Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/06/1976 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 341 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council o£ the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City Haii at 8:00 P.M., December 6, 1976. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart foilowed by the Pledge of Aliegiance and Invocation by Councilman Donald A. Rogers. Present: Absent: The City Clerk called the roll as follows: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bteecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales None Minutes of approved as presented. the reguiar meeting of November 29, 1976 were Scheduled Public Statements. Mr. Steven V. Schmieder, 9051 Stockdale Highway, requested that the Council grant permission to move into his new home at 2205 - 23rd,Street before installation of off-street parking pad. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the matter of Mr. Schmieder's request for permission to move into his new home at 2205 23rd Street was referred to Community Development Director Foster to work out a solution. C~rrespondence. . Communication from Warner Cable TV of Kern County requesting a public hearing for a rate increase. Mr. Charles Smith, Regional Manager of Warner Cable TV, Inc., stated that he was present to answer questions of the Council. Councilman Bleecker read the following prepared statement: "Mr. Smith, before I ask you these questions I want to say that I had rather not be asking them at all. There are a number of reasons why, which I will try to explain. In a capitalistic system, the way I see it, government is supposedto promote private and free ~nterprise - not hinder it. Competition is supposedto be the great equalizer in the market place, and if government would just leave business alone everything is suppos~ to come up roses. But where competition is restricted (i.e. controlled monopolies) or 34° Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 2 where there may be collusion among competitors (anti-trust laws), government not only has the right but the obligation in certain areas (such as the setting of rates) to see that the user or buyer gets a square shake. I think that as a matter o£ practicality even though Warner or Bakersfield Cable TV do not operate under exclusive franchises, Bakersfield Cable TV is in effect locked in areawise to serving the City limits as they existed several years ago and Warner Cable TV can operate anywhere in the County including any areas as they may become annexed to the City. Actually (and I repeat - as a matter of practicality) the Greater Bakersfield area is divided into two well defined spheres of influence as far as cable TV is concerned, with Bakersfield Cable operating primarily within the City limits and Warner operating all around it. For economic reasons or for whatever other reasons I may not know about, there now physically exists two distinct and well defined spheres of influence which have a monopoly on cable TV service in the Greater Bakersfield area. If, for instance, a family residing at 2600 - 18th Street wants cable TV they must contract with Bakersfield Cable TV. They may not negotiate rate or installation charges, or service charges, etc. because these rates are set by the City Council. If the picture is bad or at times non-existent they may not contract with Warner because Warnes does not serve the area. It is impossible for the subscriber to take business elsewhere - he may only complain or have the service dis- continued. To me this is a monopoly and the same is true in the case of Warner Cable TV where they surround the City. Now, somebody may say that cable TV is not a necessity like the telephone or gas or electricity or water -this is very true - but neither is a washer and dryer or an automobile or movie houses or restaurants or microwave ovens or television sets or many, many other things people buy really absolute necessities. The aforementioned items, however, are subject to intense competition in price, availability, style, size, make, guarantees, etc., and the consumer may be confused but he has a choice - not just a do or don't choice as in the case of cable television. A much preferred situation would be if both Bakersfield and Warner Cable TV could run their lines side by side on all existing telephone poles or in all underground service areas any- where in this City or County or in any other City in the County. Since neither franchise is exclusive, I suppose they could do this. If they would, the fact of competition including rates, quality of the picture, service and available programming would soon become very Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 3 343 evident. The user would have a definite choice and I would be willing to make the motion that the Council get out of this rate setting business altogether. The cable TV companies would have to justify nothing except to the user and in the absence of any collusion on rate fixing, etc. (which is illegal anyway) the true spirit of free enterprise would have been accomplished and the user wouldn't have to look to government to solve his cable TV problems. In the absence of true competition this Council has the option to set rates, etc. I think we should exercise the option but before we do, I think we need to do and know the following: (These remarks were directed to Mr. Charles Smith, Regional Manager of Warner Cable TV) We need to set certain criteria as to what is a fair return based on net assets or based on whatever other criteria this Council may agree upon. We need to set guidelines to determine whether or not certain of your selling expenses and general and administrative expenses paid to your main New York office are appropriate and generally within the bounds of acceptable practices. The members of the Council must agree upon whether or not your investment tax credits should be added to your profit picture in determining a fair return on your invest- ment. Under current rates your gross profit could be substantially increased if you served more than 50% of the eligible subscribers. We need to know why your subscription rate is only 50%. As a layman it appears rather low to me. If it could be increased perhaps a rate increase would not be necessary. We need to know if you would consider and if Bakersfield Cable TV would consider serving all areas of Greater Bakersfield as true competitors. If not, why not? We need to know why your proposed rates are in many cases higher than Bakersfield Cable TV and higher than other cable companies performing the same service in those cities surveyed by the City of Bakersfield's Finance Department. If a business is under capitalized in the beginning and interest charges paid are used as an offset against revenues two things are accomplished: (a) As in the case of investment tax credits, interest paid is a deductible expense for tax ~urposes. 344 Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 4 (b) Interest paid and added as an expense item on a profit and loss statement decreases the profit picture. We need to know if borrowing by Warner Cable of Kern was made at arms length from an independent financial institution or were funds borrowed from the parent Warner Co. or any of its subsidiaries. If this should be the case where one branch of Warner may profit where the other branch may show a large expense, it is doubtful that the full interest expense of some $170,000 as shown in your report to the City should be allowed as an offset against revenues in figuring a profit on paper for the purpose of gaining a rate increase. Mr. Smith the Council wants to be fair to you and we certainly want you to make a profit, but in the absence of competition the Council wants to be sure and wants the user to be sure that any increases granted are just and fair. I want you to know I will do everything possible to serve you as well as the public interest, but I feel very strongly that it is up to Warner Cable TV to prove to this Council that the requested increases are absolutely necessary." Councilman Rogers made a motion that public hearing on request for a rate increase from Warner Cable TV of Kern County be set fo~,Mo~day, December 20, 1976, at 8:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. City Manager Bergen, in answer to a question, stated that if the s~aff receives the additional requested data promptly, a report with staff comments can be given to the Council, hopefully, by December 13th, or 15th at the latest, so the Council might have time to study prior to the hearing on December 20th. If the information is not received the staff will inform the Council next Monday night and a determination can be made at that time whether or not to proceed with the public hearing. Councilman Rogers' motion that the public hearing on request for a rate increase from Warner Cable TV of Kern County be set for Monday, December 20, 1976 at 8:00 P.M., in the Council Chambers of City Hail, was approved. Council Statements. Councilman Bleecker reported on the status of the Christmas Tree lights on Truxtun Avenue and stated that they will Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 5 345 be turned on around December 10th. The Fire Department has always assumed the expense of lighting the trees without a specific budget for that purpose, and prior to next Christmas season the Fire Chief intends to come to the Council with a budget request covering all aspects of maintenance, lamp replacement, labor costs, etc. Councilman Bleecker thanked Fire Chief Needham and Assistant City Manager Buell for their understanding and well evidenced Christmas spirit and stated he feels sure the Council will help the Fire Department accomplish this request next year. Reports. Councilman Rogers, Chairman of the Water and City Growth Committee, read Report NQ. 14-76 regarding Cable TV Undergrounding, as follows: On October ll, Mr. Roy Wattenbarger appeared before the Council and requested that the Council require cable television companies to participate with other utilities in paying their portions-of installing trenches for undergrounding utilities in new subdivisions. This Committee was asked to study the matter and bring it back to the Council for appropraite action. Over the last severa~ months, the Committee has met with Mr. Wattenbarger and a major d~¥eloper in.the city, as well as with representatives of Warner Cable and Bakers- field'Cable to determine what practices are currently in effect. Mr. Wattenbarger indicated that up until January 1, 1975, Warner Cable was paying.a. proportionate share of the trenching costs. In discussions with the cable cgmpanies,~ it was determined by the Committee that this had, in fact, been the case and.was done so to hono a commitment which had been made by Warner Cable's predecessor, Cypress Cable TV. After that commitment by Cypress was fulfilled, Warner Cable, as a matter of corporate policy, did not continue to pay trenching costs. Bakersfield Cable TV ha~ never participated in trenching costs. The amount of proportionat~ cost to be paid by a contractor is dependent upon the number of agencies which share a common trench. For example, if the gas company, electric company, telephone company, and the cable company were all to use.the sa~e trench for undergrounding Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 6 their utilities, then each of the utilities, except cable, would pay their proportionate share and the remaining one-fourth would be paid by the contractor. It was further brought out that the undergrounding of cable television does not have nearly as restrictive a require- ment as the other utilities. For example, requirements for gas lines are that the trench must be approximately a foot wide and four feet deep, whereas the cable companies need only a trench six inches wide by approximately a foot deep and, therefore, it is the cable companies' contention that they would be required to pay a disproportionate share of the cost as compared to what their actual needs would be. It was also brought out by the cable companies that they already install, at their own costs, both the conduit and the cabling necessary for installation of the cable television system, and that the only issue here is just the actual trenching costs. Cable television cannot recapture its costs the way utility companies can, since there is no way of knowing precisely how many residents will hook up to the cable. Cable company representatives indicated that, in general terms, they only expect to have 50 percent of an area. This makes their cost recovery much more difficult than a utility company with a 100 percent hookup. After considerable discussion by the Committee, it is our recommendation that the current practice of having the contractors pay for their portion of the cable trenching be continued. Mayor Hart announced that due to a real or imaginary conflict of interest he will not participate in or preside over this discussion. Mr. Roy Wattenbarger, local subdivider and builder, stated that he disagrees with the findings listed in the report and feels that the cable TV companies should pay their proportionate share of the trenching. City Attorney Hoagland stated, in answer to a question, that it is part of the City Subdivision Ordinance, that when a subdivision in being developed that utilities must be installed, including cable television. Mr. Betdell Dickinson, 3904 Panorama Drive, stated that trenching for utility cables is expensive and not as simple as it Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 7 347 sounds, and he feels the cable television should pay their share of the costs. Mr. Dickinson stated that the cable TV companies have always paid their share of the trenching and they just recently decided not pay for this service. Councilman Rogers stated that Mr. Howard Charmell, General Manager of Bakersfield Cable TV, stated in a Water and City Growth Committee meeting that they have never paid for any trenching. During a lengthy discussion, Councilman Rogers made a motion that any action on Report No. 14-76 of the Water and City Growth Committee regarding Cable TV Undergrounding, be deferred until the committee can meet again with all interested parties and then return to the Council with a report and recommendation. Councilman Barton called for the motion to be acted upon. Councilman Strong requested that the Water and City Growth Committee give consideration to Mr. Wattenbarger's concern that their findings might have some results on his pending litigation regarding a claim. Councilman Rogers' motion that any 14-76 of the Water and City Growth Committee action on Report No. regarding Cable ?V Undergrounding, be deferred until the committee can meet again with all interested parties and then return to the Council with a report and recommendation, was approved. Councilman Rogers stated he would like to recognize Mr. Howard Channell, General Manager of Bakersfield Cable TV, who is in the audience, and have him make a brief statement regarding whether or not they have ever paid or are now paying for trenching costs. Councilman Christensen made a motion that the discussion on the trenching costs for cable television be tabled. This motion Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 8 failed to carry by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Christensen Noes: Councilmen Strong, Bleecker, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Absent: None Mr. Howard Channell, General Manager of Bakersfield Cable TV, stated that he has been in Bakersfield a little over six years and they have not paid trenching costs, it has always been provided for by the developer. Mr. Dickinson stated that he would produce documents from Pacific Gas & Electric Company showing that Bakersfield Cable TV was assessed for a portion of the trenching. Councilman Barton suggested that the Water and City Growth Committee consider removing cable television as a utility from the ordinance and then it would not be mandatory to provide this service to subdivisions. Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read Report No. 17-76 regarding Establishment of City Water Department, as follows: At the request of the City Council, the Govern- mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee met with the staff this past week to work out the details for establishing the City's new Department of Water. Attached to this report are two detailed organizational charts which this committee is proposing for tentative approval tonight by the City Council. The reason for the two proposed organizational charts is that there is still some question whether North Kern Water District will enter into an agreement with the City, whereby, we would maintain their canal system. If North Kern decides to maintain their own operation then the number of personnel needed by the City would be substantially decreased. By approving the two plans tonight the staff can proceed with contacting potential employees as soon as it is decided which of the two plans will be put into effect. Hopefully this decision will be forthcoming tomorrow. Official action by the Council can then be taken tomorrow by approving the necessary resolutions and emergency ordinances. In order to avoid any further delays we are requesting tentative Council approval tonight as follows: Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 9 949 1. Creation of a new City Department to be known as the Department of Water. Tentative approval of the attached organi- zational charts with £inal approval as to which plan to follow pending the decision of North Kern Water District. Tentative approval of the attached job speci£ications for the classifications of Water Manager; Assistant Water Manager; Water Superintendent; Water Dispatcher I; Water Dispatcher II; ttydrographer I; Hydrographer II; Canal Tender; Laborer; Equipment Operator III; Weed Controller; and Accountant II. Tentative approval to bring into the work force of the City without examination, those employees of Tenneco West, Inc., whose primary duties were confined to the operation of the water and canal system. Tentative approval to credit said employees with five days sick leave for each full year of employment with Tenneco West, Inc., up to the maximum allowable to all City employees. Tentative approval for vacation eligibility as follows: From and after January 1, 1977, said employees shall be credited with the length of time employed by Tenneco West, Inc., as if they had worked for the City during said period. Accrual and use of such vacation rights shall be in accordance with the City's vacation ordinance from and after January l, 1977. In order to implement this report we are recom- mending that the City Council instruct the City Attorney to draw up the necessary resolutions and ordinances for final adoption by the City Council at tomorrow night's continued Council meeting. After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Report No. 17-76 of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee regarding Establishment o£ City Water Department, was accepted; the six recommendations as outlined in the report, were approved; and the City Attorney was instructed to draw up the necessary resolutions and ordinances for final adoption by the City Council at tomorrow night's continued Council meeting. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Memorandum from the Acting Public Works Director to the City Manager, dated Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page l0 December 6, 1976, regarding Service Agreement - Bakersfield Sub- regional Wastewater Management Plan, was received and ordered placed on file. Consent Calendar. The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar: (a Allowance of Claims Nos. 2034 to 2104, inclusive, in the amount of $251,474.01. (b Street Right-of-Way Deed from Plaza Realty Investors as required by the Planning Commission for Parcel Map No. 3889, provides additional right-of-way on Gibson and extension of Burr Street. (C Street Right-of-Way Deeds providing fifteen feet of additional right-of-way for Planz Road from "H" Street to McCourry Street from: Planz Road Baptist Church of Bakersfield; Lydia M. Brackeen; Department of Veterans Affairs for Louis Eynaud; Louis Eynaud; Columbus and Margie L. Foster (2 each); Derrell A. and Elizabeth J. Hanson: Deanie Jane Bolles; Cecil V. and Aubry Lee Banthrall; Phenix P. and Mildred Z. Polston; Troy and Vivian F. Lasater; Earnest D. and Nadine Alspaw; William H. and Irene R. Simpson; Jess R. and Gloria Martinez; Charley N. and Mary E. White; Bobby G. Jr. and Helen J. Kiser; and a Public Utilities Easement from Charley N. and Mary E. White. (d) Notice of Completion and Acceptance of Work on Street and Sewer Improvements under Tract No. 3786 - Contract No. 76-45 with Tenneco Realty Devleopment Corporation. (e) Plans and Specifications for "Improvement of Planz Road between "H" Street and McCourry Street,,, Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Items (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilman Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Noes: None Absent: None Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 352 Action on Bids. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of R. L. Grosh and Sons Scenic Studios for Theatrical Curtains for Civic Auditorium-Installed, was accepted and the other bid rejected. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Rose Chemical Company for Annual Contract for Water Treatment Chemicals, was accepted, the other bid rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, high bid of T. J. Jamieson of the J. T. Company for 15 plus acres of surplus real property (Eissler Park Site), was accepted and the other bid rejected; exercise of option with Parr Investment Company, dated October 16, 1976, for real property located at intersection of University Avenue and Camden Street for park purposes, establish an escrow for the appropriate mutual exchange of money and deeds and other requirements, were approved. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, low base bid of Peter C. David Company for construction of Northwest Bakersfield Drain - Phase II, was accepted, all other alternates and bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. Deferred Business. Adoption of Ordinance No. 2305 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 17.46.020, 17.46.030, 17.46.040, 17.46.100, 17.46.120, Subsection (8) of Section 17.46.130; adding Sections 17.46.045, 17.46.125 and repealing Subsection (9) of Section 17.46.130 o£ Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code concerning the Flood Plain Zones. Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Ordinance No. 2305 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 17.46.020, 17.46.030, 17.46.040, 17.46.100, 17.46.120, Subsection (8) of Section 17.46.130; adding Sections 17.46.045, 17.46.125 and repealing Subsection (9) of Section 17.46.130 of Chapter 17.46 of the Municipal Code concerning the Flood Plain Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 12 Ayes: Noes: Absent: was adopted by Councilmen None None the following roll call vote: Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Rogers, Sceales New Business. Adoption of Resolution of Intention No. 916 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its inten- tion to order the vacation of a Public Utilities Easement south of Panorama Drive and easterly of Crescent Drive, in the City of Bakersfield. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Resolution of None None Intention No. 916 of the Council declaring its intention to order Easement south of Panorama Drive in the City of Bakersfield and setting January 3, on the matter before the Council, was adopted by roll call vote: Ayes Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Rogers, Sceales Noes Absent: field Medders, of the City of Bakersfield the vacation of a Public Utilities and easterly of Crescent Drive, 1977 for hearing the following Approval of request from Bakers- field Investment and Realty Co. to withdraw application for amendment to Land Use Element of the Bakers- field Area General Plan concerning that property commonly known as 2401 Panorama Drive. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, request Investment and Realty Company to withdraw their Christensen, Medders, from Bakers- application for an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Area General Plan concerning that property commonly known as 2401 Panorama Drive, was approved. Approval of Boundaries of proposed Annexation designated as Ming No. 8. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Annexation boundaries designated as Ming No. 8, located across from the Valley Plaza Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 13 353 Shopping Center at the northeast corner o£ Hughes Lane and Ming Avenue and containing approximately 1.6 acres of uninhabited territory, were approved and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFCO. Approval of Boundaries of proposed Annexation designated as Fairfax No. 1. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Annexation boundaries designated as Fairfax No. l, located north and east of Highland High School and containing approximately 95.7 acres of uninhabited territory, were approved and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFCO. Approval of Boundaries o£ proposed Annexation designated as Manor No. 1. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Annexation boundaries designated as Manor No. l, located east of Manor Street and north of the Kern River Bluffs and containing approximately 18.07 acres of uninhabited territory, were approved and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral to LAFCO. Hearings. This is the time set for public hearing before the Council of the City of Bakersfield on the initiated action by the Planning Commission to Zone Upon Annexation to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, that certain property in the County of Kern located between Talisman Drive on the north and Ming Avenue on the south, known as Ming No. 7 Annexation. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. The majority of this 2.83 acre parcel is undeveloped. The surrounding properties are zoned R-1 and are developed with single family homes, both in the City and in the unincorporated area with the exception of a portion on the west which is developed with a church. The Planning Commission found the proposed zoning 354 Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 14 upon annexation consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and recommended approval of the R-1 zoning. Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- pation. No protests or objections being received, the public portion of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Sceales, Ordinance No. 2306 ~w Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter 17.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield and find said Zoning Upon Annexation consistent with the General Plan, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Medders, Rogers, Sceales Noes: None Absent: None This is the time set for public hearing before the Council of the City of Bakersfield on the initiated action of the Planning Commission to Zone Upon Annexation to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling), or more restrictive, Zone, that certain property in the County of Kern located near the northwest corner of the inter- section of Edwards Avenue and Sandy Lane, known as Bernard No. 2 Annexation. This hearing has been duly advertised, the property posted and the property owners have been notified as required by law. Subject triangular parcel contains .42 acres and is undeveloped. Surrounding properties are zoned R-1 and are undeveloped except for single family dwellings on both the east and south corners. There is a City approved tentative subdivision map containing six family lots on this property and adjacent properties within the City. The Planning Commission found Annexation would be consistent with the General Plan and recommended approval the proposed Zoning Upon Land Use Element of the of the R-1 zoning. Bakersfield, California, December 6, 1976 - Page 15 855 pation. portion of the action. Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, Ordinance No. 2307 New Series amending Section 17.12.020 of Chapter l?.12 (Zoning Map) of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield and find said Zoning Upon Annexation consistent with the General Plan, was adopted by the following roll call vote: Ayes Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici- No protests or objections being received, the public hearing was closed for Council deliberation and Noes Absent: Councilmen Strong, Rogers, None None Upon a motion Barton, Bleecker, Christensen, Sceales Recess. by Councilman Christensen, recessed the regular meeting at 7, 1976 at 8:00 P.M. 9:55 P.M., until Medders, the Council Tuesday, December Calif. ATTEST: CITY C~FYRK and Ex-Off~io Clerk of the Council of the' City of Bakers~ield, California ma