Loading...
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