Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/19/1988 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, September 19, 1988 Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, at 12:00 p.m., September 19, 1988. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Payne. City Clerk Williams called the roll as follows: Present: Absent: Mayor Payne. Council~nembers DeMond, Smith, Ratty, Peterson, Childs (sea~ed at 12:18 p.m.) McDermott (seated at 12:20 p.m.) Councilmember Salvaggio Mayor Payne stated that Councilmember McDermott would be late and Councilmember Salvagqio was unable to attend. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Measure "P" on Ballot, Landfill Fees. City Manager Hawley distributed copies o£ the "Argument Against Gate Fees" and "Arguments for Measure P." He stated that [t was his understanding that the Council was in support of the "Argument Against Gate Fees" and recommended that the Council review the information and take action. Mayor Payne Read the "Argument Against Gate Fees" as follows: VOTE NO ON GATE FEES! Gate fees are the most costly and inefficient way to finance our 14 County landfills. This will create millions of dollars of unnecessary costs. Gate fees will result in massive illegal dumping and establish another expensive layer of County government and bureaucracy. Every city in Kern County opposed gate fees and have endorsed the service charge concept. Unnecessary Costs Kern County will charge us over one million dollars more annually to implement gate fees for the same landfill services we now receive. Additional indirect costs have been estimated to be two million dollars annually. Kern County can't afford to have this money taken needlessly from our eco- nomy. To offset the gate fees, garbage fees will increase. The City of Bakersfield will increase residential rates $42.00 the first year, a 47% increase. Taft will increase $47.00 the first year, a 68% increase. McParland will increase $48.00 the first year. Bakersfield, California, September 19, 1988 Page 2 Illegal Dumping Gate fees were tried and failed in 1973 at only fifty cents. Trash was illegally dumped at such alarming rates that gate fees were quickly abandoned. Gate fees will cause the cost of keeping our county clean to skyrocket. If illegal dumpers aren't caught, (they seldom are), property owners can be cited, held legally and financially responsible ~or cleanup, transportation and gate fees. With gate fees and long lines much of our garbage would never make it to the dump. Why increase illegal dumping and the polluting of our environment? Arvin, Bakersfield, California City, Delano, Maricopa, McFarland, Ridgecrest, Shafter, Taft, Tehachaol and Wasco, all voted against gate fees as too expensive, inefficient and inequitable. Keep our environment safe! Avoid needless costs, added bureaucracy and keep our county clean and beautiful! Vote No on Measure "P" Councilmember Ratty made a motion to adopt the "Argument Against Gate Fees." Ruth Bomar, S.L.A.M., was recognized to answer Council's questions. Mr. Bob Bovee, consultant for sanitation haulers, Kern County Haulers Association, was recognized to speak. recessed p.m. Upon a motion by Councilmember McDermott, Mayor Payne the meeting at 12:25. The meeting reconvened at 12:42 Councilmember Ratty amended his motion to adopt the "Argument Against Gate Fees" with the following changes: Delete the words "and have endorsed the service charge concept" from the first paragraph. Delete "Kern County can't afford to have this money taken needlessly from our economy" and add "All costs will be passed on to us, from the direct cost of garbage for gardening, tires, and medical services" in the second paragraph. Change "per year" to "the first year" in the second paragraph. Delete the words "added" and "and beautiful" in the last paragraph. Bakersfield, California, September 19, 1985 - Page 3 Councilmember McDermott made a substitute motion to only go in opposition to Measure "P". Upon a motion by Councilmember Childs, the call for the question was approved. Mayor Payne restated Councilmember McDermott's motion formalize a position of opposition to Measure "P". The motion failed by the following vote: to Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Peterson, McDermott Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, None Councilmember Salvaggio Ratty Mayor Payne stated Councilmember Ratty's amended motion to adopt changes: Mayor Payne stated Councilmember the "Argument Against Gate Fees" Ratty's amended motion with the following Delete the words "and have endorsed the service charge concept" from the first paragraph. Delete "Kern County can't afford to have this money taken needlessly from our economy" and add "All costs will be passed on to us, from the direct cost of garbage for gardening, tires, and medical services" in the second paragraph. Change "per year" to "the first year" in the second paragraph. Delete the words "added" and "and beautiful" in the last paragraph. The motion was approved by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmembers Smith, Childs, DeMond, Councilmember McDermott None Councilmember Salvaggio Ratty, Peterson, Councilmember McDermott clarified his vote stating he is not voting against Measure "P" he was voting against the Council on something the Council does not have the agreement of all the parties on. He feels it i~ a useless exercise to go through this because it is very likely that the final dra£t argu- ments that come forth from S.L.A.M. are not going to be the ones that were drafted today. He feels it is more important to sup- port the arguments that appear on the ballot then the exercise they went through today. City Attorney Saalfield clarified that the ballot argu- ment against Measure "P", as approved by the Council this a£ter- noon for the Mayor's signature, is now subject to the approval of those who originally drafted it. In the event that those par- ties are not able to agree with these changes, the Council will still have the alternative of having this argument with these revisions submitted under the signature of the Council in opposi- tion. This argument will only contain the signatures of the Bakersfield, California, September 19, 1988 - Page 4 Council. City Attorney Saalfield stated his impression from this discussion is that he would not want this argument submitted sep- arately on behalf of the Council. Be stated that the County Clerk's Office would choose one of the arguments and it looks like it would be imperative, when the County Clerk's Office choose, that the Council would not take preference over the one by S.L.A.M. It ~ould be entirely up to the County Clerk as to which one to pick. His impression is that the Council would not want their argument picked over that of the other organizations. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council, upon a motion by Councilmember DeMond, the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m. ATTEST: MAYOR of the City of Bake{sfield, CA CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California bz