.
*1. PowerPoint Presentation
b. Update to General Fund Budget Forecast
Staff recommends the Committee receive and file the presentation of the budget forecast update.
*1. PowerPoint presentation
5. NEW BUSINESS
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
1 FINANCE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND JOBS
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
July 20, 2026, 12:00 p.m.
City Hall North Conference Room A
1600 Truxtun Avenue
Members Present: Larry Koman, Eric Arias
Members Absent: Andrae Gonzales
City Staff Present: Christian Clegg, City Manager
Rick Anthony, Assistant City Manager
Julie Drimakis, City Clerk
Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
Viridiana Gallardo-King, Deputy City Attorney
_____________________________________________________________________
1. ROLL CALL
Meeting was called to order at 12:03 p.m.
2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
a. Agenda Item Public Statements
None.
b. Non-Agenda Item Public Statements
None.
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
a. May 11, 2026 Minutes
Moved by: Eric Arias
Staff recommends adoption of the minutes.
Approved
4. STAFF REPORT
None.
2 5. NEW BUSINESS
a. Update on Efforts to Promote Rosedale Ranch
Economic Development Manager Cater made staff comments and provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Moved by: Eric Arias
Staff recommends the committee receive and file.
Approved
1. PowerPoint Presentation
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 12:57 p.m.
_________________________
LARRY KOMAN, CHAIR
_________________________
JULIE DRIMAKIS, CITY CLERK
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 12, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY: New Business TO: Finance, Economic Development and Jobs Committee
FROM: Phillip Burns, Development Services Director
DATE: August 31, 2026
SUBJECT: Presentation Regarding the Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District Feasibility Study.
Staff and city consultant, Kosmont Companies, to provide an overview of analysis.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Committee make recommendations on the presented information.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Bakersfield is evaluating the use of a special purpose financing district such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to capture value from potential new development to fund critical infrastructure and community investment priorities. EIFDs are financed through tax increment generated from the growth in property taxes collected from within a designated district boundary.
District tax increment financing (TIF) capacity is estimated to range up to $717M over time. In addition to the TIF District funding capacity, the district would elevate the City’s ability to attract other public funding, particularly state and federal grants where we get extra points in application scoring.
While a city-only financing district strategy would likely achieve favorable “return on investment” for the City, a broader partnership including the County of Kern would further improve financial feasibility.
District can finance a variety of activities:
Infrastructure and public facilities of regional or communitywide significance such as public facilities, roadways, parking, parks and open space, etc. Maintenance
Affordable housing
The district can fund projects and public capital facilities located outside its official boundaries but must demonstrate a clear benefit nexus showing that the outside infrastructure directly supports or enhances the development inside the district.
Why are Public Agencies Authorizing Financing Districts?
1. Return on Investment: Private sector investment induced by district commitment accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, promotes job creation, economic revitalization, housing production, and helps support essential infrastructure improvements.
2. Ability to attract other funding that is not otherwise available for projects within the community: additional funds / other public money; tax increment from other entities (county, special districts); and federal / state grants / loans (e.g., for transit-oriented development, water, housing, parks, remediation).
FISCAL IMPACT:
The EIFD feasibility study was funded in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 budget.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Economic Opportunity for All
Reliable Infrastructure
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Prepared by:
Kosmont Companies
Infrastructure Financing District
Analysis Summary
October 2026
Background and Summary
2 • The City of Bakersfield is evaluating the use of a special purpose financing district such as an Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) to capture value from potential new development to fund critical infrastructure and community investment priorities • TIF District tax increment financing (TIF) capacity is estimated to range up to $717M over time (in the highest revenue allocation and County partnership scenario) • In addition to the TIF District funding capacity, the district would elevate the City’s ability to attract other public funding, particularly state and federal grants • While a City-only financing district strategy would likely achieve favorable “return on investment” for the City, a broader partnership including the County of Kern would further improve financial feasibility
• Subject to further review and feedback from City staff, immediate next steps could include City Councilmember briefings and/or discussion with the County regarding potential partnership
3 $0M
$100M
$200M
$300M
$400M
$500M
$600M
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Years from District Formation
Note: Illustrative. Conservative 2% growth of existing assessed value (A/V) shown; does not include mark-to-market increases associated with property sales.
What is Tax Increment Financing (TIF) – Not a New Tax
Baseline Property Value at District Formation
All Property Tax Stays with General Fund
New Property Value from
New Development / Rehabilitation
Some Portion of Property Tax Available to TIF District, Remainder Stays with General Fund
Assessed
Property Value
within District
Boundaries
New Total
Value After
TIF District
All Property
Tax Goes to
General Fund
EIFD Fundamentals
Communicating in a Digital World
4 45 years from first bond issuance Long Term
Districts
Public Financing Authority (PFA) implements Infrastructure Financing Plan Governance (IFP) Mandatory public hearings for formation with protest opportunity; no public vote Approvals
Any property with useful life of 15+ years & of communitywide significance; purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, seismic retrofit, rehabilitation, and maintenance
Eligible
Projects
Types of Projects TIF District Can Fund
Partial List
5 Roadway / Parking / Transit
Brownfield Remediation
Storm / Flood / Public Facilities Parks / Open Space / Recreation Libraries & Childcare Facilities Affordable Housing
Broadband Small Business /
Nonprofit Facilities
Wildfire Prevention / Other
Climate Change Response
Why are Public Agencies Authorizing Financing Districts? 6 1. Return on Investment: Private sector investment induced by district commitment accelerates growth of net fiscal revenues, job creation, housing production, essential infrastructure improvements
2. Ability to attract additional funds / other public money (“OPM”) – tax increment from other entities (county, special districts), federal / state grants / loans (e.g., for transit-oriented development, water, housing, parks, remediation)
TIF Districts in Progress
Statewide
Fully Formed In Formation Process Under Evaluation
Jurisdiction Purpose
Artesia + L.A. County Transportation and affordable housing Barstow Industrial and housing supportive infrastructure Calipatria (CRD) Economic and climate resilience infrastructure Carson + L.A. County Remediation, affordable housing, recreation Cotati Water, sewer, parks, roads, housing-supportive infrastructure Covina Downtown housing and blended use supportive infrastructure Desert Hot Springs Downtown and freeway-oriented housing and infrastructure Downey + L.A. County Transit-oriented development, affordable housing Fresno Downtown, housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Humboldt County Coastal mixed-use and energy supportive infrastructure Inglewood + L.A. County (CRD) Transportation and affordable housing Imperial County Renewable energy, housing and infrastructure La Verne + L.A. County Housing and transit-supportive infrastructure Lakewood + L.A. County Mall reimagination, smart streets, affordable housing Los Angeles County Santa Monica Mountains Wildfire Recovery and Rebuild Los Angeles County West Carson Housing / bio-science / tech infrastructure Los Angeles County Santa Monica Mountains (DRD) Fire recovery and resilience Madera County (3 Districts) Water, sewer, roads and other housing infrastructure Montebello Commercial and Blended Use Corridor Infrastructure Mount Shasta Rural brownfield mixed-use infrastructure
Napa Downtown, housing, tourism supportive infrastructure Norwalk + L.A. County Affordable housing and infrastructure Ontario Airport-related, blended use, infrastructure
Pasadena + L.A. County 710 Vision Plan infrastructure, other key corridor projects Palmdale + L.A. County Housing, blended use, transit infrastructure Pittsburg Housing, commercial, and tech park infrastructure Placentia + Orange County Housing and TOD infrastructure Rancho Cucamonga Blended use and connectivity infrastructure Redlands Education related blended use, mall reimagination Redondo Beach + L.A. County Parks / open space, recreation infrastructure Sacramento County (Unincorporated) Industrial / commercial supportive infrastructure San Pablo Affordable housing, technology, roads, lighting, landscaping Sanger Commercial, hospitality, supportive infrastructure Santa Cruz Downtown, blended use, and climate resilience infrastructure Santa Fe Springs + L.A. County Housing and transit-oriented development infrastructure Santa Rosa + County of Sonoma Downtown investment, affordable housing, aging infrastructure Scotts Valley + Scotts Valley Fire + County of Santa Cruz Housing and mixed-use supportive infrastructure, fire facilities Sebastopol + County of Sonoma Housing, flood control, library, civic facilities Sonoma County West (Unincorporated) Housing, flood control, sewer, fire facilities Yreka Housing, industrial, commercial supportive infrastructure
Potential TIF District Boundary
8 • Parcels within census tracts that were
eligible for Opportunity Zones 2.0
and/or positioned for future private
sector investment that will generate
assessed property value growth
• Approx. 22,287 parcels
• Approx. 23,095 acres (23.9% of City)
• Approx. $7.99 billion in existing
assessed value (18.2% of City, 6.5%
of County)
Source: Kern County Auditor-Controller (2026)
9 a) Infrastructure and public facilities of regional or communitywide significance b) Maintenance
c) Affordable housing
d) To be further refined as funding becomes known
Example Potential Investments to Receive TIF District Funding
City
18.4%
County
17.0%
Other / School
Entities (not eligible)
64.6%
10 • Primary non-school recipients and potential
contributors of property tax are City and County
• City share varies in the range of ~18% of every $1
collected in property taxes
- City additionally receives equivalent of ~11% of
property tax in lieu of motor vehicle license fees
(MVLF), also available to TIF District
• County General Fund varies in the range of ~17%
- County additionally receives property tax in lieu of
MVLF, also available to TIF District, but not
incorporated into this analysis to be conservative
• School-related entities cannot participate
As counties tend to rely more heavily on property tax revenue sources generated by new development within incorporated jurisdictions, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is not reasonable to assume allocation of property tax in lieu of MVLF by the County. As cities benefit from additional non-property tax revenue sources (e.g., sales tax, transient occupancy tax) from new development, it is Kosmont’s experience that it is reasonable for cities to consider contributing property tax in lieu of MVLF. Bakersfield Tax Rate Area (TRA) 001-001 distributions shown. Post-ERAF (Education Revenue Augmentation Fund) distribution.
Source: Kern County Auditor Controller (2026)
Property Tax Revenues Available to TIF District
Example Property Tax Distribution
+ MVLF ~11% = 29%
11 Assumes annual assessed value growth in the range of 4% (higher in near term consistent with historical growth within the City, lower in longer term to be conservative). City allocation includes allocation from both AB8 + MVLF in-lieu. County allocation does not include MVLF in-lieu. * Bonding capacity assumes Year 5 is first bond issuance for TIF district. “Year 5 means fifth year of revenue following district formation. Net proceeds shown. Bondable revenue assumes $25,000 admin charge, 150% debt service coverage. 6.0% interest rate; 30-year term. Proceeds net of 2% underwriter's discount, estimated reserve fund (maximum annual debt service), costs of issuance estimated at $350,000.Source: Kosmont Financial Services (KFS), registered municipal advisor.
TIF Revenue and Bonding Capacity Scenarios
TIF Revenue
Allocation Scenario
(Allocation of Each Taxing Entity’s Future Share of
Property Tax Increment within the Boundary)
Year 5
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding Capacity*
Year 10
Accumulated
Revenue +
Bonding Capacity*
50-Year
Present-Value
@ 3%
Discount Rate
50-Year
Nominal
Total
A) City 5% $2,179,000 $6,898,000 $45,308,000 $126,813,000 B) City 10% $5,020,000 $14,459,000 $90,616,000 $253,626,000 C) City 15% $7,861,000 $22,019,000 $135,924,000 $380,438,000 D) City 25% $13,543,000 $37,140,000 $226,540,000 $634,064,000 E) City 35% $19,225,000 $52,261,000 $317,157,000 $887,690,000 F) City 50% $27,748,000 $74,943,000 $453,081,000 $1,268,128,000 G) City 5% + County 5% $3,833,000 $11,299,000 $71,682,000 $200,631,000 H) City 10% + County 10% $8,327,000 $23,261,000 $143,364,000 $401,262,000 I) City 15% + County 15% $12,822,000 $35,222,000 $215,046,000 $601,893,000 J) City 25% + County 25% $21,812,000 $59,145,000 $358,410,000 $1,003,155,000 K) City 35% + County 35% $30,802,000 $83,068,000 $501,775,000 $1,404,417,000 L) City 50% + County 50% $44,286,000 $118,953,000 $716,821,000 $2,006,310,000
Public Agency and Community Return on Investment
12 • Housing production
• Facilitate transit-oriented development (TOD), Greenhouse (GHG) reduction, economic revitalization
• Job creation, wages from new development
• Acceleration of development and related fiscal revenues for City, County, and other taxing entities
• Attract other funding not otherwise available for projects within the community
13 Potential TIF District Formation Schedule
Tax increment allocation begins fiscal year following district formation Debt issuance, if desired, would occur after a stabilized level of tax increment has been established (may be 3-5 years) Date Task
Q4 2025 – Q4 2026
a) Conduct outreach/discussion among City staff and Council, County staff and Board of Supervisors, other relevant stakeholders
b) Final determination of TIF District boundaries, targeted projects, governing Public Financing Authority (PFA) Board composition
Jan / Feb 2027 c) City Council / Board of Supervisors consider Resolution(s) of Intention (ROI) and formally establish PFA March 2027 d) PFA directs the drafting of the Infrastructure Financing Plan (IFP) May 2027 e) Distribute draft IFP to property owners, affected taxing entities, City Council, County Board of Supervisors June 2027 f) PFA holds an initial public meeting to present the draft IFP to the public and property owners July 2027 g) City Council / Board of Supervisors consider resolution(s) approving IFP August 2027 h) PFA holds first public hearing to hear additional comments and take action to modify or reject IFP (at least 30 days after “f”)
September 2027 i) PFA holds second public hearing to consider oral and written protests and take action to terminate proceedings or adopt IFP and form the district by resolution (at least 30 days after “h”)
14 Potential Next Steps
• Address questions, receive and incorporate feedback from City staff and elected officials • Subject to analysis refinement, immediate next steps could include discussion with the County regarding potential partnership
15 THANK YOU
Questions?
Kosmont Companies
1601 N. Sepulveda Blvd. #382 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Ph: (424) 297-1070 | Fax: (424) 286-4632
www.kosmont.com
Disclaimer
16 The high-level analyses, projections, assumptions, rates of return, and any examples presented herein are for illustrative purposes and are not a guarantee of actual and/or future results. Project pro forma and tax analyses are projections only. Actual results may differ from those expressed in this analysis.
Discussions or descriptions of potential financial tools that may be available to the Client and public agencies are included for informational purposes only and are not intended to be “advice” within the context of this Analysis.
Municipal Advisory activities are conducted through Kosmont Companies’ affiliate, Kosmont Financial Services, which is Registered as a Municipal Advisor with the SEC and MSRB.
APPENDIX
17 Page 23 of 43
TIF District Alternatives
18 Climate
Resilience
District
(CRD)
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing
District
(EIFD)
Community
Revitalization
and
Investment
Authority
(CRIA)
SB 782
Disaster
Recovery
District
(DRD)
AB 1445 Downtown
Revitalization and
Economic Recovery
Financing District
(DRERFD)
The New TIF District in Town – CRDs
SB 852 Creates Climate Resilience Districts
Communicating in a Digital World
19 Purpose Allows city, county, special district, or combination of entities to form a Climate Resilience District, which can fund projects to mitigate climate change.
Powers
Broad financing powers, including the power to tax, with voter approval (and use of property tax share, with affected agency consent)
• Taxing power – can levy a benefit assessment, special tax, property-related fee, or other service charge / fee
• Other funds – can apply for and receive federal / state grants, receive gifts / grants / allocations from public and private entities
• Bonds – TIF, can issue revenue bonds, incur general obligation bonds • Administration – powers needed to administer district, like hiring staff Eligible
Projects
Wide range of eligible projects, including:
• Sea Level Rise / Flooding – sea level rise, sea walls, wetlands restoration, erosion control, levies, structure elevation / relocation, flood easements
• Extreme Weather – facilities / improvements for extreme heat, extreme cold, rain / snow • Wildfire – fire breaks, prescribed burning, structure hardening, vegetation control • Drought – land repurposing, groundwater replenishment, groundwater storage
20 CRD versus EIFD
Sample of Key Differences
Climate
Resilience
Districts (CRD)
Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing Districts
(EIFD) Both CRD
and EIFD
• Can fund operating costs, in
addition to capital and
maintenance costs
• Authority to levy a special
tax or special assessment
(similar to CFDs), in
addition to tax increment
financing (TIF) authority
• Authority to hire staff
• Can fund non-climate
resilience projects, such as
affordable housing
• Can fund climate
resilience
infrastructure,
including capital
and maintenance
costs
• Tax increment
financing (TIF)
authority
21 TIF Today versus Former Redevelopment Agencies
Sample of Differences
Former RDAs EIFDs / CRDs / CRIAs
Eligible Use of Funds • Infrastructure and affordable housing • Mixed-income housing
• Land clearing and parcel assembly
• Tax and other private business /
developer subsidies
• Public infrastructure (e.g., roads, flood
control, open space, utilities)
• Public facilities
• Affordable housing
Eminent Domain /
Condemnation
• Allowed • Not allowed
Eligible Areas • Must qualify as “blighted” • No “blight” finding required Governance • City Council or County Board
• School entity participation
• Public Financing Authority including
Public Members (no school entities)
Formation • Vote of governing body • 3 public hearings, majority protest opportunity from landowners and
registered voters within district
TIF as a Component of the Economic Development and
Public Financing Toolkit
Communicating in a Digital World
22 • There are advantages / disadvantages to TIF compared to other mechanisms, such as general obligation (GO) bonds, lease revenue bonds / certificates of participation (COPs), Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) financing, assessment districts, and other tools
• Advantages of TIF include no encumbrance of existing city/county resources, can attract tax increment contributions from other taxing entities, increased priority for grant funding, ability to demonstrate commitment to multiple infrastructure (and/or affordable housing) projects to catalyze private sector development, capacity to fund maintenance, no additional taxes to property owners / residents / businesses, and no affirmative voter approval requirement
• Disadvantages of TIF include lack of comparable financings thus far, statutory vs. constitutional authority to issue debt, and subordination to redevelopment successor agency obligations • Complementary Tool: TIF should not be considered a replacement for other useful financing mechanisms, but rather a complementary tool; other jurisdictions have been successful in utilizing TIF as well as other tools for different projects within the same community
Comparison of TIF and Other Tools
Communicating in a Digital World
23 District Type Description Revenue
Source
Approval
Structure
Use of
Funds
TIF (e.g., EIFD, CRD,
CRIA, IFD, DRD, IRFD)
Incremental property tax
revenues from new
development used to fund
local infrastructure.
Max term is 45 years from
approval to issue debt.
Incremental (new development)
property tax revenues (incl. inlieu of motor vehicle license fees, or “MVLF”) – does not
increase taxes
District formation – No vote, but
majority protest opportunity by
landowners and registered
voters
Bond issuance – No vote
needed
• Infrastructure of regional or
communitywide significance
• Maintenance
• Affordable housing
Mello-Roos Community
Facilities District (CFD)
and/or Assessment
District
Additional assessment or
“special tax” used to fund
infrastructure / services that
benefit property.
Max term is 40 years from
date of debt issuance.
New property assessment or
tax – appears as separate line
item on tax bill
District formation – 2/3 vote of
landowners or registered voters
in district*
Bond issuance – vote of elected
body (City)
• Infrastructure capital
expenditures of benefit to
landowners
• Maintenance
• Public services (e.g. safety,
programs)
General Obligation Voter-approved debt that is
repaid with “override” to 1%
tax levy; City-wide
Direct property tax levied on all
properties at same property tax
rate
2/3 vote of registered voters in
entire City
• In accordance with voterapproved bond measure
Lease Revenue / COPs General Fund-supported
borrowing, generally utilizing
City-owned assets to be
leased and leased back
General Fund (or other legally
available revenues as
determined by City)
Vote of elected body (City) • In accordance with bond
authorization
Potential funding strategy can utilize MULTIPLE mechanisms * For CFD formation, a vote of registered voters within the district boundary is required if 12 or more registered voters live therein (otherwise a vote of landowners prorated by acreage).
24 County EIFD Activity in California
County Unincorporated EIFDs
1. Humboldt County Unincorporated Samoa Peninsula
2. Los Angeles County Unincorporated West Carson
3. Madera County Unincorporated Riverstone
4. Madera County Unincorporated Tesoro Viejo
5. Madera County Unincorporated Riverwalk
6. Riverside County Unincorporated Highway 74
7. Riverside County Unincorporated Temecula Wine Country
8. Riverside County Unincorporated Eastern Coachella Valley
9. Sacramento County Unincorporated Metro Air Park
10. Sonoma West County
11. Stanislaus County Unincorporated Crow Landing Business Park
12. Placer County Sunset Area
County EIFD Partnerships with Cities
1. Los Angeles County + Carson
2. Los Angeles County + La Verne
3. Los Angeles County + Palmdale
4. Los Angeles County + Lakewood
5. Los Angeles County + Norwalk
6. Monterey County + Gonzales
7. Orange County + Placentia
8. San Joaquin County + Stockton + Lathrop + Manteca
9. Sonoma County + City of Santa Rosa
10. Los Angeles County + Artesia
11. Los Angeles County + Santa Fe Springs
Counties with EIFD Participation Policies
1. Contra Costa County
2. Los Angeles County
3. Monterey County
4. Orange County
5. Sonoma County
6. San Bernardino
7. Sacramento County
8. Santa Cruz County
9. Ventura County
25 Assessed Value Growth Assumptions for Analysis
Over 50-Year Potential District Lifetime
Note: Net assessed value growth, compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) Source: Kern County Auditor-Controller (2026)
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 Year-Over-Year Assessed Property Value Growth in Bakersfield 5-yr CAGR 10-yr CAGR 20-yr CAGR 25-yr CAGR Assumed
Actual 25-Year Average Growth @ 15.8%
Assumed growth for TIF modelling @ 4.0%
Actual 20-Year Average Growth @ 10.2%
Actual 5-Year Average Growth @ 6.3%
Actual 10-Year Average Growth @ 5.5%
26 Potential Cash Flow / Debt Issuance Approaches
• Kosmont Financial Services is in active discussions with public finance underwriters regarding TIF debt issuances in other jurisdictions
• There are several approaches for the leverage of tax increment for accelerated debt issuance (e.g., 2-3 years from district formation), for example:
a) Tax increment only
b) Overlapping TIF and CFD (CFD Backstop) – landowners / developers must be willing to pay CFD special taxes in the short term (e.g., 5-10 years) until tax increment reaches a level to cover debt service
c) Tax increment with City or County general fund backstop • There are advantages and disadvantages with each approach (e.g., upfront proceeds available, public agency risk, cost of capital)
• Additional alternatives are available if private sector partners (e.g., landowners / developers are willing to advance infrastructure funding in exchange for reimbursement from TIF proceeds)
27 TIF works better with a City/County Partnership
+ Attract Other Funding (e.g., Grants)
Other Public Sources
Cap-and-Trade / HCD & SGC grant
/ loan programs (AHSC, IIG, TCC)
Prop 4 climate funding
Prop 68 parks & open space grants
Prop1 water/sewer funds
Caltrans ATP / HSIP grants
Federal EDA / DOT / EPA
Federal IRA and IIJA direct funds
Other Private Sources
Development Agreement / impact fees
Special tax or benefit assessment district (e.g.,
CFD)
Private investment
Private tax credits available through IRA and
IIJA for climate investments
• Preferred strategy includes City and County partnership seeking 3rd party funding augmentation • TIF Districts which involve a City / County joint effort are more likely to win state grant funding sources • TIF explicitly increases scoring for CA state housing grants (e.g., IIG, AHSC, TCC)
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT
MEETING DATE: October 12, 2026 AGENDA CATEGORY:
TO: Finance, Economic Development and Jobs Committee
FROM: Randy McKeegan, Finance Director
DATE: October 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Update to General Fund Budget Forecast
[Document Description]
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Committee receive and file the presentation of the budget forecast update.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department’s Budget Office established a new long-range forecast during the 2024-25 fiscal year to build a better understanding of the sustainability of the City’s General Fund. This forecast showed that ongoing expenditures (and related growth estimates) exceeded ongoing revenues. This deficit pointed to the need to reduce City costs. The initial plan was to initiate cuts over the next three fiscal years (2026-27 through 2028-29) for a total of 16%. With the completion of the 2026-27 Budget, preliminary results of the 2025-26 fiscal year and updates to some cost elements, the Budget Office has been able to update the forecast. Staff will present the updated budget forecast and provide opportunities for discussion.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The full fiscal impact will be explained in more detail when staff does the presentation.
COUNCIL GOAL:
Innovative and Efficient City Government
ATTACHMENTS:
Five-Year
Budget Forecast
Presented to: Finance, Economic Development
& Jobs Committee
Date: October 12, 2026
Overview of Today’s Presentation
• Purpose of the forecast
• Prior-Year forecast Recap
• Current-Year Forecast Overview
• Key assumptions for current-year forecast
model
• Notable changes from prior year model
Purpose of the 5-Year Forecast
• Support long-term financial planning
• Assess sustainability of the General Fund
• Inform major policy, staffing, and program
decisions
• Provide early warning for structural
imbalances
Prior-Year Forecast Recap
Prior-Year Forecast Recap
(100,000,000)
-
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
FY 2025 (est) FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 City of Bakersfield 5-Year Projection Model - 2% COLA in 2026 & 2027, 6% reduction in FY27, 5% in FY28, 4% in FY29 & 3% in FY30 (total 18%)
Expenses Revenues Operating Profit/(Loss) Ending Fund Balance
Current-Year Forecast Overview
(100,000,000)
-
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
FY 2026 Actuals FY 2026 Projected FY 2027 Adopted
Budget
FY 2028 FY 2029 FY 2030 FY 2031 FY 2032
City of Bakersfield 5-Year Projection Model - 5% reduction in FY28, 4% in FY29, & 2% in FY30 (total of 11%) - 3.5% COLA in FY31 & FY32
Expenses Revenues Operating Profit/(Loss) Ending Fund Balance
Key Assumptions for Current-Year
Forecast
• Personnel cost growth: 4% annually
• Operating cost inflation: 2.5% annually
• Revenue growth: property tax 5%, others 3%
• PERS contributions follow actuarial valuation
• Personnel costs are projected to decrease by a
total of 11% over three years, with reductions
of 5% in FY28, 4% in FY29, and 2% in FY30.
Notable Changes from Prior-Year
Model
• Prior forecast included estimated salary savings
but now FY2026 has actuals
• Updated PERS based on the actuarial valuations
• Revenue estimates updated based on actuals for
2026 and revised Sales Tax estimates
• Other revenues improved based on 2026 actuals
• Allows for a COLA/Personnel Growth earlier (in
FY2031 vs FY2033)
Questions &
Discussion