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