HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/04/1991 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, June 4, 1991
Minutes of the Budget Hearings of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 5:15 p.m., June 4, 1991.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Medders.
City Clerk Williams called the roll as follows:
Present:
Absent:
Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith,
McDermott, Salvaggio
None
Brunni, Peterson,
ORAL PRESENTATION
Assistant to the City Manager stinson made an oral
presentation advising that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to
conduct a number of hearings relative to the Fiscal Year 1991-92
Budget and to accept public comment for the Council to take under
consideration in their deliberation of the Budget. Additionally,
he gave a brief overview of the hearings to be covered.
HEARINGS
Protest hearing by property owners on the
amount of assessments or the fairness of the
benefit formula for maintaining certain local
improvements to be borne by all parcels of
property within Maintenance District Nos.
through 6, and Nos. S through 26.
These hearings have been duly advertised, posted and
property owners notified as required by law.
synopsis
general.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a
of the history regarding maintenance districts, in
Mayor Medders declared the hearing open for public
participation for Districts 1 through 6 and Districts 8 through 26,
with each District to be heard one at a time.
Councilmember McDermott made a motion, with respect to
park maintenance districts, to continue the 25 percent reduction in
the double taxation, which would amount to a cost to the City of
about $159,000.
Mayor Medders left the meeting at 5:50 p.m. and Vice
Mayor Peterson chaired the meeting at this time.
Councilmember McDermott amended his motion to change the
subsidy on park maintenance districts to 33 percent, instead of 25
percent.
Councilmember Salvaggio recommended that, in the future,
when new proposals come before Council regarding maintenance
districts, a memo be sent from staff explaining what has been done
in the past and what is being recommended as the new proposal.
37
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 2
Vice Mayor Peterson advised that Mayor Medders had to
leave the meeting for a ceremonial duty and would be back later.
At the request of Vice Mayor Peterson, Councilmember
McDermott restated his motion to reduce the double taxation in the
park maintenance district by 33 percent, the City contribution to
those districts. The motion was approved by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Councilmembers Smith, Brunni, Peterson, McDermott,
Salvaggio
Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond
None
None
Councilmember Brunni made a motion that the amount in the
streetscape and the median landscape districts be reduced by 8
percent with the City contribution. The motion failed by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Councilmembers Brunni, Peterson, Salvaggio
Councilmembers Edwards, DeMond, Smith, McDermott
None
None
Vice Mayor Peterson declared the hearing open for public
participation for all of the Maintenance Districts at this time.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. i pays for
maintenance of median landscaping along
Gosford Road and street landscaping along
Gosford Road, Kro11 Way, and Camino Media
(vineyards).
Communication has been received from
President, The Vineyards Homeowners Association,
Street, in opposition to the assessment.
Derek E. Eck,
8217 Birmingham
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report on Maintenance District No. 1 and advised that the 1990-91
assessments were $5.86 for the Springs-Brookhaven medians, and it
is proposed that they be $9.33 this year; the Edgewater median only
was $5.86 in 1990-91 and it is proposed for $9.33; the Shores
median only was $8.61 and is proposed for $13.84; the Vineyards
medians only was $10.04 and is proposed for $16.09; and the
Vineyards streetscape only was $176.34 and is proposed for $213.29.
He further advised that the major reasons for the changes are the
addition of administrative costs and overhead in the amount of
$8,547.00, and general operating costs have increased.
Vice Mayor Peterson declared the hearing open for public
participation for Maintenance District No. 1 at this time.
Mr. Derek Eck, 8217 Birmingham Street, President of the
Vineyards Homeowners Association, spoke in opposition to the
increase in the landscaping maintenance tax for 1991-92, and
submitted a letter and petition with signatures of individuals from
144 homes.
Councilmember McDermott suggested that Council talk about
each district in order to give the people some indication of where
Council may go on each issue.
Mayor Medders returned to the meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 3
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 pays
maintenance of ~mberton Park.
for
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 2.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 pays for
maintenance of Campus Park north and Campus
Park south; median landscaping and street
landscaplng along Old River Road, White Lane,
Gosford Road, District Boulevard, Park View
Drive, and Pin Oak Boulevard.
Communication has been received from Lawrence D. Dillin,
9404 Steinbeck Lane, in opposition to the assessment.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report on Maintenance District No. 3 and advised that the cost per
single family in 1990-91 was $38.63 and is proposed for $139.05.
He stated that the large increase can be explained by the fact that
the reserve within the account has been decreased by $148,461 in
this past year, so there's not a large carryover this year. In
addition, the administrative costs and overhead included in this
year's budget amounts to $25,493.
Mr. Donald Kurtz, 9504 Thoreau Avenue, Campus Park,
criticized staff and stated he felt that City staff is not
responding to the needs of the citizens that live in the assessment
districts and they have not answered the Councilmembers' questions.
Mr. Henry Walker, 8909 Andrew Court, South Campus Park,
spoke in opposition, specifically with respect to the parks
assessment, and stated it needs to be defined where the separation
is with regard to how much of the assessment is for parks and how
much is median and streetscapes.
Mr. Bob Bono, 9001 Thurber Lane, expressed his concern
regarding the parkways and streetways which have been redone when
there was no need to.
Jeanine Kaiser, 9225 Lanneau Court, Campus Park, stated
she would like to know why the assessment fluctuates so much over
the past three years. She also expressed her concern that she is
paying for a park that everyone can use but not everyone in the
City is paying for being able to do so.
In response to Mayor
Superintendent Fabbri provided an
fluctuation of the assessment.
Medders' request, Parks
explanation regarding the
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 pays for
maintenance of Pin Oak Park and Garden Park;
median landscaping and street landscaping
along Old River Road, White Lane, Gosford
Road, Park View Drive, and Pin Oak Boulevard
(The Oaks).
Communication has been received from the following in
opposition to the assessment:
Daniel Sadowsky, 9500 Eagle Oak Road;
Pamela L. Cline, 9612 Lea Oak Road;
James M. Windle;
Mekale K. Elliott, 9404 Huntsman Oak Court;
Michael A. Collins, 3201 Morning Oak View;
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 4
John A. and Jennifer A. Williams, 9516
Huntsman Oak Court;
Gary and Janice Hemingway, 2620 Mountain Oak
Road;
Alma D. and Gilbert Cisneros, 9713 Green Oak
Place;
Howard N. Eddy, 9416 Meadow Leaf Court;
G. E. Littlejohn, 9405 Wandering Oak Drive;
David and Kathy Wright, 3204 Morning Oak View;
Enrique J. Salinas, 9604 Red Oak Court;
Ruben R. Garcia, 8713 Summer Creek Road;
Jim and Shirley Iseminger, 9000 Bridlewood
Lane;
John and Patricia Campbell, 3201 Bridlewood
Court; and
Mary Jo Kasselman, 9709 Green Oak Place.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report on Maintenance District No. 4 and advised that for a single
family residence in 1990-91, the assessment was $150.83. Proposed
for 1991-92 is $239.64, not including the 33 percent subsidy. The
major reason for this rather large increase is that the reserve in
the account has decreased by $91,275. Administrative costs and
overhead included in this year's budget amounts to $30,259.
Ms. Kathy Eddy, resident of Maintenance District No. 4,
requested that Council reject the proposed assessment of $239 and
agree on a fee more in keeping with last year's assessment. She
stated that she thinks the maintenance crews do a good job caring
for the landscaping in her area and in the park, and note that
crews work on Sunday. She suggested that maybe some of the
overtime on the weekends could be trimmed to save money, and if the
crews are not paid overtime for working on the weekends, maybe a
less busy day in mid-week could go without staffing to save funds.
Additionally, Ms. Eddy requested that Council continue to explore
the possibility of a City-wide or Metropolitan Area maintenance
district and to find an equitable solution so that all the
residents of Bakersfield are responsible for all of the parks.
Ms. Pam Cline, 9612 Lea Oak Road, spoke in opposition to
the assessment and advised that this particular maintenance
district was not voted on by the people living in the district.
Ms. Cline stated she would like to know what method is used for
determining when trees and plants should be removed, and if she
will be paying for it. She further stated that the only equitable
solution to the double taxation that the people in the southwest
are currently facing is to have one City-wide park maintenance
district, and she urged Council to move forward on this.
Ms. Michelle Wilkinson, 9700 Spring Oak Drive, spoke and
presented 20 letters with signatures in protest of the proposed
increase in the assessment. Ms. Wilkinson stated she thinks it is
imperative that some sort of action be taken throughout the City to
get everyone who is using the parks to pay for them.
Mr. Walt Knieling, 9812 Spring Oak Drive, spoke in
opposition to the assessment.
4O
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 5
The meeting recessed at 7:15 p.m. and reconvened at 7:50
Dim,
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 5 pays for
maintenance of Haggin Oaks Park, median
landscaping and wall planters along Scarlet
Oak Boulevard, and Haggin Oaks Boulevard.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that in 1990-91, the Fiscal Year assessment was
$29.51 and the 1991-92 proposed is $185.54 before allocation of the
33 percent subsidy. The major change for the large increase is
that the reserve has been decreased by $72,409, and the
administrative costs and overhead attributed to this district is
$11,185.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 5.
MAINTENA/~CE DISTRICT NO. 6 pays for
maintenance of median landscaping and street
landscaping along Ming Avenue, Gosford Road,
Brookside Drive, and Westwold Drive (Parkside
Village South).
Communication has been received from Richard and Nellie
Hatcher, 3021 Woodglen Drive, in opposition to the assessment.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that in 1990-91, the Fiscal Year assessment for
a single family was $22.55 and proposed for this year is $59.27.
The basis for this change is that the reserve account has decreased
by $29,284 to a deficit condition of -$11,000. Administrative
costs and overhead of $5,849 have been charged to the district, and
this district was also under-budgeted in Fiscal Year 1990-91.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 6.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8 pays for
maintenance of street landscaping along
College Avenue and Fairfax Road.
Communication has been received from Thomas and Alberta
Poor, 2315 "Q" Street, in opposition to the assessment.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the assessment in 1990-91 was $4.95 and
proposed for 1991-92 is $2.91. The change is largely attributable
to the fact that the deficit in the account decreased by $6,930.
Councilmember McDermott suggested it may be more
appropriate for one-time costs to absorb it or spread it out over
several years, as opposed to putting it all into one year, and
maybe it should be looked at between now and when these assessments
are approved so that the City will run a deficit and pick up that
portion of it over that period of time.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 8.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 6
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 9 pays for
maintenance of Jenkins Park and street
landsoaplng along Stockdale Highway and
Jenkins Road.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the 1990-91 assessment was $52.74. The
proposed 1991-92 assessment, without considering the 33 percent
subsidy, is $47.88. The major reason for the change is that the
reserve in the account increased by $3,032, and the administrative
and overhead costs offset some of that by the amount of $4,052.
Apparently, there was some decrease in operating costs or more
parcels.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 9.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 10 pays for
maintenance of street landscaping along Hughes
Lane and Pacheco Road (ARCO).
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the assessment in 1990-91 was zero dollars.
Proposed for 1991-92 is $7.41. The reason for that is that the
reserve decreased by $6,590, and includes administrative costs and
overhead in the amount of $1,537.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 10.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 11 does not have any
parks, street landscaping nor median
landscaping constructed; therefore, no
assessment is proposed for fiscal year 1991-
92.
No protest one spoke regarding Maintenance District
No. 11.
Councilmember Brunni advised that there will be a
neighborhood meeting at 7:30 p.m., June 12th, at the home of Mr.
Brownell, 9409 Bracken Oak, regarding Maintenance District No. 4,
and anyone interested is invited to attend. Mr. Brownell's office
number is 831-7882.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 12 pays for
maintenance of street landscaping along Ming
Avenue and E1 Portal Drive (El Portal).
Communication has been received from Steven and Linda
Cook, 2001 Calle Los Camichin, in protest to the assessment.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the assessment for 1990-91 was $202.92.
Proposed for 1991-92 is $290.73. The reason for this large
increase is that the deficit has increased by $1,011 within the
account. Administrative costs and overhead in the amount of $1,073
has been added to the account. It was under-budgeted in Fiscal
Year 1990-91, and it is a small district of only 49 parcels to
share the cost.
Mr. David Frost, 2009 Calle Las Brisas, spoke in
opposition to the assessment and suggested Council investigate this
in detail to try to understand what type of costs are being passed
on to homeowners because it seems grossly excessive.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 7
Ms. Kathleen Brown, 2012 Calle Las Brisas, spoke in
opposition to the assessment and submitted letters of protest from
homeowners within Maintenance District No. 12.
Mr. Jack Smith, 7300 Callejonde Benicia, spoke in
opposition to the assessment. He proposed that the City be
required to provide to the homeowners in the maintenance districts
an accounting of the money that is spent for the actual costs of
services it provides, and that there be formal representation and
input into what is done about the level and quality of services
provided. Mr. Smith stated that the costs the City charges for
these services should be derived from competitive bids from private
contractors, rather than from a cost accounting system which
attempts to quantify all the City overhead components. He further
stated that if the City cannot provide the service at a competitive
rate, then it should become more efficient or it should use
private, outside contractors.
Councilmember McDermott requested that staff make the
budget available to the homeowners in the area.
Councilmember McDermott urged the homeowners to designate
a couple of people in their group to meet with Parks Superintendent
Fabbri and his staff to go over what level of service the City
should be providing to that area.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 13 pays for
maintenance of median landscaping along White
Lane and Saddle Drive (Tevis).
Communication has been received from Chriss Christensen,
3516 Via Capilla, and from Lloyd and Deborrah Wakelee, 10505 and
10517 Sunset Canyon Drive, in opposition to the assessment.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the 1990-91 Fiscal Year assessment was
$9.03. Proposed for 1991-92 is $18.83. The reasons for the
increase is that the reserve within the account decreased by
$2,901. Administrative and overhead costs of $707 are included,
and this includes a .21-acre increase in the streetscape from the
prior year.
Mr. Lloyd Wakelee, 10505 and 10517 Sunset Canyon Drive,
spoke in favor of a City-wide assessment of the park system.
Additionally, he advised that he objects to the way in which the
mailing notices have come out to the people regarding the
assessment. He feels it alludes to park maintenance and things
that are not in the district assessment. Mr. Wakelee also advised
that he does not object to the streetscape maintenance in
Maintenance District No. 13.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 14 pays for
maintenance of Challenger Park, located at
Harris Road and Akers Road. Those
subdivisions along Panama Lane which have
street landscaping on Panama Lane also pay for
maintenance of street landscaping.
Communication has been received from the following in
opposition to the assessment:
Norma Garcia, 4608 Countrywood Lane;
Ricardo and Zenaida Cezar, 4616 Cascade Falls
Court;
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 8
Michael L. Brughelli, 4601 Country Wood Lane;
Dorothy Farmer, 4504 Blossom Valley Lane; and
Dan and Inge Kaplan, 6012 Ringwood Street.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that in 1990-91, the single family assessment
was $14.05. Proposed for 1991-92 is $18.64. The change is
accounted for by a decrease of $4,361 in the carryover and adding
$13,178 administrative cost and overhead.
Mr. Dan Kaplan, 6012 Ringwood Street, spoke in opposition
to the assessment.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 15 pays for
maintenance of median landscaping and street
landscaping along Wible Road (Auto Mall).
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the 1990-91 Fiscal Year assessment for
commercial property was $132.16 an acre. The proposed 1991-92
assessment is $93.29. The change is accounted for by the deficit
being decreased by $7,576, and that was offset somewhat by the
administrative costs and overhead being included in the amount of
$1,001.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 15.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 16 pays for
maintenance landscaping and street landscaping
in the Laborde Annexation Area (Rancho
Laborde).
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the 1990-91 Fiscal Year assessment for a
single family was $11.20. Proposed for 1991-92 is $22.65. It is
accounted for by the deficit increasing in the account by $8,024,
and adding administrative costs and overhead of $18,434. There
were 4.84 acres of streetscape added, and the project was under-
budgeted in 1990-91.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 16.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 17 pays for
maintenance of Wilderness Park; median
landscaping and street landscaping along
Gosford Road and Harris Road (Silver Creek).
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the 1990-91 Fiscal Year assessment for a
single family was $48.90. The 1991-92 Fiscal Year assessment is
proposed for $67.24, before the 33 percent subsidy. The reason for
the change is that the reserve has decreased by $12,906.
Administrative costs and overhead in the amount of $13,775 was
added. In addition, approximately one-half acre of streetscape was
added to the district. This was also under-budgeted in 1990-91.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 17.
44
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 9
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 18 pays for
maintenance of a slope westerly of Fairfax
Road and northerly of Panorama Drive.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that there was no assessment in 1990-91.
Proposed for 1991-92 is $39.73. The change is accounted for by the
reserve decreasing $3,292 and administrative costs of $607 being
added.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 18.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 19. The portion of
the district north of Fairview Road pays for
maintenance of stiern Park. Those
subdivisions along Panama Lane which have
street landscaping on Panama Lane also pay for
maintenance of street landscaping
(Greenfield).
Communication has been received from the following in
opposition to the assessment:
Kelly Cornelius, 1313 Malerbi Court;
Ken and Kay Cornelius, 1321 Malerbi Court; and
Patricia A. Davis.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the 1990-91 Fiscal Year assessment was
$25.95 for a single family. Proposed is $35.75, before the park
subsidy. The streetscape for a single family was $22.09 and
proposed is $33.85. The reasons for the changes are the deficit in
the account increased by $3,320, administrative and overhead costs
of $12,904 have been added to the account, the park budget for
1990-91 was only for nine months and this project was also under-
budgeted in Fiscal Year 1990-91.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 19.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 20 pays for
maintenance of street landscaping along
Bernard Street (East Hills Mall).
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that for commercial property, the 1990-91 Fiscal
Year assessment was $81.29. Proposed for 1991-92 is $117.62
accounted for by the fact that the reserve decreased by $870, and
administrative costs and overhead was added on in the amount of
$970.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 20.
MAINTENANCE
maintenance
Brimhall Road
DISTRICT NO. 21 pays for
of street landscaping along
(Rosedale).
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the single family assessment in 1990-91 was
$1.27. Proposed for 1991-92 is $2.28. The deficit in the account
increased by $1,057. Administrative costs and overhead in the
amount of $2,122 have been added. There were also .17 acres of
streetscape added during this Fiscal Year. It was also under-
budgeted in 1990-91.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 10
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 21; however, Councilmember Brunni advised that she
spoke with Mr. Bill Roper earlier in the day, and she would like it
noted for the record that Mr. Roper is in opposition to the
assessment.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. ZZ pays for
maintenance of street landscaping along
Fruitvale Avenue and Ollve Drive.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the single family assessment for 1990-91
was $51.75. Proposed for 1991-92 is $50.15. The various factors
that changed here was that the deficit decreased by $4,223.
Administrative costs and overhead in the amount of $1,729 is
included. This project was also under-budgeted in 1990-91.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 22.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 23 pays for the
maintenance of street landscaping along Old
River Road and White Lane.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper provided a brief
report and advised that the single family assessment for 1990-91
was $23.81. The proposed assessment for 1991-92 is zero dollars.
This is accounted for by the fact that the carryover increased by
$82,589, and the developer assessed for landscaping in the 1990-91
Fiscal Year was not installed and created the large carryover. It
is anticipated there will be a balance of $29,953 carried over into
Fiscal Year 1992-93.
No one spoke regarding the assessment on Maintenance
District No. 23.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 24 does not have any
street landscaping constructed; therefore, no
assessment is proposed for Fiscal Year 1991-
92.
No one spoke regarding Maintenance District No. 24.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 25 does not have any
street landscaping nor median landscaping
constructed; therefore, no assessment is
proposed for Fiscal Year 1991-92 (Rio Bravo).
No one spoke regarding Maintenance District No. 25.
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 26 pays for
maintenance of street landscaping along Oswell
Street.
Assistant Public Works Director Kloepper advised that
there is no assessment proposed for Maintenance District No. 26.
Mayor Medders advised that this concludes the maintenance
districts.
Councilmember Brunni requested that staff provide the
people at tonight's meeting in Ward 4 with the budget material she
had received, in order to help them understand from where the
figures came.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1991 - Page 11
Councilmember McDermott requested that staff go back and
look at some of the issues raised this evening, specifically with
respect to allocating all the cost in one year or running a little
deficit for the one-time costs, and the tremendous jumps in one
year in several of the districts that were not accounted for by the
administrative and overhead costs. He recommended that, before the
assessments are confirmed, the matter be referred to the Budget and
Finance Committee, and brought back on June 19th to confirm the
assessments. Additionally, Councilmember McDermott requested that
the Councilmember that has concerns about a particular district to
give those to the Committee.
Councilmember DeMond made a motion to continue the
remainder of the hearings to June 5, 1991, at 5:15 p.m.
Mayor Medders advised that there were two people in the
audience wishing to speak on the Operating Budget.
Ms. Josephine Deerda (phonetic), Kern City, asked for
more information regarding the proposed 40 percent increase, from
$98 to $138, for a single family residential refuse collection.
Additionally, she asked if consideration was going to be given to
senior citizens.
Councilmember McDermott responded that the Budget and
Finance Committee will be recommending that the single family
residential refuse collection be $107 instead of $138.
Additionally, he advised that it would still be the policy of the
Council that seniors who are 65 and older, just simply by
presenting proof of that to the City, will have their fee cut in
half.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon a motion by Councilmember DeMond,
adjourned to 5:15 p.m., June 5, 1991.
the meeting was
MA~o~f the C~ty ~
/~6w '~'of Bakersfield, CA
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, CA
ndw