HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/1986 MINUTES CCBakersfield, California, October 15, 1986
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
City Hall at 7:00 p.m., October 15, 1986.
The meeting was called to order by Vice-Mayor Childs,
followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Reverend
Steve Yeary of the First Assembly of God Church.
Vice-Mayor Childs stated, for the record, that the rea-
son the Mayor is not present is because he is out of town.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Saivaggio, Smith, Childs,
Christensen, Dickerson
Absent: Mayor Payne
PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Art Rockoff, member of the Board of Directors of the
Civic Light Opera, expressed appreciation to the City for its
enthusiastic acceptance of the production of Evita. He introduced
Evita cast members and presented tickets to the Council and the
Mayor.
Against
to adopt
Carlos Lopez, Kern County Chair of Californians United
Proposition 63, 1606 Beale Avenue, encouraged the Council
a resolution in opposition to Proposition 63.
Roy Malahowski, 5016 Pamela Street, with No On
Proposition 63, spoke in opposition to Proposition 63.
HEARINGS
This is the time set for a public hearing
on an appeal by JAMES G. BAILEY to
Condition No. 3, of an approved
Conditional Use Permit allowing a pro-
posed hotel to serve alcoholic beverages
on the premises and providing live enter-
tainment, amplified music, and permitting
dancing located within 500 feet of resi-
dentiaiiy zoned property on that certain
property commonly known as 1021 Oak
Street.
Correspondence was received from Morgan Burkett,
Executive Vice President of Laral Group, P.O. Box 1368, San Luis
Obispo, dated October i0, 1986, supporting the appeal of James G.
Bailey.
Vice-Mayor Childs declared the hearing open for public
participation.
Jim Bailey,
that Condition No. 3
Permit.
Developer of Holiday Inn Project, requested
be removed from the approved Conditional Use
John Moore spoke in opposition to the appeal.
No further protests or objections, and no one else wish-
ing to speak in favor, Vice-Mayor Childs closed the public portion
of the hearing for Council deliberation.
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 2
Councilmember Ratty made a motion to grant the appeal
and remove Condition No. 3 as a requirement of approval.
Upon a motion by Councilme~nber Dickerson, the call for
the question was unanimously approved.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, the appeal by
James G. Bailey was granted, and Condition No. 3 was removed as a
requirement of approval by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Saivaggio, Smith,
Christensen, Dickerson
Noes: None
Absent: None
Childs,
This is the time set for public hearing
on Resolution of Intention No. 1013 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
declaring its intention to order the
vacation of Public Utilities Easements in
the west 169 feet of the abandoned alley
in Block 306 (Beale Memorial Library),
City of Bakersfield.
Vice-Mayor Childs declared the hearing open for public
participation. No protests or objections being received, and no
one wishing to speak in favor, Vice-Mayor Childs closed the public
portion of the hearing for Council deliberation.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, Resolution
No. 152-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ordering the
vacation of Public Utilities Easements in the west 169 feet in the
City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio,
Christensen, Dickerson
Noes: None
Absent: None
Smith, Childs,
CORRESPONDENCE
Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, communica-
tion from Panama Union School District, 4200 Ashe Road, dated
October 1, 1986, submitting a report on Developer Fees collected
during the period of July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986, was referred to
staff and the Urban Development Committee, and after staff's
review, contact the school district and prepare a workshop to
discuss all concerns.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, communication
from Rosedale Union School District, 12439 Rosedale Highway, dated
October 1, 1986, submitting a report on Developer Fees collected
during the period of July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986, was referred
to staff and the Urban Development Committee, and after staff's
review, contact the school district and prepare a workshop to dis-
cuss all concerns.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, communica-
tion from Buena Vista School District,Route 7, Box 548, dated
September 26, 1986, submitting a report on Developer Fees col-
lected during the period of July 1, 1985 to June 30, 1986, was
referred to staff and the Urban Development Committee, and after
staff's review, contact the school district and come prepare a
workshop to discuss all concerns.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, communication
Mr. Carl Elkins, P.O. Box 322, Victor, dated October 2, 1986,
requesting permission to connect two houses located at 3815
Stockdale Highway to the Bakersfield City Sewer System, was
received and referred to the Urban Development Committee.
from
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 3
Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, communica-
tion from Philip Kelmar, dated October 7, 1986, submitting a com-
plaint regarding South Side Sanitation for refuse collection
service, was received and referred to the Budget and Finance
Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, communication
from the City of Loma Linda, 11128 Anderson Street, Loma Linda,
submitting a Resolution of the City Council of Loma Linda opposing
ballot Proposition 61, was received and placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, communication from
Crescent Moon Lagoons, Inc., 1001 East Hosking Road, dated October
10, 1986, requesting land used for spreading be leased directly to
Crescent Moon Lagoons, Inc., on a long-term lease was referred to
the Water Resources Committee for review and recommendation back
to Council.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, communication from
Cox Cable, 820 22nd Street, dated October 9, 1986, requesting to
transfer cable television franchise granted to Trans Video Corp.,
to Cox Cable Bakersfield, Inc., was referred to the Budget and
Finance Committee.
RECESS
Vice-Mayor Childs declared a recess at 8:00 p.m. The
meeting was reconvened at 8:02 p.m.
REPORTS
Councilmember Christensen, Chairman of the Auditorium
and Community Services Committee, read Report No. 9-86, regarding
Signage for California Smog Report, 4800 New Horizon Boulevard, as
follows:
At the July 30, 1986 City Council meeting, Mr.
Randall Kerby requested Council assistance concern-
ing the subject matter. After discussion, the mat-
ter was referred to the Auditorium and Community
Services Committee for evaluation.
The Committee met with Mr. Kerby and staff on
August 13, 1986 and reviewed all the circumstances
concerning the subject signage. This matter was
considered again by the Committee on August 27,
1986 at which time staff provided additional input
from the property owner's agent. Following evalua-
tion of this staff input, the Committee determined
that Mr. Kerby's signage problem is a result of
restrictions imposed by the property owner, not by
the City sign ordinance.
It is this committee's recommendation that the
Council find that this is a problem between a pro-
perty owner and tenant that the City cannot resolve.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, Report No.
9-86 from the Auditorium and Community Services Committee regard-
ing Signage for California Smog Repair, 4800 New Horizon
Boulevard, was accepted.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, the recom-
mendations of Report No. 9-86 from the Auditorium and Community
Services Committee, regarding Signage ~or California Smog Repair,
4800 New Horizon Boulevard, were implemented.
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 4
Councilmember Dickerson, Chairman of the Legislative
Committee, read Report No. 7-86 regarding Counci! Support or
Opposition to the Proposition Nos. 62, 63, 64 and 65 on the
November State-wide Ballot, as follows:
On September 3, 1986, the City Council referred to
this committee Propositions 62, 63, 64 and 65 for
review and recommendation regarding support or
opposition by the Council. The committee met with
staff to review the propositions and any potential
impact they may have on the City of Bakersfield.
The propositions discussed were:
Proposition 62 Taxation. Local Governments and
Districts. Initiative Statute.
Proposition 63 Official State Language.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Proposition 64 - Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS) Initiative Statute.
Proposition 65 Restriction on Toxic Discharges
into Drinking Water; Requirement of Notice of
Person's Exposure to Toxics. Initiative Statute.
The committee reviewed and discussed these proposi-
tions and determined that due to their nature and
scope, Propositions 62, 63 and 64 should be reviewed
by the full Council. The committee also determined
that due to the potential effects of Proposition 65
on the City's water supply that Proposition 65
should be further studied by the Water Resources
Committee.
Therefore, this committee recommends that
Propositions 62, 63 and 64 should be reviewed by
the full Council and Proposition 65 be referred
the Water Resources Committee for further study.
to
Councilmember Dickerson made a motion to adopt Report
No. 7-86 from the Legislative Committee.
Vice-Mayor Childs restated Councilmember Dickerson's
motion to accept Report No. 7-86 from the Legislative Committee,
regarding Council support or opposition of Proposition Nos. 62,
63, 64 and 65 on the November State-wide Ballot. This motion was
unanimously approved.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, Proposition 65
was referred to the Water Resources Committee.
Councilmember Ratty made a motion to not take a position
on Propositions 62, 63, and 64.
Councilmember Dickerson made a substitute motion to
divide the propositions to be dealt with individually.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Smith, the call for the
question was approved.
Councilmember Dickerson's substitute motion to divide
the propositions to be dealt with individually, was defeated by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Council~nembers Salvaggio, Childs, Dickerson
Noes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Christensen
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 5
Councilmember Ratty's motion to not
Propositions 62, 63 and 64, was adopted by the
vote:
take a position on
following roll call
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Childs
Councilmembers Salvaggio, Dickerson
None
Councilmember Christensen
Vice-Mayor Childs clarified his yes vote stating that he
publicly stated he is against Proposition 63 and since there is a
split view on the Council he decided to support Council not taking a
position. He stated publicly that he is against Proposition 63 and 64.
Councilmember Dickersoil clarified his no vote by stating
that Council's not taking a position is a subtle way to avoid the
question. He stated that when dealing with tax dollars, Proposi-
tion 62, and this is a way the voters are speaking out on this
issue and this one directly affects governmental entities and may
very well affect this governmental entity. He stated that this is
a very conservative set of guidelines that governments should sup-
port.
Councilmember Salvaggio clarified his no vote stating
that one of the greatest rights in a democracy is the right to
vote, and people look to their public officials as role models and
in terms of propositions that is as well. The passage of
Proposition 62 is the most effective way to stop higher local
taxes, adopted by local agencies, without voter approval. He
explained that voters should have the right to approve any tax
increase proposed by local governments, and there should always
be clear community consensus before any new taxes are imposed.
Councilmember Salvaggio stated, with respect to
Proposition 63, that it is a blueprint for conflict and division.
He thinks it would undermine attempts to bring new citizens into
the mainstream of American life. It would produce countless liti-
gation, resentment and perhaps an end to the use of multi-langual
emergency services. This measure would do nothing positive and
would punish those that have the right who have not had the oppor-
tunlty to learn English. Governor Deukmejian is correct when he
says it is unnecessary because English is the State's dominant
language. He's also correct when he says that it would also cause
fear, confusion and resentment among many minority Californians who
see the measure as an effort to legislate the cultural superiority
of needing English speaking people. He is particularly troubled
over the aspect that would grant any California resident or person
doing business in the State the right to sue the State of
California to enforce its English only provisions. This would
guarantee endless litigation over such important multi-lingual
services as court interpreters or the 911 Emergency telephone ser-
vice.
Councilmember Salvaggio clarified his no vote to
Proposition 64, stating the organization sponsoring this measure
is trying to create an atmosphere of panic. The fear of quaran-
tine could drive AIDS victims underground and prolong the spread
of the disease. This proposition serves no medical purpose
because AIDS cannot be transmitted by casual contact.
Vice-Mayor Childs requested Councilmember Salvaggio keep
to the issue of clarifying his vote.
Councilmember Christensen made a motion to challenge the
Chair and his right to take democracy away from an individual.
RECESS
Vice-Mayor Childs declared a recess at 8:30 p.m. The
meeting was reconvened at 8:35 p.m.
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 6
Vice-Mayor Childs restated Councilmember Christensen's
motion to challenge the Chair's decision on limiting the comments
to a particular vote.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, the call for
the question was approved.
Councilmember Christensen's motion
Chair's decision on limiting the comments to
defeated by the following roll call vote:
to challenge the
a particular vote was
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmembers Salvaggio, Christensen
Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Childs,
None
Dickerson
Councilmember Salvaggio made a motion to reconsider the
vote on Proposition 65.
Councilmember Salvaggio made a motion
Proposition 65 to the Water Resources Committee,
no position.
to not refer
but instead take
Councilmember Salvaggio's motion to reconsider the vote
on Proposition 65 was approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio,
Councilmembers Childs, Dickerson
None
Councilmember Christensen
Smith, Dickerson
The original motion by Councilmember Dickerson to refer
Proposition 65 to the Water Resources Committee was defeated by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
Councilmembers Childs, Dickerson
Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio,
None
Councilmember Christensen
Smith,
Councilmember Ratty made a motion to take no position on
Proposition 65.
City Attorney Oberholzer explained that no action is
necessary. The previous action has been nullified, and it is not
necessary to make a motion to not take action.
Deputy City Manager Strenn read City Manager
24-86 regarding Protest of Special Districts for Urban
within the City's Sphere of Influence, as follows:
Report No.
Services
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)
adopted revised "Procedures, Standards and Policies
for the Evaluation of Proposals" on July 22, 1986.
Of particular importance to the cities in Kern
County is the policy in Section F.2.: "It is the
policy of this commission that no special service
districts or County Service Areas will be formed
within the sphere of influence of a city unless the
city by legislative action declares it cannot serv-
ice the area." This is very responsive to concerns
expressed to LAFCO by cities about the extent of
new urban development just outside city limits
which is supported by the multiplicity of special
districts within city spheres of influence where
the cities could just as easily provide those ser-
vices. Spheres of Influence are those areas around
cities which have been jointly determined by LAFCO
and the cities as serviceable by the cities upon
annexation.
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 7
To implement policy F.2. LAFCO requires that within
30 days of notice mailed by the Executive Officer
of LAFCO that the city respond if it intends to
provide services contemplated by the proposal
forthwith. Failure to respond within 30 days shall
be deemed to be a determination that the city can-
not provide the services.
Since the adoption of this policy the City of
Bakersfield has received notification twice of pro-
posed County Service Area formation and annexation
within our sphere of influence. The first was
addressed by the Council on September 9, 1986, and
the second will be before the Council on October
15, 1986. The response must be approved by the
City Council. In both instances, my staff has
found it difficult within the time allotted to evalu-
ate the proposal, determine the City's ability to
serve, formulate a proposed response for City
Council approval, and place the item on the agenda
with any time to spare for Council deliberation.
Some City Councilmembers expressed their concern
over this on September 9th. With the second notice
from LAFCO, a response was scheduled for City
Council consideration a week before the deadline.
But, since the City Council will not meet next
week, we are still left with only this meeting to
consider a response.
In view of the processing problem we have in com-
plying with this new procedure, it is recommended
that the City Council refer the matter of preparing
City responses to these LAFCO notices to the Urban
Development Committee for review and recommendation
on ways we may more efficiently and expeditiously
deal with them.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, Report No. 24-86
from the City Manager regarding Protest of Special Districts for
Urban Services within the City's Sphere of Influence was referred
to the Urban Development Committee for review and recommendation
on the ways that Council may more efficiently and expeditiously
deal with these items. Councilmember Christensen voted no.
Vice-Mayor Childs, Chairman of the Budget and Finance
Committee, read Report No. 29-86 regarding School Crossing Guard
Program Request for Change in Insurance Coverage as follows:
On August 27, 1986, the issue of a change in the
limits of insurance coverage for the City's con-
tract for school crossing guards was referred to
the Budget and Finance Committee for review.
The City has a four-year contract with J & J
Services for crossing guard services of which we
are in the second year. The City's contract
requires J & J to provide liability insurance with
limits of $3.5 million. This insurance requirement
was structured as $500,000 in a primary policy and
$3 million in an umbrella policy.
The contractor's insurance expires October 20,
1986. He can renew the $500,000 primary policy but
cannot find an insurer who will provide the $3 mil-
lion umbrella liability policy. The premium for
$500,000 coverage is approximately $18,000, about
what he paid for the $3.5 million coverage last
year.
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 8
The contractor has looked into obtaining an addi-
tional $500,000 in excess of the $500,000 primary
coverage to meet the City's $1,000,000 self-
insurance deductible. The contractor has been
unsuccessful in obtaining this coverage·
The County of Kern also has a contract with J & J
Services for crossing guard service. Their con-
tract only requires a $500,000 policy. Therefore,
J & J Services can meet the County's commercial
general liability requirement. The County of Kern
is fully self-insured and, thus, would be liable in
any lawsuit greater than $500,000.
Therefore, in order to insure the continuation of
school crossing guard services, this committee rec-
ommends that the City Council authorize the amend-
ment of the current contract to include $500,000
limits for commercial general liability and recom-
mends the acceptance and approval of this report
and its implementation.
Upon
the Budget and
Progam Request
a motion by Vi
Finance Commit
for Change in
ce-Mayor Childs, Report No. 29-86 from
tee, regarding School Crossing Guard
Insurance Coverage, was accepted.
Upon a motion by Vice-Mayor Childs, the recommendations
of Report No. 29-86 from the Budget and Finance Committee, regard-
ing School Crossing Guard Program Request for Change in Insurance
coverage, were adopted.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
ao
Approval of Warrant Nos. 2126 to 2265 inclusive, in
the amount of $564,759.74.
b. Claims for Damages and Personal Injuries from the
following:
William F. Funk, 2419 #A Westholme Boulevard;
Pacific Bell, 1010 Wilshire Boulevard, Room 621,
Los Angeles;
Sherril Denise Johnson, 1313 Bernard Street, #8;
John L. Campbell, 5001 Appleblossom, #32 and
Natasha Sydorchuk, 5001 Appleblossom, #32.
(REFER TO CITY ATTORNEY)
c. Dedication of Property:
Sewer Line
Electrical
16th Street
Easement from the Kern County
Pension Trust Fund located south of
and east of Myrtle.
Quitclaim Deed of a sewer easement to Sill
Properties, Inc., located east of Arrow Street
and north of Gilmore Street.
Street Right-of-Way Deed from 1701 Oak
Partnership for a portion of Oak Street
of Truxtun Avenue.
north
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 - Page 9
Contract Change Order No. 1 for restroom and
kitchen improvements, Contract No. 86-115, with
Lewis Construction, at Fire Station No. 11.
Pipeline License Agreement between the City of
Bakersfield and Sunset Railway Company for a Sewer
Outfall Line across Railroad Right-of-Way.
Program Supplement No. 31 to Local Agency - State
Master Agreement No. 06-5109 covering Bridge
Widening on Calloway Drive at Friant-Kern Canal.
and f
call
Upon a motion by Vice-Mayor Childs,
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by
vote:
Items a, b, c, d,
the following roll
Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio,
Christensen, Dickerson
Noes: None
Absent: None
Smith, Childs,
ACTION ON BIDS
Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, usual bidding
requirements were dispensed with, in accordance with Section
3.20.060 of the Municipal Code, and the Finance Director was
authorized to negotiate a price, not to exceed the budgeted
amount of $57,000.00 for five used cars.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, usual bidding
requirements were dispensed with, in accordance with Section
3.20.060 of the Municipal Code, and the Finance Director was
authorized to negotiate a price not to exceed the budgeted amount
of $15,500.00 with Western Information Systems for Word Processing
Equipment for the City Clerk.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Moore, the low bid from
Akri Construction, in the amount of $17,940.00, for Concrete Block
Pumphouse for Fairhaven Water Pumping Station #F-103 was accepted,
all other bids rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the Contract.
DEFERRED BUSINESS
An Emergency Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield prohibiting free-
standing signs, other than monument
signs, and outdoor advertising signs on
property between Highway 99 on the east,
the Santa Fe Railroad right-of-way to and
along the Carrier Canal on the south,
Coffee Road on the west and the northern
bank of the Kern River on the north.
This matter was discussed by the Council at
of October 8, 1986. The City Attorney was d~rected at
to prepare this Emergency Ordinance·
its meeting
that time
Ordinance
tion back
Councilmember Ratty made a motion to refer the Emergency
to the Planning Commission for review and recommenda-
to the Council. This motion was unanimously approved.
Councilmember Ratty made a motion to accept Mr. Bob
Martin's offering to not do anything for 30 days and to let the
Council know before he proceeds any further with the sign con-
structions on that site.
Councilmember Smith called for the question.
Bakersfield,
California, October 15, 1986 - Page 10
Councilmember Ratty's motion to accept Mr. Bob Martin's
offering to not do anything for 30 days and to let the Council
know before he proceeds any further with the sign construction on
the site, was approved with Councilmember Christensen voting no.
Adoption of Resolution No. 153-86 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield order-
ing installation of curb, gutter and con-
necting paving along Mesa Grande Street
in front of Parcel C, Tract No. 2263.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Salvaggio, Resolution No.
153-86 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio,
Christensen, Dickerson
Noes: None
Absent: None
Smith, Childs,
Letter to Kern Press Club from the City
Attorney's Office.
letter.
Councilmember Moore made a motion to approve sending the
Councilmember Moore's motion to approve sending the
letter to Kern Press Club from the City Attorney's Office, was
approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Smith, Childs
Noes: Councilmembers Salvaggio, Christensen, Dickerson
Absent: None
NEW BUSINESS
Adoption of Resolution No. 154-86 in
regard to a request by the Local Agency
Formation Commission to take legislative
action to determine intentions to forth-
with provide services proposed in C.S.A.
Annexation: north of Brundage Lane and
west of Quantico Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson Resolution No.
154-86 was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Moore, Ratty, Salvaggio,
Christensen, Dickerson
Noes: None
Absent: None
Smith, Childs,
A Resolution of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Resolution No.
127-86 determining unpaid assessments and
providing for issuance of Bonds in the
matter of City of Bakersfield Assessment
District No. 86-2.
City Manager Caravalho recommended that New Business
Items b and c, regarding the issuance of Bonds for Assessment
District No. 86-2, be continued to the October 29, 1986 meeting.
Bakersfield, California, October 15, 1986 Page 11
Richard Hardgrove, Bond Counsel, stated that they could
not move forward until the Federal Bankruptcy court had issued an
order recognizing the City's lien of assessment as paramount over
all other liens on the Laborde property. He indicated that the
official statement and certain documents are not available and
recommended that the documents be available to Council before
taking action.
Councilmember Dickerson suggested that a Special Meeting
be held to adopt the Resolutions.
Vice-Mayor Childs restated staff's recommendation to
delete New Business Items b and c.
A Resolution of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Resolution No.
128-86 awarding sale of Bonds in the mat-
ter of City of Bakersfield Assessment
District No. 86-2, Series A.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Dickerson, staff's recom-
mendation to delete Resolution amending Resolution No. 127-86
determining unpaid assessments and providing for issuance of Bonds
in the matter of City of Bakersfield Assessment District No. 86-2;
and Resolution amending Resolution No. 128-86 awarding sale of
Bonds in the matter of City of Bakersfield Assessment District No.
86-2, Series A, was approved.
Agreement between City of Bakersfield and
L. Char]es Battersby for providing
Construction Engineering Services for
the Buena Vista Sewer Trunk.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Ratty, the Agreement with L.
Charles Battersby for Construction Engineering Services for Buena
Vista Sewer Trunk was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the Agreement.
Consulting Services Agreement with Edward
J. Wilson to provide engineering services
for Allen Road Sewer Trunk.
Upon a motion by Councilmember Christensen, Agreement
with Edward J. Wilson to provide engineering services for Alien
Road Sewer Trunk was approved; the Mayor was authorized to execute
the Agreement; and authorization to expend up to $22,500.00 was
granted.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilmember Dickerson questioned whether the Water
Board approves increases to water rates without approval of the
Council.
mendation
on it.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated that he believes a recom-
is made to the City Council, but he would need to check
RECESS
Upon the request of Councilmember Dickerson, the meeting
was recessed at 9:18 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:20 p.m.