HomeMy WebLinkAboutJULY - SEPT 1981Bakersfield, California, July l, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Baker§field, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 8:00 P.M., July l, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation in the form of a prayer
submitted by Reverend David Newquist, Pastor of the First Presby-
terian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as
Present: Mayor Shell. Councilmen Rockoff,
follows:
Strong, Barton,
Christensen, Means, Payne
Absent: Councilman Ratty
Minutes of the recessed special meeting and regular
meeting of June 17, 1981, were approved as presented.
PRESENTATION OF RETIREMENT PLAQUE
Mayor Shell presented a retirement plaque to Max L.
Anderson, Fire Captain, who completed 29 years of service with the
Fire Department of the City of Bakersfield, effective August 1, 1981.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Mr. Paul Butler stated he was present tonight at the
request of Mayor Shell to sing a song he wrote in rebuttal to
Johnny Carson's degrading remarks about Bakersfield and it may be
recorded by Buck Owens.
CORRESPONDENCE
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, dated June 25, 1981,
requesting $30,000 to conduct industrial and promotional activities
during fiscal year 1981-82, was received and referred to the Budget.
Review and Finance Committee for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, communication from
Moreland Engineering, Inc., on behalf of Covington Technologies,
dated June 30, 1981, requesting an amendment to the General Plan
for commercial use of property located on the south side of Pachece
Road and east of South "H" Street, was received and referred to the
Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, July 1, 1981 - Page 2
4. '9
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from John Pannick, President of The Kern Wheelman, 1011 Baker
Street, dated June 25, 1981, regarding a policy decision concerning
the organization of bicycle events on City streets, was received
and referred to the Auditorium-Recreation Committee.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilman Rockoff stated, in regards to the many
Police Officers and their families present tonight, that he was
pleased to see them attend the Council Meeting.
Councilman Rockoff read the following letter from Thomas
Kelly Associates, dated June 24, 1981:
Gentleman:
Gentleman enclosed is a copy of the Resolution
that was prepared prior to the last "Boat Drags."
The owners of Cattle King Estates comment your
organization for the smooth and orderly manner
of these "Boat Drags." By your elimination of
parking on Lake Ming Road, you helped minimize
trespassing problems which had previously been
experienced. One suggestion is that there is
one traffic control officer assigned at the
intersection of Rio Bravo Tennis Club and Cattle
King Estates at Lake Ming Road to allow ingress
and egress to these areas.
Respectfully yours,
Thomas S. Kelly
Business Manager
Cattle King Estates
Councilman Rockoff expressed the gratification of the
3rd Ward residents for the work City and County officials did to
prevent
Drags.
problems that have been experienced throughout the Boat
Councilman Payne referred to an article that appeared in
the Bakersfield Californian last week entitled something like
"Payne Recalls He Was Ready To Kill A Man," which did not really
reflect the contents of the article. The article did refer to an
incident that occurred 53 years ago, when he was a member of the
Police Department. It was a very one sided and biased article that
related to a Police Brutality charge. Today a jury found the City
of Bakersfield and himself totally innocent of all eleven charges.
46O
Bakersfield, California, July l, 1981 - Page 3
REPORTS
Councilman Christensen, Chairman of the Auditorium-
Recreation Committee, read Report No. 11-81 regarding Kern Phil-
harmonic Request for Financial Support, as follows:
At the City Council meeting of June 17, 1981,
communication from Kern Philharmonic was received
and referred to the Auditorium-Recreation Com-
mittee for study and recommendation.
The communications from Kern Philharmonic
addressed two separate issues requiring funding
from the City of Bakersfield. The first matter
was a request to the City of Bakersfield to
increase its financial support to Kern Phil-
harmonic from $3,500 to $5,000 per year. The
second correspondence was to advise the City
that a program of four Summer Pops Concerts in
the City parks would cost from $11,000 to $12,500.
This committee recognizes the cultural contri-
bution made to the community by Kern Philharmonic,
however, in light of the financial constraints
the City of Bakersfield must face during the
1981-82 fiscal year, this committee feels the
City is unable to increase its financial support
to the Kern Philharmonic for its 1981-82 season,
nor is the City able to consider providing
financial support or funding for new programs
such as the Summer Pops Concerts.
Once again, this committee recognizes the
cultural contribution made to the community by
Kern Philharmonic and hopes that in future years
the City will be in a more favorable position
to consider such requests.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Auditorium-
Recreation Committee Report No. ll-81 regarding Kern Philharmonic
Request for Financial Support, was accepted; and recommendations
as outlined in the report, were approved.
Councilman Rockoff, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 10-81 regarding City Partici-
paring with County of Kern in Study of Interchange at State
Highways 178 and 99, as follows:
The Rosedale general plan, recently adopted by
the County, includes an alignment for a freeway
west of State Highway 99. The freeway would
extend into an area within the City of Bakers-
field with an interchange at State Highway 99
and a connection to State Highway 178 east of
State Highway 99.
Bakersfield, California, July l, 1981 - Page 4
Due to the complexity of the interchange, the
County Board of Supervisors approved the recom-
mendation of the County Public Works Director
requesting authorization to negotiate a 50/50
participation with the City of Bakersfield to
arrange for the engagement of a consultant for
the purposes of studying the interchange. The
County Public Works Director has estimated the
total cost of the consultant to be $25,000.
The City's Public Works Director has reviewed
the proposal and requests of the County Depart-
ment of Public Works and recommends that the
City participate on a 50/50 basis with the
County of Kern as requested. Although the
freeway in question is not within the City
limits, this committee recognizes the freeway
will serve both County and City residents as
well. Further, the interchange to be studied
is within the City and would be of benefit to
the City of Bakersfield.
This committee concurs with the recommendation
of the City's Public Works Director and further
recognizes the need for the City and County to
jointly participate in such projects so as to
minimize cost where possible.
Sufficient funds are available in the Public
Works budget account 11-242-4100, therefore,
this committee recommends the City Council
adopt this report and authorize the expenditure
of the funds in an amount not to exceed $12,500.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Budget Review and
Finance Committee Report No. 10-81 regarding City Participating
with County of Kern in Study of Interchange at State Highways 178
and 99, was accepted; City's participation on a 50/50 basis, was
approved; and expenditure of an amount not to exceed $12,500, from
Public Works Acocunt No. 11-242-4100, was approved.
Councilman Rockoff, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. ll-81 regarding No-Smoking
Resolution, as follows:
On June 17, 1981, Ms. Judi Wallrath, representing
Smoking Ordinance Society of Kern (SOS), addressed
the City Council and requested that the Council
adopt a "Non-Smoking Ordinance." The City
Council recognized and supports the request of
Ms. Wallrath for a voluntary non-smoking program,
consequently, the Council felt a resolution to
be more appropriate than an ordinance. The
request was referred to the Budget Review and
Finance Committee for study and recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, July 1, 1981 - Page 5
Pursuant to the belief that the rights of non-
smokers can best be protected by voluntary
recognition of the rights of non-smokers, this
committee recommends that the City Council
adopt a resolution encouraging voluntary com-
pliance with the guidelines outlined in the
attached resolution.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Budget Review and
Finance Committee Report No. 11-81 regarding No-Smoking Resolution,
was accepted.
Adoption of Resolution No. 46-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field requesting a voluntary recog-
nition of Non-Smokers' rights.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen,
Resolution No.
46-81 of the Council o£ the City of Bakers£ield requesting a
voluntary recognition of Non-Smokers' rights, was adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
Noes
Absent:
None
Councilman Ratty
Councilman Payne recognized all the members of the Police
Department and their families who were present in the audience in
support of their bargaining units on salary negotiations.
Detective Tony Ennis requested a brief recess in order
to clear the Council Chambers.
Mayor Shell introduced Police Officers Robert McDougal
and Jess Molinar, two of the three officers who were recently hurt
in the line of duty.
Mayor Shell declared a brief recess at 8:25 P.M. and
reconvened the Council Meeting at 8:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 7325 to 7572,
inclusive, in the amount of $1,194,911.00.
(b) Claim for Damages from Bunkie W. Ash,
10716 Santa Clara, Lamont, California.
(Refer to City Attorney)
Bakersfield, California, July l, 1981 - Page 6
(c)
Claim for Damages from Michael Segine,
2830 Alder Street, Bakersfield. (Refer
to City Attorney)
(d)
Road Easement from Tenneco Realty Develop-
ment Corporation providing access for
construction of a bridge at the Arvin-
Edison Canal and extension of Ming Avenue.
(e)
Street Right-of-Way Easement from Cora
Tauchen providing additional right-of-
way for public street as required by the
Planning Commission for Parcel Map No.
6023, located on south side of Planz Road,
east of Union Avenue.
(f)
Street Right-of-Way Deed from Ray J.
Fanucchi required for proposed widening
of Wilson Road between Hughes Lane and
South "H" Street.
(g)
Map of Tract No. 4188 and Improvement
Agreement with John Friis Jacobsen Living
Trust for construction of improvements
therein, located on south side of Stock-
dale Highway at Jenkins Road.
(h)
Map of Tract No. 4302, located on east
side of Columbus Street, at the inter-
section of Oswell Street. The subdivision
is being developed by Deeter Construction,
Inc.
(i)
Improvement Agreement for Parcel Map No.
6023 with Industrial Venture, located on
the south side of Planz Road, east of
Union Avenue.
(J)
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work on construction of Alum Street Storm
Drain, Contract No. 81-8 with J. L. Denio,
Inc.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Consent Calendar, were
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Ratty
ACTION ON BIDS
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, low bid of P. R. Field,
Inc., in the amount of $177,880, for construction of the Ming Avenue
Bridge at the Arvin-Edison Canal, was accepted, all other bids
rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
464
Bakersfield, California, July 1, 1981 - Page 7
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, low bid for the Base
and Alternate A of Steve Richey Company, in the amount of $128,340,
for Storm Drains in Kern Street, south o£ 19th Street, and "V"
Street at the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway, was accepted,
all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
contract.
Equipment
Compactor
bid rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, low bid of Mid-Cal
Ford, in the amount of $20,776.00, for One Ton Truck with Aerial
Device, was accepted and all other bids rejected.
DEFERRED BUSINESS
Report No. 3-81 from Water and City
Growth Committee regarding Anheuser-
Busch Proposal and approval of One
Year Notice of Termination on Lease
Agreement No. 75-134 with Lewis &
Falletti Farms for farmland at
Treatment Plant No. 3.
Action on Report No. 3-81 from Water and City Growth
Committee regarding Anheuser-Busch Proposal was held over from
the Council Meeting of June 17, 1981, to allow the Cify Attorney
time to review the provisions of the lease agrrement with Lewis &
Falletti Farms regarding the renewal of their lease for the farm-
land near Wastewater Plant No. 3.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated the committee met with
Mr. Lewis' attorney and reviewed the lease agreement. There is a
specific termination provision in the lease, whereby the City can
terminate it. Pursuant to Report No. 3-81 from the Water and City
Growth Committee it was recommended that the staff enter into
negotiations with Anheuser-Busch for the disposal of effluent.
One of the concerns was, what would happen to the present lease
with Lewis & Falletti Farms for use of that land at Treatment Plant
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, low bid of Kern County
Company, in the amount of $34,947.14, for Twelve Ton
for Public Works Department, was accepted and the other
Bakersfield, California, July 1, 1981 - Page 8
No. 3. Lewis & Falletti's attorney requested that the staff attempt
to work with Anheuser-Busch in order to try and accommodate their
farming operation at that location. It is the Committee's recom-
mendation that the City proceed with the termination notice to
Lewis & Falletti Farms, pursuant to paragraph 13 of the lease agree-
ment, which is a one year termination notice. The lease expires
in December, 1982, and if the Council takes action tonight to
terminate it in one year, it would run out on July 1, 1982.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Barton,
termination of Lease Agreement No. 75-134 with Lewis & Falletti
Farms with appropriate one year Notice of Termination, pursuant to
Article 13 of the agreement, was approved.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2649 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 5.38.010
of the Municipal Code to provide for
participation on the Pension Board
of the Fire Department Relief and
Pension Fund by members of that fund.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Ordinance No. 2649
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 5.38.010 of the Municipal Code to provide for participation
on the Pension Board of the Fire Department Relief and Pension Fund
by members of that fund, was adopted by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
None
Councilman Ratty
Acceptance of Report No. 3-81 from
the Water and City Growth Committee
regarding Anheuser-Busch Proposal
and approval of recommendations as
outlined in the report.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Water and City Growth
Committee Report No. 3-81 regarding Anheuser-Busch Proposal, was
accepted; and staff was authorized to notify Anheuser-Busch of the
City's agreement in concept, negotiate the financial terms and
466
Bakersfield, California, July l, 1981 - Page 9
report back to the Water and City Growth Committee, and work with
Lewis & Falletti Farms and Anheuser-Busch to assist Lewis & Falletti
Farms to come out of this as financially whole as possible.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2650 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending the Uniform
Sales and Use Tax Ordinance of the
City of Bakersfield, Chapter 6.08 of
Title 6 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code, to increase the Sales and Use
Tax imposed thereby from .951 of one
percent to one full percent.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Ordinance No. 2650
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending the
Uniform Sales and Use Tax Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield,
Chapter 6.08 of Title 6 of the Municipal Code, to increase the
Sales and Use Tax imposed thereby from .951 of one percent to one
full percent, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Ratty
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2651 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 7.12.140
of, and adding Section 7.12.150 to,
Chapter 7.12 of the Bakersfield Muni-
cipal Code relative to Bingo Games.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Ordinance No. 2651
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 7.12.140 of, and adding Section 7.12.150 to, Chapter 7.12
of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relative to Bingo Games, was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
None
Councilman
Ratty
NEW BUSINESS
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 13.28.120 (b) of
Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield relative
to Mobilehomes in R-1 Zones (Appeal
Process).
Bakersfield, California, July l, 1981 - Page 10
467
This ordinance amends Section 13.28.120 (b) of the Muni-
cipal Code enacted by the Council on June 17, 1981, to provide that
appeals from the Building Director's denial of a permit for a
mobilehome in an R-1 zone be heard by the Council, not the Planning
Commission, as requested by Councilman Rockoff.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 13.28.120 (b)
of Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield
relative to Mobilehomes in R-1 Zones (Appeal Process).
First reading of an Ordinance amend-
ing Title Seventeen of the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of those
certain properties in the City of
Bakersfield commonly known as 5341
Mohawk Street, and a parcel of land
northwest of California Avenue and
northeast of Mohawk Street.
The application for this amendment was made by Tenneco
Realty Development Corporation and would change subject properties
from an R-1-HOSP. (One Family Dwelling - Hospital) Zone to a C-O
(Commercial and Professional Office), or more restrictive Zone; and
from an "A" (Agricultural), R-1 (One Family Dwelling), R-3-D (Limited
Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) and C-2-D (Commercial
Architectural Design) Zones to a C-O (Commercial and Professional
Office), or more restrictive Zone.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this
amendment.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance amending
~Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties in the
City of Bakersfield commonly known as 5341 Mohawk Street, and a
parcel of land northwest of California Avenue and northeast of
Mohawk Street.
468
Bakersfield, California, July 1, 1981 - Page
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 17.12.020 of Title
17 of the Municipal Code changing the
Land Use Zoning of those certain
properties in the City of Bakersfield
located on the east side of Stine Road,
and south of Harris Road; and making
findings in connection with a P.U.D.
Zone.
The application
Management Services, Inc.,
for this amendment was made by Developer's
and would change subject properties from
a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) to a Revised P.U.D. (Planned
Unit Development) Zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval
of this amendment.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 17.12.020 of
Title 17 of the Municipal Code changing the Land Use Zoning of
those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located on the
east side of Stine Road, and south of Harris Road; and making
findings in connection with a P.U.D. Zone.
Mr. James Patterson, Attorney at Law, representing
Developer's Management Services, Inc., requested that the
ordinance be amended to delete the reference to Tract No. 3827
Unit "D", which has been withdrawn.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated the ordinance would be
amended accordingly.
Adoption of Resolution No. 47-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field approving the destruction of
certain obsolete City records, docu-
ments, instruments, books and papers,
pursuant to Section 34090 et seq. of
the Government Code of the State of
California.
Periodically the Finance Department destroys certain
records, documents, etc., pursuant to California law. These
documents have to be at least five years old and require a resolution
approving the destruction by the City Council and approval by the
City Attorney. The City Attorney has approved the destruction of
these records. A resolution of the City Council completes the
action necessary prior to destruction.
Bakersfield, California, July 1, 1981 - Page 12
469
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Resolution No. 47-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving the destruction
of certain obsolete City records, documents, instruments, books and
papers, pursuant to Section 34090 et seq. of the Government Code
of the State of California, was adopted by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
48-81 of
Meeting in
roll call vote:
Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
None
Councilman Ratty
Adoption of Resolution No. 48-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field deleting a Council Meeting in
the month of July, 1981.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Resolution No.
the Council of the City of Bakersfield deleting a Council
the month of July, 1981, was adopted by the following
Councilmen Rockoff,
Payne
Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
None
Councilman Ratty
Adoption of Resolution No. 49-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field setting Friday, July 3rd, 1981
as the day of observance for
Independence Day July 4, 1981.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Resolution No.
49-81 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield setting Friday,
July 3rd, 1981 as the day of observance for Independence Day July
4, 1981, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
None
Councilman Ratty
Adoption of Resolution No. 50-81 of
Intention of the Council of the City
Of Bakersfield to establish Maintenance
District No. 1.
Noes:
Absent:
470
Bakersfield, California, July l, 1981 - Page 13
This proposal is to establish a Maintenance District to
provide for the payment of the costs and expenses of maintaining
and operating a planted median divider strip along Gosford Road
between Stockdale Highway and Ming Avenue. The formation of this
District has been requested by Tenneco.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Resolution No. 50-81
of Intention of the Council of the City of Bakersfield to establish
Maintenance District No. l, was adopted by the following roll call
Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Ratty.
Adoption of Resolution No. 51-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field preliminarily adopting, con-
firming and approving Public Works
Director's Report; appointing time
and place for hearing protests to
the proposed District; the boundaries
thereof; the fairness of the benefit
formula; the amount of assessment to
be levied against each parcel and the
reservation of right to perform work
by City forces.
The Director's report includes the proposed 1981-82 budget
and assessment upon all parcels of property within the proposed
District. The maintenance cost to be assessed is $9,900. August
5, 1981 is the date scheduled to hear protests on the proposed
District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Resolution No. 51-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield preliminarily adopting,
confirming and approving Public Works Director's Report; appointing
time and place for hearing protests to the proposed District; the
boundaries thereof; the fairness of the benefit formula; the amount
of assessment to be levied against each parcel and the reservation
of right to perform work by City forces, was adopted by the
vote:
Ayes:
Bakersfield, California, July l, 1981 - Page ~4
47!
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Ratty
Adoption of Resolution No. 52-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field establishing the City of
Bakersfield appropriation limit for
Fiscal Year 1981-82.
The following is a memorandum from W. D. Higginbotham,
Assistant City Manager-Finance, dated June 26, 1981, regarding
Appropriations Limitation Resolution:
On November 6, 1979, the voters of California
approved Proposition 4 (Gann Initiative) which
amended the State of California's Constitution
to include Article XIIIB. The amendment and
attendant legislation, Senate Bill 1352,
requires each local government to establish
an appropriations limit by resolution each
year. This legislation allows the annual
appropriations limit to be adjusted annually
by the lesser of the cost o£ living or the
per capita increase in California plus real
growth (population increases or decreases).
The appropriations limit for the City of
Bakersfield is computed to be $32,732,614 for
fiscal year 1981-82. However, the City's
actual appropriations subject to limitation
are $28,452,315 for fiscal year 1981-82. As
you will note, the appropriations subject to
limitations are $4,280,299 below our mandatory
limit.
Any challenge to the appropriations limit must
be brought within 45 days of the effective date
of this resolution. Further, the City must and
has made available to the public the documen-
tation used in determining the appropriations
limit. The City of Bakersfield's documentation
of the appropriations limitation is on file in
the Finance Department at City Hall. The
attached schedule sumarizes the documentation
and the steps taken in determining the appro-
priations limit.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Resolution No. 52-8~
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield establishing the City of
Bakersfield appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 1981-82, was adopted
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Payne, Ratty
472
Bakersfield, California, July 1, 1981 - Page 15
Approval of Lease Agreement between
the City of Bakersfield and American
Home Industries Corporation for City-
owned property located at 1611 and
1612 "S" Street.
Pursuant to authorization o£ the City Council, the staff
has negotiated a lease agreement with American Home Industries
Corporation at the rental rate of $2,500 per month.
Mayor Shell announced that due to a real or imaginary
conflict of interest, Councilman Payne would not participate in
this matter.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Lease Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and American Home Industries
Corporation for City-owned property located at 1611 and 1612 "S"
Street, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and Chris A. Addington
and Associates, 9339 Rosedale Highway,
Bakersfield, for Architectural Services
for construction of new crew quarters
at Fire Station No. l, 2101 "H" Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Contract between the
City of Bakersfield and Chris A. Addington and Associates, 9339
Rosedale Highway, Bakersfield, for Architectural Services. for
construction of new crew quarters at Fire Station No. l, 21~H"
Street, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute
Approval of submission of applications
to HUD from Kern County Housing
Authority for 35 and 31 Moderate
Rehabilitation Units.
The Kern County Housing Authority proposes to submit an
application to the Department of Housing and Urban Development for
35 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Units, which requires the con-
currence of the City and County of Kern. Community Development
staff has reviewed the application and finds it to be in conformance
with the Housing Assistance Plan.
Community Development Coordinator Gilchrist stated that
in addition to the 35 units listed on the agenda, Hud has notified
Bakersfield, California, July 1, 1981 - Page 16
473
the Kern County Housing Authority that there is another 31 units
available that can be applied for and authorization is being requested
for approval of both applications.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, submission of appli-
cations to HUD from Kern County Housing Authority for 35 and 31
Moderate Rehabilitation Units, were approved and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
HEARINGS
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council of the City of Bakersfield for the purpose of receiving
written and oral testimony regarding transit needs in the City of
Bakersfield.
This hearing has been duly advertised in the local news-
paper and posted.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No one in the audience indicated a wish to speak and Mayor
Shell closed the public portion of the hearing for Council delibera-
tion and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Resolution No. 53-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield finding there are no
unmet public transportation needs which could be reasonably met,
was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Ratty
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Cou~lman Christensen, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:15 P.M. ~~ j~
MAYOR of ~ ~ty of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST: ~
CITY CLERK a~ Ex~fficio Clerk of th Council
of the City of BaKersfield, California
ma
474
Bakersfield, California, July 8, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 8:00 P.M., July 8, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation in the form of a prayer
submitted by Pastor I. H. Terry, First Pentecostal Church of Jesus
Christ.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Shell. Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen,
Means, Rockoff
Absent: Councilmen Payne, Ratty
Minutes of the regular meeting of June 24, 1981 were
approved as presented.
CORRESPONDENCE
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, communication from
Senator Alan Cranston, dated June 26, 1981, regarding budget cuts
for AMT~AK, was received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Kaiser Realty Corporation, dated July 3, 1981, requesting rein-
statement of their request for annexation of property located on
the southeast corner of Fraser Road and Buena Vista Road, containing
87 acres of land, was received and referred to the Planning Com-
mission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, communication from
the Bakersfield Art Commission, dated July 6, 1981, informing the
Council of a vacancy on the Art Commission due to the death of
W. Francis Parsons and recommending a person to fill that vacancy,
was received, ordered placed on file and Mrs. Genell Swan, 1805
Doolittle Avenue, was appointed to fill the vacancy.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilman Means stated last week he attended a Public
Utilities Commission hearing to testify against Pacific Gas and
Electric Company's latest rate increase request, however, since
two Councilmen are absent tonight he will make a report at the
next m~eting.
Bakersfield, California, July 8, 1981 - Page 2
47.
REPORTS
Director of Fire & Development Services Needham reported
that during the 4th of July Fireworks at the Bakersfield College
Stadium there were more fireworks outside the stadium than inside,
and a lot of them were illegal. The cause of most of the damage
in the Bakersfield area was from illegal fireworks. One of the
major problems is that legal fireworks are being altered into
illegal fireworks. In the City of Bakersfield, from June 27th
through July 5th, there were seven dwelling structure, 53 grass and
10 miscellaneous fires, all caused by fireworks. The total loss
from the seven structure fires was $89,900. The County, from July
3rd through July 5th, experienced 220 emergency fire calls; ll0
were caused by fireworks and 12 structure fires, at a total loss
of $161,000. The County, including the City of Bakersfield, has a
fire loss of about a quarter million dollars caused by fireworks
this year. There were 21 injuries related to legal and illegal
fireworks reported by local hospitals. The more serious injuries
were: 3rd degree burns to the hand on one person; 2 badly lacerated
foot injuries; and 2 eye injuries. The purpose of this report is
to inform the community and Council of the problems this and other
communities are having with fireworks. Fireworks in relation to
the celebration of the Independence of this Country no longer go
together. It is becoming too much of a problem and the Country is
going to have to learn, evenutally, to celebrate in another manner.
Councilman Strong stated the distributors of the fireworks
are as concerned with this problem as the Council and Fire Depart-
ment and they have some very worthwhile suggestions as to how to
minimize some of the accidents. Councilman Strong encouraged the
staff and Council to contact the distributors.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were listed on
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 7573
inclusive, in the amount of
the Consent
to 7692,
$995,396.97.
Calendar:
476
Bakersfield, California, July 8, 1981 - Page 3
(b)
Claim for Damages from Evelyn J. Hunt,
Jwynet's Liquors, 520 Union Avenue, Bakers-
field. (Refer to City Attorney)
(c)
Alley Easement from Tenneco Realty Develop-
ment Corporation providing public access
as required by the Planning Commission for
Parcel Map No. 5967, located at southeast
corner of Ashe Road and White Lane.
(d)
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Henry Curameng, 2913 Foxboro Court, for
construction of the siding of a building
extending 4" maximum into the right-of-way
on Tulare Street at southeast corner of
Tulare and East 21st Streets.
(e)
Plans and Specifications for construction
and modification of Traffic Signals at
the intersections of New Stine and Wilson
Roads, Coffee Road and Truxtun Avenue and
Ming Avenue and Castro Lane.
(f)
Plans and Specifications for construction
and replacement of the First Point
Measuring Structure on the Kern River.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e) and (f) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means, Rockoff
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Payne, Ratty
DEFERRED BUSINESS
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2652 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 13.28.120
(b) of Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield
relative to Mobilehomes in R-1 Zones
(Appeal Process).
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Ordinance No. 2652
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 13.28.120 (b) of Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield relative to Mobilehomes in R-1 Zones (Appeal
Profess), was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means, Rockoff
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Payne, Ratty
Bakersfield, California, July 8, 1981 - Page 4
477
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2653 New
Series amending Title Seventeen of
the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties
in the City of Bakersfield commonly
known as 5341 Mohawk Street, and a
parcel of land northwest of California
Avenue and northeast of Mohawk Street.
The application for this amendment was made by Tenneco
Realty Development Corporation and would change subject properties
from an R-1-HOSP. (One Family Dwelling - Hospital) Zone to a C-O
(Commercial and Professional Office) Zone; and from an "A"
(Agricultural), R-1 (One Family Dwelling), R-3-D (Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling - Architectural Design) and C-2-D (Commercial
Architectural Design) Zones to a C-O (Commercial and Professional
Office) Zone.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Negative Declaration
and Ordinance No. 2653 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
commonly known as 5341 Mohawk Street, and a parcel of land north-
west of California Avenue and northeast of Mohawk Street, finding
said zonings consistent with the General Plan, were adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means, Rockoff
Noes: None
Absent:
Councilmen Payne, Ratty
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2654 New
Series of the Council o£ the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 17.12.020
of Title 17 of the Municipal Code
changing the Land Use Zoning of those
certain properties in the City of
Bakersfield located on the east side
of Stine Road, and south o~ Harris
Road; and making £indings in connection
with a P.U.D. Zone.
The application for this amendment was made by Developer's
Management Services, Inc., and would change subject properties from
a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) Zone to a revised P.U.D. (Planned
Unit Development) Zone.
478
Bakersfield, California, July 8, 1981 - Page 5
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Negative Declaration
and Ordinance No. 2654 New Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 17.12.020 of Title 17 of the Municipal
Code changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties in
the City of Bakersfield located on the east side of Stine Road,
and south of Harris Road; and making findings in connection with
a P.U.D. Zone, finding said zoning consistent with the General
Plan, were adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent:
Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means, Rockoff
Councilmen Payne, Ratty
NEW BUSINESS
First reading of an Ordinance amend-
ing Title Seventeen of the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of those
certain properties in the City of
Bakersfield located south of California
State College, north of Sunset Railroad,
west of the Arvin-Edison Canal and
Gosford Road, and east of Old River
Road.
The application for this amendment was made by Tenneco
Realty Development Corporation and would change subject properties
from an "A" (Agricultural) Zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling),
R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), R-3 (Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling), C-O (Commercial and Professional Office) and C-2
(Commercial), or more restrictive Zones.
amendment.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this
First reading was considered given an Ordinance amending
Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties in the City
of Bakersfield located south of California State College, north of
Sunset Railroad, west of the Arvin-Edison Canal and Gosford Road,
and east of Old River Road.
Bakersfield, California, July 8, 1981 - Page 6
479
Adoption of Resolution No. 54-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field authorizing the filing of an
Application with the Kern County
Council of Governments for allocation
of Transportation Development Act
Funds £or Fiscal Year 1981-82.
Each year the City is required to file a claim with Kern
COG for Transportation Development Act Funds. This resolution
authorizes the Public Works Director to file a claim for an allo-
cation from the Kern County Council of Governments. Projects to
be included in the application are shown in the draft 1981-82
Capital Improvement Program. The claim can be modified if changes
are made during the budget hearings. The amount of the claim is
$1,200,000.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Resolution No. 54-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield authorizing the filing of
an Application with the Kern County Council of Governments for
allocation of Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year
1981-82, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means, Rockoff
Noes: None
Absent: Councilmen Payne, Ratty
Approval of request to join the
Department of Rehabilitation in
voluntary compliance with State Side-
walk Accessibility Laws.
Several years ago the Postal Department required mailboxes
to be placed curbside and a short time thereafter this was determined
to be in violation of State law relating to accessibility of side-
walks to handicapped persons. For several years the Attorney
General has attempted to find a resolution to this problem in
Bakersfield. The latest proposal requests the City Council join
the Department of Rehabilitation in requesting voluntary compliance
with State Sidewalk Accessibility Laws.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, request to join
the Department of Rehabilitation in voluntary compliance with State
Sidewalk Accessibility Laws, was approved.
Bakersfield, California, July 8, 1981 - Page 7
Acceptance of Sergeant Patrick Don
Vegas Memorial Film Library to be
housed at the Police Department.
The Kern County Insurance Adjusters Association wishes
to establish a public safety film library for use by various schools,
civic groups, etc., and has requested that this library be housed
at the Police Department for film distribution. The films will
relate to public safety, crime prevention, etc. They have agreed
to perform the time-consuming activities with regard to the library,
leaving the Police Department only to act as librarian.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Sergeant Patrick Don
Vegas Memorial Film Library to be housed at the Police Department,
was accepted.
Councilman Strong stated he received a letter from the
Chateau Basque Restaurant, 101 Union Avenue, dated July l, 1981,
regarding charges for sewer service and requested that the staff
them and work out something regarding the contents of the
contact
letter.
Approval of Grant Agreement with the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development for Community Develop-
ment Block Grant Program for Fiscal
Year 1981-82 and acceptance of
provisions.
On July 2, 1981 the Department of Housing and Urban
Development approved the City's 1981-82 Community Development
Blcok Grant Program in the amount of $1,434,000 plus $83,500 carried
over from the previous year. This application was previously
approved by the Council and submitted to HUD on April 15, 1981.
Upon execution of the Grant Agreement the City's existing letter
of credit for the program will be increased by the 1981-82 entitle-
ment amount of $1,434,000.
It is anticipated that the City will draw on this letter
of credit for the Senior Center and administration costs prior to
the next scheduled Council Meeting of July 29, 1981, necessitating
action on this item at this time.
Bakersfield, California, July 8, 1981 - Page 8
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Grant Agreement
with the Department of Housing and Urban Development for Community
Development Block Grant Program for Fiscal Year 1981-82, was
approved, provisions accepted and the Mayor was authorized to
execute same.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, the Council recessed
to an Executive Session for consultation with Nicholas Counter,
City's Labor Negotiator, regarding Labor Negotiations.
The regular meeting was reconvened at 9:49 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Barton, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
MAYOR of t~Ci~ty'of r aker~
Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK~ and ~x Officio Clerk of
of
ma
the Council
the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981
Minutes of a budget session of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 7:00 P.M., July 20, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present:
Mayor Shell.
Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne (seated at 7:20 P.M.),
Ratty, Rockoff, Strong
Absent: None
Councilman Christensen, Chairman of the Auditorium-
Recreation Committee, read Report No. 12-81 regarding California
Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility Budget for 1981-82, as follows:
Each year, the Recreation Budget is submitted
prior to the regular budget hearings in order
that recruitment of personnel for the summer
programs may begin immediately. On April 22,
1981, this committee recommended the adoption
of the 1981-82 Recreation Budget for Aquatics,
Sports, and Parks and Playgrounds. Action on
the budget for the California Avenue Park
Neighborhood Facility was deferred pending the
recommendation forthcoming from a study being
conducted by a special committee appointed by
the City Manager. The committee report and
recommendations were submitted to the City
Manager on June 15, 1981 (Attachment A).
The proposed budget for the California Avenue
Park Neighborhood Facility incorporates the
recommendations contained in the committee
report and where appropriate, the recommenda-
tions have been addressed in the 1981-82
objectives. The total 1981-82 budget for the
facility is $235,185, which reflects an increase
of $14,530. As the committee recommended, that
figure includes the transfer of one Building
Maintainer, and related costs from General
Services. Capital expenditures include major
items such as the replacement of an'old type-
writer on loan from the Civic Auditorium, mats
and rubber matting related to the Men's Body-
Conditioning Programs and Women's Exercise
Programs, and games which will increase the use
and participation of the recreation and game
room area. Additionally, so as to assist in
measuring the attainment of the 1981-82 objectives,
this committee has requested the staff incorporate
attendance figures and percentages into the
appropriate objectives and would recommend that
the budget should include an objective which
reflects the total current attendance and pro-
posed increases for the 1981-82 fiscal year.
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 2
483
In conclusion, this committee recommends that
the City Council adopt the 1981-82 Proposed
Budget for the California Avenue Park Neighbor-
hood Facility (Attachment B).
Auditorium-Recreation Manager Graviss stated the recom-
mendations in the City Manager's Study are adequate and can be
incorporated this year. It is hoped that when it is time to come
before the Council for next year's appropriations that there will
be more new innovative measures taken in the Cali£ornia Avenue
Park Neighborhood Facility. It is also planned to rename this
facility in order to enhance the area and try to get the park used
to its ultimate.
City Manager Kelmar stated that there are a lot of
activities at this facility that most of the Council may not be
aware of. They have started a Track Program and some participants
have qualified for the national championship. There is a Basket-
ball Program, sponsored by the Police Athletic Benefit Association~
that possibly may qualify for a national tournament in Las Vegas,
Nevada. There are a number of activities, also, that demonstrate
a very positive note for that facility. With the items being recom-
mended the program should move ahead considerably.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Auditorium-
Recreation Committee Report No. 12-81 regarding California Avenue
Park Neighborhood Facility Budget for 1981-82, was accepted;
recommendations as outlined in the report, were approved; and
Proposed Budget for the California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility
for Fiscal Year 1981-82, was adopted.
Councilman Rockoff, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 12-81 regarding Communications
Study, as follows:
On October 29, 1980, the City Council authorized
Stanford Research Institute (SRI) to conduct a
study of the current communication system within
the City, and make recommendations for the future
needs of the system. This study was necessitated
due to serious problems being experienced with
4S4
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 3
the present system. At the Council Meeting of
June 3, 1981, Wrex Beaman of SRI presented a
final report to the Council, with recommendations.
The report was received by the City Council and
referred to the Budget Review and Finance
Committee for study and recommendation.
The report indicated that part of the communi-
cation system and equipment was sound, but at
the present time there exist deficiencies,
which include blank spoteast and north of the
bluff area, including a major portion of Rio
Bravo. Also, there is no central planning or
person to oversee the maintenance of the system
and to plan for future needs as the City grows,
as well as to consider the system as a single
system rather than several individual systems
as it now operates. SRI made recommendations
regarding staffing, recommendations regarding
changes in operations, recommendations for
technical changes, and they recommend that
these changes be made in six steps over a
period of five years.
This committee, with the assistance of staff,
has reviewed these proposals and, while the
staff is not in agreement with the full findings
of the report, there is substantial agreement
on Steps 1 and 2, which would institute a high
altitude site to take care of the immediate
needs of deficient radio coverage in the
emergency radio system and start the City on a
program of unifying the communications system
so that Public Works, Building and the Water
Departments will also have adequate coverage in
the future.
In order to accomplish Step l, additional
staffing will be required. In discussing SRI's
proposals with City staff, it is believed the
substantial increase in staffing recommended
by SRI could be phased over a longer period of
time than SRI recommended, if the City so chooses
to follow their complete program. During the
initial implementation of Step l, the committee
and staff will continue to review the plan to
determine the extent to which the City intends
to implement the ultimate completion of all of
SRI's recommendations.
This committee referred to and recommended that
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee review and approve an immediate change
in the staffing in the Communications Section
of the Police Department to upgrade one of the
existing positions of Electronics Technician to
a Communications Coordinator, who will act as
Manager and Planner; change the title of the
other Electronics Technician position to Com-
munications Technician II; and authorize an
additional position of Communications Technician
I. It is felt that this is the minimum staffing
necessary to handle the immediate maintenance
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 4
485
needs of the system as it now exists and start
moving the communications system to better
serve the City in future years. On July 13,
1981, the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee met and reviewed the proposed staffing
changes, concurred with the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, and has recommended approval
of the positions and specifications, which are
included and attached to this report. These
personnel changes will cost approximately
$40,000 annually.
The total estimated cost of the high altitude
site is $128,000, including land, road con-
struction, tower, and building. There is
$41,000 remaining from prior years' Revenue
Sharing Funds budgeted for communications.
Consequently, it will be necessary to set
aside additional Revenue Sharing Funds in the
amount of $87,000.
In conclusion, this committee recommends that
the Council, as part of its budget action,
initiate Step 1, which is the institution of
the high altitude site and set aside Revenue
Sharing Funds, in the amount of $87,000, and
approve the attached Salary Resolution and
Job Specifications as recommended by the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee.
Also, this committee recommends the Council
authorize the initiation of Step l, as outlined
above and direct staff to report back to the
Budget Review and Finance Committee within six
months as to the status of the action taken.
Police Chief Price answered questions of Councilman
Barton regarding consolidation with the County communications system
and the 911 County-Wide Plan. Chief Price stated consolidation
with the County was discussed in the SRI Report and not recommended.
Presently there is a great deal of cooperation between the two
communication centers, through direct lines, etc. The Fire Study
is tied into this, which has some bearing on the communication
center. The 911 County-Wide Plan has been considered and accepted
by both the City and County. The Enhance System, which means the
telephone company, through the State, will be installing a computerized
system that will locate the caller and direct them to the correct
facility. Whatever the City does will not effect that, so long as
we have the proper facilities available when it is ready for
installation in approximately two years.
486
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 5
In answer to a question by Councilman Christensen, Chief
Price stated that two sites are being considered for the high
altitude site. One is located on Mount Adelaide and the other
on the east side of Kern Canyon Road. The cost figures given are
on the Mount Adelaide site, because it appears to be the best
location, however, staff is not locked into this site. If something
better comes along, prior to the time land is purchased, that site
would also be considered.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Budget Review and
Finance Committee Report No. 12-81 regarding Communications
was accepted;
approved.
and recommendations as outlined in the report,
Adoption of Resolution No. 55-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
Upon
of the Council
42-80, setting
Study,
were
field amending Resolution No. 42-80,
setting salaries and related benefits
for Officers and Employees of the
City of Bakersfield.
a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Resolution No. 55-81
of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No.
salaries and related benefits for Officers and
Councilmen Rockoff, Means, and Ratty, members of the
Review and Finance Committee, read Report No. 13-81 regarding
Budget for Fiscal Year 1981-82, as follows:
It is the responsibility of the Budget Review
and Finance Committee to review and make recom-
mendations on the Proposed Annual Operating
Budget. It was this committee's desire to
approach this Operating Budget review differently
than was done in the past so as to obtain a
greater insight into the City's operations and
a better understanding of service levels. In
order to obtain this greater insight, this
committee met with each of the department heads
Budget
Operating
roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent:
Councilmen Payne, Ratty
Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means, Rockoff, Strong
Employees of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 6
487
and discussed at great length the various pro-
grams, program objectives, and service levels
under their administration.
The budget format is similar to that of last
year. The proposed budget is divided into six
major service areas; Management Services,
Environmental Services, Development and
Transportation Services, Public Safety Services,
Recreation and Cultural Services, and Support
Services. In turn, these service areas are
further broken down into the various programs
and subprograms that make up each major service
area. Major specific annual objectives to be
achieved during the fiscal year are also listed
for each subprogram.
The Operating Budget discussed in this report
consists of the operating expenses and fixed
asset purchases proposed for the General Tax
Rate Category and operating type expenditures
within the Community Development Block Grant
and Gas Ta~ which are included in the Restricted
Agency Category. Operating expenses consist
basically of materials, supplies, utilities,
etc. Fixed assets consist of Departmental
Capital Outlay Items such as office equipment,
automotive equipment, communication equipment,
etc. The Operating Budget does not include
Salaries and Supplemental Benefits nor Capital
Improvment Projects. The Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee will make recommendations
on all salary matters. The entire City Council
will review the Proposed Capital Improvement
Program, which has been evaluated by the Planning
Commission.
As in prior years, the Departmental Operating
Budgets have been prepared in a manner to
reflect the total costs of providing a particular
program, which includes such items as Data
Processing, Legal, Finance, Personnel, etc.
This is accomplished by including in the budgets,
where applicable, such items as: (1) Custodial
Services Cost Allocation, Object Number 5300;
(2) Administrative Cost Allocation, Object
Number 5400; and (3) Rental Internal Organiza-
tions, Object Number 6200.
The Custodial Service Cost Allocation is re-
flected in those programs which receive custodial
services. In the case of programs located in
City Hall, each program is charged for their
proportionate share of the maintenance cost of
City Hall based on their total square footage
of office space. Programs operating outside
of City Hall are charged based on the cost of
employees and materials involved in per£orming
the services.
The Administrative Cost Allocation entails an
allocation of the cost of staff programs (i.e.,
City Manager's Office, City Clerk City Attorney,
and Finance) to the various line programs (i.e.,
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 7
Police, Fire, Public Works, etc.) based on the
percentage that the cost of each line program
bears to the total cost of all line programs;
the theory being that staff programs are
designed to provide services to the line pro-
grams. The allocations are deducted from the
budgets of the staff programs as "Cost Applied,"
Object Number 0001, so that the total City
budget remains unchanged.
The Equipment Maintenance Division of the Public
Works Department provides a central equipment
pool for all departments. This rental charge
is reflected in each using department's budget
under the account entitled, "Rental Internal
Organizations," Object Number 6200. These
rental rates are adjusted annually to reflect
the cost of operating the applicable equipment.
When considering the Operating Budget, it is
important for both the City Council and the
public to understand the effect of growth and
development on City operations, more specifi-
cally, the demand for services. The following
statistics illustrate this point and indicate
the increases the City has experienced over the
last year:
Population - 109,000, up
Street Miles - 460, up 15%
Park Acreage - 232, up 7%
Police Calls for Service 85,000,
up 14% (projected for 1981-82 89,600)
Police Patrol Miles - 1,800,000 miles,
up 20%
The following is a summary of the Operating
Budget indicating the amount, pior to allocations
as described above, for each City program. Also
included are pertinent comments concerning the
items included in this specific budget and a
page number reference to the applicable budget
in the Preliminary Budget document:
MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Mayor - (Page 18-19) - $6,865
The Proposed Operating Budget is the same as
last year.
City Council - (Page 20-21) - $597,900
The budget for the City Council for the 1981-
82 fiscal year provides $25,000, if necessary,
to assist in the administration costs of the
Senior Citizens' Center.
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 8
489
City Manager - (Page 25-29) - $240,350
This committee reviewed the specific annual
objectives within each subprogram in the City
Manager's Budget. It was noted that, in an
effort to keep this committee and the City
Council apprised of the attainment of all
objectives throughout the budget, the City
Manager's Office will be providing quarterly
reports to this committee with respect to the
objectives and performance of each department
within the City. Also, the City Manager
proposes to conduct an educational program
for all management personnel on "Management
by Objectives" so staff will be able to
improve on the preparation and reporting of
objectives in future years.
In addition, this committee requested a December
31, 1981 status report of Objective Number l,
the establishment of written procedures for
Fire and Police entry level recruiting and
testing.
Presently, the "Index System" for the City
records and Council proceedings are unmanage-
able. The committee agrees with the recom-
mendation of the Assistant City Clerk to
pursue the feasibility of establishing the
"Index System" on the City's computer.
Community Promotion (Page 30-31) - $21,000
Although an increase was requested by the Chamber
of Commerce, this committee does not recommend a
proposed change in the contract with the Chamber
of Commerce for industrial promotion. While
this committee recognizes the request of the
Chamber of Commerce for additional funding for
1981-82, the financial constraints the City
faces for the next fiscal year dictate that the
City not increase its support and contribution
to the Chamber of Commerce at this time. Also,
this committee would request that the Chamber
continue to make a report to the Council on their
activities related to industrial promotion and
discuss the effectiveness related to those
activities. Hopefully, in future years, the
Council can consider such requests with more
favorable results.
Insurance (Property and Liability)
(Page 34-35) -
As a result of favorable experience in our Self-
Insurance Fund, it is not necessary to fund any
monies this year for the liability and property
insurance coverage. Additionally, while this
program does not include Workers' Compensation
or Unemployment Compensation, this committee
feels it important to point out at this time,
that throughout the Operating Budgets, no pro-
vision or charges have been made to fund monies
490
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 9
for Workers' Compensation or Unemployment
Compensation protection and insurance for the
1981-82 fiscal year. Although the referred to
favorable experience has resulted in this
decision as well, it is improtant that the City
Council recognize that the Self-Insurance Fund
will be unable to sustain itself without
additional funding from the operating depart-
ments beyond the 1981-82 fiscal year.
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Waste Water Services - (Page 45-49) - $1,559,585
As done with the other programs, this committee
reviewed in considerable detail the specific
annual objectives for the Waste Water Services
and in addition to those recommended, this
committee recommends that there be an objective
to analyze the Waste Water Treatment needs for
the City of Bakersfield for the next 5, l0 and
15 years.
Refuse Management Services
$2,499,895
(Page 51-53) -
In recent Council action, the City Council, from
its Contingency Fund, funded the purchase of
1,000 additional 300 gallon containers for the
automatic loading refuse collection system. In
light of that recent decision by the City
Council, this committee noted and recommends
that Objective Number 1 under Municipal Services
be changed to reflect the distribution of
"1,500" containers rather than "500." Also,
this committee recommends that Municipal Services,
as in Contract Services, contain an objective
addressing the issue of "negative complaints"
in an effort to identify and reduce the total
negative complaints.
In discussions with staff, it was noted that
there are approximately 500 refuse collection
locations within the City that do not have
refuse containers placed in a location as re-
quired by City ordinance. More specifically,
these locations have containers located in
areas that exceed the 50 foot maximum, are in
areas requiring the collector to walk through
buildings such as garages and carports, and in
some extreme cases the collectors are required
to climb ladders to reach the refuse containers.
This committee recommends that the staff notify
the appropriate property owners or businesses
advising them of their violation of City
ordinance and the situation must be corrected
within 90 days. In the event the situation is
not corrected this committee recommends that
staff return to this committee with recommended
appropriate fees and charges to be imposed upon
those businesses and residences which do not
comply with City ordinance. In the case of the
elderly and handicapped, these charges and
requirements would not be imposed.
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page l0
49l
At the present time, the staff is reviewing a
rate increase request of the contractors pro-
viding contract refuse service. The staff
comments will be forthcoming to this committee,
so this committee can evaluate the request and
make a recommendation to the entire Council.
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
Development Services Administration (Page 62-
66) - $422,155
This program consists of the Development Services
Administration within the general fund and the
Community Development Administration within the
Community Development Block Grant. This com-
mittee noted that Development Services Adminis-
tration, Objective Number 3, to analyze non-
emergency tasks and functions of the Fire
Department that may be more appropriately and
economically carried out by the Building and
Planning Sections, could possibly result in
the shifting of some responsibility, which would
relieve the necessity of staff increases in
Fire Safety Control for sometime in the near
future.
In this committee's discussions with staff, it
was also noted that in cooperation with the
City Manager's Office, Development Services
Administration will be implementing the "Cost-
Revenue Model."
Planning - (Page 69-72) - $122,395
In discussion with staff, it was noted that the
Planning subprogram, since 1963, has only in-
creased from 12 positions to 13.2 positions
proposed for the 1981-82 budget, even in light
of the tremendous growth the City has experienced
during this period. One major reason the City
has been able to maintain a smaller staff is
due to the fact the City policy is one of
working with developers to "improve" project
design rather than to "redesign" proposed
projects and subdivision plans. Also, the
1981-82 budget proposes to have consultants
conduct noise "contours" (noise measurements)
conducted on main thoroughfares so as to update
the "Noise Element."
In reviewing the objectives with staff, this
committee recommends that Advance Planning,
Objective Number 4, (provide environmental
determination on major City initiated projects;
prepare EIR's as needed) should not include the
phrase "prepare EIR's as needed" since this
objective could result in unanticipated and
unbudgeted funds necessary for overtime and
additional personnel as might be needed for
the preparation of such EIR's. Additionally,
this committee recommends that staff develop
and include an objective which will deal with
the "Open Space Element" of the City of Bakers-
field.
492
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 11
Public Works Administration - (Page 75-77) -
$71,860
In addition to the objectives proposed, this
committee recommends that an additional objective
be added to study the future sanitary landfill
requirements of the City for future needs.
Engineering Services - (Page 79-82) - $196,460
After a complete review and discussion of the
proposed specific annual objectives, this
committee noted it is City policy to recover
costs through fees for inspecting subdivision
permits and miscellaneous surveying.
Streets - (Page 85-87) - $1,205,165
While discussing the objectives, it was noted
that the Street Maintenance Division has not
added personnel in approximately 15 years.
Although street miles have increased tremen-
dously over this period of time, the City's
policy of acquiring and using modern and up-
to-date equipment has been a major reason for
increased productivity. It was also noted that,
when necessary, the Street ~aintenance personnel
have been very willing to schedule their 40
hour work week to include early mornings,
evenings, weekends, and holidays to avoid
problems with traffic.
Although the Street Maintenance Division has
not made up the "ground" lost during the 1973-
74 fiscal year, we are currently keeping Up with
the street maintenance and repairs throughout
the City. In light of this, this committee
recommends that the goal statement for Street
Maintenance be modified to include a statement
whereby it will be City policy for the Street
Maintenance Program to not "fal~ behind" the
current level of service.
While discussing the objectives for the Street
Cleaning Program, it was noted that objectives
to sweep residential and major collector streets,
"once every three weeks" may slip to "once every
four weeks" by the end of the 1981-82 budget
year. This situation, of course, is the result
of additional street miles within the City
Limits brought about by development and annexa-
tions. Staff advised this committee that
delivery of street cleaning equipment takes
approximately one year after the order has been
placed. Although this budget does not include
funds for additional equipment to permit street
sweeping from slipping to a frequency beyond
four weeks, this committee will be analyzing
the quarterly reports on objectives so as to
anticipate the need to order equipment to
maintain this level of service.
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 12
Traffic Control - (Page 89-92) - $532,735
After reviewing, at length, the proposed specific
annual objectives for the Traffic Control Program,
this committee recommends that the Traffic
Engineering Division include an objective to
analyze intersections with high accident fre-
quency.
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
Police Services - (Page 108-116) $2,042,300
Prior to meeting with the Police Chief and his
staff, the Police Chief furnished this committee
with a comprehensive report describing the four
major divisions (Administration, Technical
Services, Vice and Operations) and the service
level within each of these divisions. A copy
of the report is attached for review by the
entire Council.
This committee reviewed the report and all of
the specific annual objectives in great detail
and offered several suggestions and recommendations.
First, since this budget document does not include
additional personnel (although requests have been
submitted to the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee), objectives requiring
additional personnel should not be shown at this
time. For example, Objectives Number 4 and 5
under Operations. Secondly, this committee
recommends that, where appropriate, response
times, priority, ratings, percentages, and
other elements which may assist in evaluating
the attainment of objectives be included in the
specific objectives. Additionally, this committee
recommends that objectives be included to address
the issue of police vehicle accident prevention
and to evaluate the feasibility of a Career
Criminal Program.
On June 3, 1981, the Council referred to this
committee the matter of alcoholic beverages,
noise, rowdiness, obscenities, and curfew in
City parks. The matter was referred to this
committee so that in the course of discussions
regarding the Police Budget, this committee
could examine recommended alternatives, propose
additional alternatives, and determine any
financial impact on the Police Budget, which
would result from these alternatives. This
committee requested that the Police Chief
examine and report back to this committee on
how this matter is being handled in other cities
as well as requesting the Police Chief to make
suggestions and recommendations on how the
matter could be dealt with in the City of Bakers-
field. In the meantime, this committee recommended
that the Police Department use existing funds
appropriated for overtime to provide police
protection and police manpower in the parks
where the problems exist. At the Council
Meeting of July 29, 1981, this committee will
return to the City Council with complete
recommendations.
494
Bakersfield, Calffornia, July 20, 1981 - Page 13
Fire Services - (Page 122-128) $1,096,655
During the course of the discussions on the
specific annual objectives for each of the
divisions, it was noted that the level of
productivity is high in relation to past years
in such areas as fire hydrant maintenance and
fire prevention inspections. It was noted, as
Fire Fighters, they perform these activities
while on regular duty. It was also noted that
the level of service has been and will be
maintained over the next fiscal year without
any proposals for additional personnel.
In order to measure the level of service and
determine the attainment of objectives, the
committee recommended that response times,
number of fires, fire loss per 1,000 buildings,
and fire loss per 1,000 persons from year to
year be added to the appropriate objectives.
Building Services - (Page 131-134) - $388,525
In reviewing the specific annual objectives,
this committee recommends that staff be directed
to modify its objectives to include an objective
whereby staff will examine the Sign Ordinance
and return to the City Council with a recom-
mendation to amend the Sign Ordinance to, in
effect, eliminate Special Sign Permits. It was
also noted that Objectives Number 2 and 4 under
the Conservation Division should be modified to
read "Enforce Housing Code for a minimum
of 25 substandard buildings" and "Demolition
of a minimum of 10 buildings not in compliance
with the Dangerous Building Code." This
committee also recommends that the Building
Services personnel evaluate and recommend a new
schedule of fees for those types of Building
Permits which impose a minimum fee (i.e., a
$5.00 fee) for which the cost of services exceed
the fee.
In addition, the committee recommends that staff
examine and report back to the Council the
possibility of recovering costs related to
administration, enforcement, etc., of the repair
and followup on burned buildings.
This committee also noted that with present
staffing, the City is unable to satisfactorily
enforce zoning violations and the City is unable
to followup on all related complaints. In light
of what this committee considers to be a less
than desirable level of service, this committee
would recommend that the City Council consider
increasing personnel to improve the service
level in Building Services when funds are
available.
Repair and Demolition - (Page 136-137) - $10,000
This budget provides for the demolition of
dangerous buildings. The City funded costs are
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 14
'495
ultimately assessed against affected property
and collected through the tax rolls.
Street Lighting - (Page 138-139) - $960,880
At the present time, the City has approximately
5,500 street lights within the City Limits, of
which the City owns 1,300. Recently, the City
Council approved a program whereby the City
would be replacing its street lights with
energy efficient high pressure sodium vapor
lights. Pacific Gas & Electric has completed
approximately 50% of their three year program
to convert their 4,200 street lights to more
efficient sodium vapor fixtures. The long-
range effect of this conversion will minimize
increases in the Street Lighting Program.
RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES
Recreation - (Page 147-151'
As the Council will recall the budgets for
Aquatics, Sports, and Parks and Playgrounds
were adopted in April to enable the Recreation
Department to begin their hiring for summer
programs. Additionally, the budget for the
California Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility,
which was not acted on in April, was recom-
mended to this Council earlier this evening.
Parks - (Page 153-156) $853,415
In discussing the specific annual objectives
for the Parks Program, it was noted that the
Proposed Maintenance Districts will be 100%
self-supporting. Additionally, this committee
recommends that the City Council approve a
policy whereby median island landscaping and
maintenance be included in the Maintenance
Districts.
Auditorium - (Page 159-162) - $368,435
After reviewing the specific annual objectives
for the Auditorium Program, this committee had
several recommendations. First, this committee
would recommend that the City ordinance be
changed to reduce the rental discount to schools
to 20% for fiscal year 1981-82 and 0% for 1982-
83 and subsequent years. The current discount
for schools is 40%. Secondly, this committee
recommends that an objective be established
which will reflect the status of all promotional
activities of the Auditorium Manager.
This committee has evaluated the request of
the Convention Bureau of Greater Bakersfield
for an increased contribution from $60,000 to
$75,000 for the 1981-82 fiscal year. Over the
past couple of months, the City has received
similar requests from other agencies and organi-
zations and due to financial constraints the
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 15
City is facing for the 1981-82 fiscal year, the
City has had to deny all requests. However,
since the Convention Bureau is responsible for
bringing business to the City, this committee
recommends the Council agree to match a maximum
of $7,500 fees the Convention Bureau would
generate by soliciting new membership. If the
Convention Bureau is successful in generating
new membership and relat~ed fees in that amount,
and the City matches that amount, the Convention
Bureau will have realized the $15,000 increase
they have requested. Additionally, this com-
mittee recommends that the £easibility of com-
bining the Chamber of Commerce with the Board
of Trade be analyzed. In order to proceed with
this study, this committee recommends that this
matter be referred to the Intergovernmental
Relations Committee for study and recommendation.
Cunningham Art Gallery
$5,495
(Page 164-165) -
The budget for the Cunningham Art Gallery pro-
vides for utilities and custodial services and
is consistent with prior years.
SUPPORT SERVICES
Finance - (Page 173-178) - $90,310
While reviewing the specific annual objectives
for the Finance Program, this committee recog-
nized how the Cash Management Division is
maximizing the utilization of all idle funds
to the City's best advantage and encourage this
policy continue. In an effort to minimize
expenditures, this committee supports the City
further expanding its practice of cooperative
purchasing through the State contract.
Data Processing - (Page 181-183) - $182,935
It was noted that by December 31, 1981, the
Data Processing Program will be operating with
three less positions than it had in the 1979-80
fiscal year. In addition to that fact, this
committee would recommend that in the quarterly
reports for the period ending December 31, 1981,
the staff prepare a report to this committee
indicating the overall cost effectiveness of
the City's new computer system through that
point and time.
City Attorney - (Page 185-187) - $48,865
As a result of Council action in the 1980-81
fiscal year, the Insurance Coordinator and Steno-
Clerk, formerly under the City Manager's Program,
has been transferred to the City Attorney's
Program. It was also noted that the additional
Deputy City Attorney approved during the 1980-
81 fiscal year is devoting approximately 75%
of his time to the Self-Insurance Program. In
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page 16
497
addition to the Self-Insurance Program, the
City Attorney's Office is spending considerably
more time on Water and Redevelopment Agency
matters, which will reduce consulting fees.
This committee recommends that the objectives
be amended, where appropriate, to include such
numbers as total claims processed, total
resolutions and ordinances prepared, etc.,
which will reflect department activity.
General Services - (Page 189-193) $553,690
In this committee's discussion with staff
regarding objectives for the General Services
Program, it was noted that as City personnel
attend training sessions and receive certifi-
cates related to heating and air conditioning,
the City will be able to utilize City personnel
rather than outside specialists to conduct
appropriate inspections throughout the City.
Additionally, the budget for the California
Avenue Park Neighborhood Facility was presented
earlier this evening and if adopted, the
appropriate objectives and related costs and
positions will be removed from the Custodial
Services Division as presented in this document.
CONCLUSION
As a result of our meetings with all the depart-
ment heads, we are satisfied with the level of
service presently being provided and feel it
represents the desires of the residents of the
City of Bakersfield and we do not desire to
make any reductions. This committee feels that
all service areas within the City are performing
effectively and efficiently even in light of
development and growth within the City.
This committee recommends the City Council
consider the proposed level of service, as set
forth in the budget document recommended by the
City Manager and modified by this committee to
be satisfactory.
In conclusion, this committee recommends the
approval of this report and adoption of the
Operating Budget as modified in this report.
Mr. George Moran, Vice-Chairman of the Convention Bureau
of Greater Bakersfield, read a letter, dated June 16, 1981, that
was submitted to the Council requesting that the City increase
the Convention Bureau's Budget from $60,000 to $75,000, beginning
with Fiscal Year 1981-82. Mr. Moran requested that the Council
reconsider the recommendation in the report and increase their
budget by $15,000.
-49a
Bakersfield, California, July 20, 1981 - Page
Councilman Rockoff stated, unfortunately, in City Govern-
ment today there are extreme fiscal constraints and many worthy
organizations have requested new and increased help. As much as
the Council would like, it was felt under these constraints the
City would have to be extremely conservative to maintain the
level of service required by the citizens of this community. The
Council realizes that the Convention Bureau can bring additional
money into the City Treasury and that is one reason the method
of increasing their funds was suggested.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Budget Review and
Finance Committee Report No. 13-81 regarding Operating Budget for
Fiscal Year 1981-82, was accepted; and Operating Budget for Fiscal
Year 1981-82, was approved.
RECESS
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the Council
recessed its budget session at 8:05 P.M., until Tuesday, July
21, 1981 at 7:00 P.M.
YOR of y City of ~Bakersfield,
ATTEST:
CITY C Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
ma
Calif.
Bakersfield, California, July 21, 1981
499
Minutes of a budget session of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 7:00 P.M., July 21, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present:
Mayor Shell.
Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means
(seated at 7:05 P.M.), Payne,
Ratty, Rockoff, Strong (seated
at 7:05 P.M.)
Absent: None
Councilman Payne, Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, read Report No. 10-81 regarding Salary and
Supplemental Benefits, as follows:
In compliance with the State of California's
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the City has concluded
its annual meet and confer sessions with the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers
(IBPO), the Services Employees International
Union (SEIU), the California State Fire Fighters
Association and the Teamsters. Consulting
sessions were also held with representatives of
the General Employees Supervisory Unit, Police
Supervisory Unit, the Confidential Employees
Unit and Management.
We are pleased to report that Memorandums of
Understanding have been reached with the various
unions. The City's negotiating team headed by
Nick Counter has been able to negotiate within
the guidelines as established by the City Council
in their last executive session. The cost to
the City for all of the units fall within 10%
total compensation at a total cost of approxi-
mately $2.3 million.
We would like to compliment the City's Manage-
ment negotiating team as well as the various
union representatives for conducting themselves
in a professional manner at the bargaining
table. The intent of the law has been met and
both sides seem to be equally satisfied.
An area of major concern to the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee is Manage-
ment salaries. We have met with a group of
Management employees and they have pointed out
some discrepancies in the City's salary plan
which in some cases results in subordinates
making more money than Management personnel.
Also, there are comparable positions in County
Government that pay in excess of $20,000 a year
than department heads with the City. The Council
5OO
Bakersfield, California, July 21, 1981 - Page 2
addressed this issue last year by hiring Ralph
Andersen and Associates to study Management
salaries. This study should be completed by
next month, and it is our intention to immediately
start reviewing the results and recommend
Management salary adjustments in September.
Based on all available information, the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee is
making the following recommendations for the
Council's approval:
BLUE AND WHITE COLLAR UNITS
The employees' portion of 7% contribution
to the Public Employees Retirement System
(PERS) be paid by the City, effective June
29, 1981.
2. A 5% salary increase, effective December
28, 1981.
Medical insurance paid at the rate of 80%
of the family premium by the City, 20% by
the employee.
4. Shift differential increased from 35~ per
hour to 50~ per hour.
Uniform allowance for Police Department
non-safety employees increased from $10.00
per month to $12.50 per month.
6. City will allow employees in this unit to
participate in a Deferred Compensation
Program at no cost to the City.
The City and union agree to discuss possible
salary inequities beginning September, 1981.
FIRE UNIT
1. A 6% salary adjustment, effective June 29,
1981. A 4% salary increase, effective March
22, 1982.
2. The employees' portion of 5% contribution
to PERS be paid by the City, effective
September 21, 1981.
A 5% salary increase for those employees
that do not receive education incentive
pay and have 15 years or more of service
with the department.
4. An increase of $15 per month towards medical
insurance.
5. Uniform allowance increased from $225 to
$300 per year.
City will allow employees in this unit
participate in a Deferred Compensation
Program at no cost to the City.
to
Bakersfield, California, July 21, 1981 - Page 3
o
o
FIRE SUPERVISORY UNIT
A 6% salary adjustment, effective June 29,
1981.
A 4% salary increase, effective March 22,
1982.
The employees' portion of 5% contribution
to PERS be paid by the City, effective
September 21, 1981.
Medical insurance paid at the rate of 80%
of the family premium by the City, 20% by
the employee.
Uniform allowance increased from $225 to
$300 per year.
Effective January 1, 1982, Fire Supervisory
Unit employees with maximum 56 shifts of
sick leave, will revert back to vacation
conversion of 75% of their unused sick leave
if they use any part of their allowable sick
leave during the calendar year.
POLICE UNIT
The employees' portion of 7% contribution
to PERS be paid by the City, effective
June 29, 1981.
A 6% salary increase, effective December
28, 1981.
Medical insurance paid at the rate of 80%
of the family premium by the City, 20% by
the employee.
Uniform allowance increased from $225 per
year to $500 per year.
Stand-by pay increased from $5 per shift to
$15 per shift.
Effective December 28, 1981, employees in
the Police Unit with l0 years service shall
receive longevity pay of 3%; an additional
3% after 15 years; and an additional 3%
after 20 years.
Employees in the Police Unit may participate
in the City's Deferred Compensation Plan at
no cost to the City.
One day per year of sick leave may be used
for personal necessity leave.
The same number of holidays as other City
employees will be observed or compensated.
5O2
Bakersfield, California, July 21, 1981 - Page 4
o
POLICE SUPERVISORY UNIT
A 2% salary increase, effective June 29,
1981.
A 4% salary increase, effective March 22,
1982.
The employees' portion of 7% contribution
to PERS be paid by the City, effective
June 29, 1981.
An additional 2½% salary increase for those
employees holding a Supervisory Certificate
from the Police Officers Standards and
Training (POST), effective December 28,
1981.
Uniform allowance increased from $225 per
year to $500 per year.
Medical insurance paid at the rate of 80%
of the family premium by the City, 20% by
the employee.
Stand-by pay increased from $5 per shift
to $15 per shift.
The same number of holidays as other City
employees will be observed or compensated.
GENERAL SUPERVISORY UNIT
The employees' portion of 7% contribution
to PERS be paid by the City, effective
June 29, 1981.
A 6% salary increase, effective December
28, 1981.
Medical insurance paid at the rate of 80%
of the family premium by the City, 20% by
the employee.
CONFIDENTIAL UNIT
The employees' portion of 7% contribution
to PERS be paid by the City, effective
June 29, 1981.
A 5% salary increase, effective December 28,
1981.
Medical insurance paid at the rate of 80%
of the family premium by the City, 20% by
the employee.
City will allow employees in this unit to
participate in a Deferred Compensation
Program at no cost to the City.
503
Bakersfield, California, July 21, 1981 - Page 5
Confidential Unit to be abolished and all
employee classifications affected placed
into the White Collar Unit. Employees
hired prior to July 1, 1981 designated as
Confidential shall continue to receive
Administrative Leave and a Life Insurance
Program. Those hired after July 1, 1981
will be designated as Confidential, however,
will not receive extra benefits. This is
in accordance with a recommendation of
Ralph Andersen and Associates.
MANAGEMENT UNIT
The employees' portion of 7% contribution
to PERS be paid by the City, effective
June 29, 1981.
Medical insurance paid at the rate of 80%
of the family premium by the City, 20% by
the employee.
Uniform allowance for Police Management
increased from $225 to $500 per year and
an increase of $225 to $300 for Fire
Management.
o
Salary adjustments upon completion of Ralph
Andersen and Associates Management Salary
Study.
NOTE:
The City Manager's salary is not tied
to other Management positions as his
salary is negotiated separately by the
Council.
RETIRED EMPLOYEES
The City will pick up the increase in Blue
Cross Insurance Premium for all retired
employees. Cost is approximately $7,000.
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
In order to recruit and retain competent temporary
employees, we are recommending salary increases of
15~ to 30~ per hour for all temporary employees.
Attached to this report is a copy of the proposed
changes. The cost will be approximately $13,000
for 1981-82.
In order to implement these changes, the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee is
recommending Council approval of this report,
the attached Salary Resolution and Ordinance
changes.
Councilman Barton stated that the public should be made
aware that the Police Unit made a commitment during labor negotiations
that they would not strike, thereby giving up a large negotiating
tool.
Bakersfield, California, July 21, 1981 - Page 6
Councilman Christensen made the following statement and
requested that it be spread in full in the minutes:
Your honor and members of the Council I'd like,
very much, to make a correction which is so
misleading to the taxpayers of this City that
I can't refrain from not making it. According
to the article in this morning's paper,
Councilman Don Ratty said, after the meeting,
it was ridiculous that City Management employees
are paid less than those in Kern County Govern-
ment. For example, City Manager Phil Kelmar
makes $50,892, compared with $66,744, for
County Administrative Officer Ron Holden.
Though the County budget is ten times larger
than the City's, Ratty said the responsibilities
are just as great. I think it's infantile. I
think it's demeaning, in my opinion, in my
opinion, to make a statement and have it
published in the newspaper like that for the
taxpayers to have to drink. I~m very proud of
our City Manager. I think we have a fine man.
He's been on board just a few months and I'm
sure he's going to get a raise and I'm sure
he's going to get a good one. I'm sure other
ones we've hired in the last few months are
going to get a raise, and a good one. So, I'm
not making any statement against their raise.
I'm making a statement as to the ridiculousness ....
in the first place the Management Unit's salary
has not even been settled, because the salary
adjustments upon completion of Ralph Andersen
and Associates Management Salary Study will be
made. I'd like to point out, to show the equal-
ness of these two positions .... and there again
I'm not demeaning at all, because being City
Manager is a job 24 hours a day, around the
clock, 7 days a week and the same way with
other staff members of our City .... but when
they make a statement to the effect the ....
Ron Holden, the County Administrator .... I
checked very carefully, he has well over 5,000
employees. I believe we have around 820,
according to our Personnel Director. So 5,000
plus, versus 820. Our budget is a budget of
roughly $43,000,000 and the County budget is
$300,000,000. Now any man in his right mind
that tries to say that the two jobs are equal
and that it's ridiculous that the City Manage-
ment employees are paid less than those of the
Kern County Government, in my opinion, should
not hold office. I'd like to have this presented
in the record so that the taxpayers can see the
ridiculousness of it. Thank you.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee Report No. 10-81 regarding Salary and
Supplemental Benefits, was accepted; and recommendations as out-
lined in the report, were approved.
Bakersfield, California, July 21, 1981 - Page 7
Adoption of Resolution No. 56-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field setting salaries and related
benefits for Officers and Employees
of the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Resolution No. 56-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield setting salaries and
related benefits for Officers and Employees of the City of Bakers-.
field, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means, Payne,
Rockoff, Strong
Noes: None
Ratty,
Absent: None
Adoption of Emergency Ordinance No.
2655 New Series of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield amending
Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code
by rescinding and amending certain
Sections, all in relation to Compen-
sation for Officers and Employees of
the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Emergency Ordinance
No. 2655 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code by rescinding and
amending certain Sections, all in relation to Compensation for
Officers and Employees of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means,
Rockoff, Strong
None
Payne, Ratty,
Absent: None
RECESS
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the Council
recessed its budget session at 7:20 P.M., until immediately
following the regular Council M~ing of Wednesday, August 12, 1981.
of th~~It~of ~er~
MAYOR Calif.
CITY CLERK an4d Ex~fficio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
ma
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 8:00 P.M., July 29, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation in the form of a prayer
submitted by Reverend David Newquist, Pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Shell. Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty,
Present:
Rockoff, Strong, Barton
Absent: None
Minutes of the recessed regular meeting and regular
meeting of July 1, 1981, regular meeting of July 8, 1981, and
budget sessions of July 20 and 21, 1981, were approved as presented.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Mr. Tom Beasley, Brown Brothers Adjusters, expressed
regret that the City will not be renewing their contract and
requested that the Council give it further consideration prior to
making a decision.
CORRESPONDENCE
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, communication from
Kern County Y.M.C.A., 900 22nd Street, dated July 8, 1981,
regarding relocating their facilities to Beach Park, was received
and referred to the Auditorium-Recreation Committee for study and
recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from Bakersfield Checker Cab Company, Inc., giving notice of the
establishment of rates pursuant to Section 7.52.190 of the Munici-
pal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was received and ordered
placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, communication from
Olga B. Scott, 6113 Cypress Point Drive, dated July 21, 1981,
submitting petitions containing 552 signatures opposing the present
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 2
plan for an intersection at the northern foot of the Oak Street
Overpass at Truxtun Avenue, was received and ordered placed on
file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Ralph Boyd Real Estate, Route 1, Box 635, Bakersfield, dated July
20, 1981, advising the Council of the fine professional service
they received from Troy's Towing Service, was received and referred
to the Police Department.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, communication from
Martin-Mcintosh, Licensed Land Surveyors, 230 South Chester Avenue,
dated July 20, 1981, regarding an amendment to the State Map Act
allowing the local agency to create a lien on property to be sub-
divided, was received and referred to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, communication from
J. Stanley Antongiovanni, Route 3, Box 1211, Bakersfield, dated
July 22, 1981, requesting reinstatement of his request for annexa-
tion of property located along Panama Lane between Gosford Road
and Stine Road, was received and referred to the Planning Com-
mission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, communication from
Kern Children's Service Center, Inc., 2005 Ridge Road, dated July
21, 1981, requesting an endorsement for the Kern Children's Service
Center Concept, was received, ordered placed on file and referred
to staff.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Clement, Milazzo, Walters, Elliott, Architects, dated July 23, 1981,
requesting the abandonment of a portion of a Sanitary Sewer and
Public Utilities Easement located between "H" and "F" Streets,
north of 30th Street, was received and referred to the Planning
Commission for study and recommendation.
Councilman Christensen read the following communication
from Roland S. Woodruff, Attorney for the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District, into the record:
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 3
July 23, 1981
Honorable Members
Bakersfield City Council
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California
Gentlemen:
The 1981-82 priority list for allocation of
State Funds to local agencies for the con-
struction of grade separation projects has
been completed and publicly announced, and it
appears that two projects nominated for this
area are high enough on the list to warrant
our study of the ability to provide the funding
of the local agencies' share.
The Commissioners of the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District have asked me
to write your board and invite the members
of your appropriate committee to meet with
our commissioners and an appropriate committee
from the County of Kern, to jointly discuss
this opportunity.
If you will authorize such a meeting, the time
and place thereof will be arranged through
staff. We would like to have such a meeting
within the next thirty days.
Please advise.
Yours truly,
Roland S. Woodruff, Attorney
for Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from Roland S. Woodruff, Attorney for the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District, was received and referred to the
Intergovernmental Relations Committee.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilman Rockoff commended the staff for their co-
operation and help regarding the traffic study on the intersection
of Panorama Drive and Columbus Street, which does not warrant
signals at this time. Councilman Rockoff requested that the
traffic continue to be monitored at this intersection because of
the heavy traffic. He also thanked the Traffic Engineer for working
with CalTrans to get reflectorized signs on Highway 178.
4
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 4
Councilman Rockoff asked City Manager Kelmar several
questions about a proposed newsletter for the citizens of Bakers-
field and indicated he thought it was a very good idea.
REPORTS
Councilman Barton, Chairman of the Business Development
and Parking Committee, read Report No. 3-81 regarding Downtown
Improvement District - 1981-82 Proposed Budget, as follows:
At the request of businesses located within the
downtown area, a Business Improvement District
was established in July, 1968, and is defined
in Chapter 6.50 of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield. The "purpose and intent"
of the businesses wishing to establish the
Business Improvement District was to impose a
tax upon those businesses within the District
and to use the proceeds for promotional
activities within the District. Also, the
collection of the additional tax shall be made
at the same time and in the same manner as any
other business license tax. In addition, the
City code provides that the City Council shall
have sole discretion as to how the monies
derived from this tax are to be used within
the scope of the purposes defined in the City
Code. Based upon projected revenues, a budget
for the use of the projected revenues is
prepared annually and submitted to the City
Council for approval.
On June 17, 1981 the Downtown Business Associa-
tion submitted the 1981-82 proposed budget for
the Downtown Improvement District. The matter
was referred to the Business Development and
Parking Committee.
This committee met with Mr. Jim Trainor of the
Downtown Business Association to review the
proposed budget. After reviewing the proposed
budget, this committee concludes the budget is
consistent with the purpose and intent as set
forth in the Municipal Code, however, the
committee requests additional clarification and
explanation with regards to estimated payroll
taxes. Therefore, this committee recommends
the City Council accept this report and approve
the 1981-82 proposed budget for the Downtown
Improvement District, subject to satisfactory
explanation of estimated payroll taxes being
furnished to the City's Finance Department by
the Downtown Business Association.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Business Development
and Parking Committee Report No. 3-81 regarding Downtown Improvement
District - 1981-82 Proposed Budget, was accepted; and 1981-82
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, July 29, 1981 - Page 5
Proposed Budget for the Downtown Improvement District, subject to
satisfactory explanation of estimated payroll taxes being furnished
to the City's Finance Department by the Downtown Business Associa-
tion, was approved.
Councilman Barton, Chairman of the Business Development
and Parking Committee, read Report No. 4-81 regarding Ride Sharing
Program, as follows:
This committee has met with City staff members,
representatives from GET and representatives
from Cal Trans to discuss the feasibility of
establishing a "Ride Sharing" Program for the
Bakersfield Metropolitan Area.
While this committee recognizes that a Ride
Sharing Program for the "Metropolitan Area"
would extend beyond the City limits of the
City of Bakersfield, the City itself would
initially benefit from a reduced number of
vehicles into the downtown area. Consequently,
relieving the current downtown parking problem.
In addition to the reduced demand for parking,
the consumption of fuel would reduce, the air
quality would improve, and the reduction of
traffic would extend the life of the City
streets.
At length, this committee discussed with all
those present, the various aspects of a "Ride
Sharing" Program. Among items discussed were
park and ride lots, a downtown terminal,
development of data banks on the State of
California computers, recruitment of major
employers in the downtown area to promote the
program, as well as a joint effort with the
County of Kern. It should be noted that at
the present time, there are six major employers
in the downtown area. A major employer, for
the Ride Sharing Program, is one with 100 or
more employees.
The estimated cost of implementing and estab-
lishing such a program for the first year would
be $100,000 and approximately $75,000 to
$80,000 for the second and subsequent years.
It is anticipated that approximately 75% of the
cost of the program will be funded by the State.
Also, Federal Aid Urban funds can be used to
finance a Ride Sharing Program provided these
funds are not committed for other projects.
In conclusion, this committee supports the idea
of a "Ride Sharing" Program and would recommend
that the Council authorize the Business Develop-
ment and Parking Committee to work with GET,
downtown employers, and the County of Kern
through its Intergovernmental Relations Committee.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 6
Mr. Joe Leal, Chief of Mass Transportation Branch of
CalTrans, District 6, Fresno, California, stated he hopes the City
of Bakersfield joins CalTrans in a Ride Sharing Program.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Business Development
and Parking Committee Report No. 4-81 regarding Ride Sharing
Program, was accepted; and the Business Development and Parking
Committee was authorized to work with GET, downtown employers and
the County of Kern through its Intergovernmental Relations Committee
in support of the Ride Sharing Program.
Councilman Christensen, Chairman of the Auditorium-
Recreation Committee, read Report No. 13-81 regarding Park Standards,
Guidelines and Fees, as follows:
On March l, 1976, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 10-76 whereby park standards
and guidelines, requirements, fees and deposits
pursuant to and supplementing the Park Ordinance
was established.
The staff is requesting the resolution be up-
dated to reflect various changes and additions
such as new parks, new and additional facilities
at existing parks, reservation requirements,
and fee adjustments. The referred to changes
and additions are identified as the items and
locations circled on the attached Exhibits A,
B, and C. It is important to note that the
recommended changes reflect the facilities
currently available and the fees represent the
current costs fo the City.
This committee concurs with the proposed changes
and recommends the City Council accept this
report and adopt the proposed resolution re-
flecting the changes enumerated therein.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Auditorium-
Recreation Committee Report No. 13-81 regarding Park Standards,
Guidelines, and Fees, was accepted.
Adoption of Resolution No. 57-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field adopting Park Standards and
Guidelines, Requirements, Fees and
Deposits pursuant to and supple-
menting the Park Ordinance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Resolution No.
57-81 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting Park
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 7
Standards and Guidelines, Requirements, Fees and Deposits pursuant
to and supplementing the Park Ordinance, was adopted by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Rockoff, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 14-81 regarding City Parks -
Alcoholic Beverage Consumption and Noise Ordinance, as follows:
On June 3, 1981, the City Council referred to
this committee the matter of alcoholic beverages,
noise, rowdiness, obscenities, and curfew in
the City parks. The matter was referred to this
committee so that in the course of discussions
regarding the Police budget, this committee
could examine recommended alternatives, propose
additional alternatives, and determine any
financial impact on the Police budget which
would result from those alternatives. While
reviewing the Police budget, this committee
requested that the Police Chief examine and
report back to this committee on how this
matter is being handled in other cities as well
as requesting the Police Chief to make suggestions
and recommendations on how the matter could be
dealt with in the City of Bakersfield. In the
interim, this committee recommended that the
Police Department use existing funds appropriated
for overtime to provide Police protection and
Police manpower in the parks where the problems
exist.
Pursuant to the direction from this committee,
the Police Department provided additional Police
patrols in the City parks and in a memorandum
dated July 17, 1981, to the City Manager, the
Police Chief summarized the results. In addition
to this memorandum, this committee was furnished
copies of "alcoholic beverage and noise ordinances"
currently in effect in the Cities of Fresno, Los
Angeles, Stockton, Simi Valley, Santa Clara and
Sacramento.
After a lengthy discussion, reviewing the Chief's
memorandum and the various ordinances with
members of the staff, this committee concludes
that an ordinance for the City of Bakersfield
is desirable. The Chief indicated the Cities
of Fresno and Los Angeles experienced no diffi-
culty in enforcing their ordinances. Also, it
was noted that prior to 1975, the City of
Bakersfield had an ordinance "prohibiting"
alcoholic beverages in City Parks.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 8
It is the opinion and recommendation of the
majority of this committee that the City Council
direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare an
ordinance to prohibit the possesssion and
drinking of alcoholic beverages in not only
City parks, but upon any street, sidewalk or
parkway, park, playground, or in any place open
to the patronage of the public, which premises
are not licensed for the consumption of such
liquor on the premises. In addition, the
majority of this committee recommends that the
ordinance contain a provision whereby "noise"
created by car stereos, etc., will be confined
to an area not to exceed 50 feet from the
vehicle or other source.
While the majority of this committee recommends
an ordinance contain the above provisions, one
member of this committee, Councilman Means,
prefers that an ordinance not be "all inclusive"
as defined above and would recommend that an
ordinance be established to limit alcoholic
beverages in the parks by placing a curfew on
the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the
parks. Councilman Means concurs that the
ordinance must contain a provision whereby
noise created by car stereos, etc., would be
confined within a 50 foot area.
The Police Chief advised this committee that
an ordinance "prohibiting" or "limiting" could
initially be handled by the Police Department
through the use of authorized overtime. Addi-
tionally, the Police Chief felt that the
existence of an ordinance, in time, could
possibly reduce the cost of manpower currently
being expended in the City parks. This com-
mittee concurs with the opinion of the Police
Chief that the existence of an ordinance, with
proper notice and posting in the parks, will
not only assist, but perhaps in time reduce the
problem and relieve the Police Department of
the concentrated efforts and Police controls
currently in force in the City parks.
In conclusion, this committee recommends that
the City Council instruct the City Attorney
to prepare an ordinance dealing with the matter
of alcoholic beverages and noise in City parks
and public places in such a way as to either
"prohibit" or "limit" alcoholic beverages as
the Council desires. This committee further
recommends that the referred to ordinance take
effect January l, 1982, so as to allow sufficient
time to properly notice and post parks and
affected areas.
Councilman Rockoff made a motion that Budget Review and
Finance Committee Report No. 14-81 regarding City Parks - Alcoholic
Beverage Consumption and Noise Ordinance, be accepted; and recom-
mendations as outlined in the report, be approved.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 9
9
Councilman Means, as a member of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee and clarifying his position, stated that an
ordinance placing a curfew on the consumption of alcoholic beverages
in City parks would give the Police Department a tool to effectively
enforce the laws. Whatever ordinance is passed the main key will
be giving the Police Department the manpower or overtime allocation
to enforce it. Placing a ban on drinking in parks and public
places is unreasonable at this point. If the curfew does not work~
and the Police Department feels a total ban on drinking is needed,
then they can come back to the Council. The problem exists right
now and the ordinance should become effective as soon as possible,
not in January, 1982.
Councilman Payne indicated he agrees with Councilman
Means' position on adopting an ordinance placing a curfew rather
than a ban on drinking alcoholic beverages in City parks, to become
effective as soon as possible, and the Committee's recommendation
regarding noise.
Councilman Barton stated he agrees with the Committee's
recommendation on noise and it should be enacted immediately.
Councilman Barton also felt the curfew concept should be tried,
and if that does not solve the problem then other alternatives
should be considered. When the motion is made for enactment of
the curfew concept it should include a provision that the Committee,
in cooperation with the Police Department, continue studying the
problem, between enactment of the ordinance and January l, 1982,
to find out how effective it has been.
Councilman Christensen stated he concurred with every-
thing that has been said, but he would like the motion to contain
a statement to the effect that the Police Department pick up drunks
in the parks during the daytime.
Councilman Rockoff stated he felt the Council should
take a very simplistic approach and prohibit drinking in public
parks.
10
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page l0
not
alcoholic beverages should be banned.
Councilman Rockoff stated he wanted to
man Christensen's interpretation of what he said:
said "I believe we should pick up every drunk in
Councilman Ratty stated that prior to 1974 drinking was
allowed in parks and he feels parks are for family use and
correct Council-
He stated he
every park."
Councilman Strong reading from the report stated; "It
is the opinion and recommendation of the majority of this committee
that the City Council direct the City Attorney's Office to prepare
an ordinance to prohibit the possession and drinking of alcoholic
beverages in not only City parks, but upon any street, sidewalk or
parkway, park, playground, or in any place open to the patronage
of the public, which premises are not licensed for the consumption
of such liquor on the premises." Anyone walking out of a super-
market with a six-pack is in possession and if the letter of this
ordinance was enforced that person would be
law.
Mr.
people, plays
in violation of the
Alan Stramler stated his wife, like hundreds of
on a softball team in the City parks. The players
and spectators like to drink a beer, wine or mixed drinks. He
sympathizes with people living near parks and having problems with
certain individuals. These individuals do it over and over and
over again, it is the nature of their character. Those are the
people who have to be dealt with to solve the problems. Banning
alcoholic beverages entirely would hurt a majority of the people.
In 1974, when liquor was banned, people could afford to do other
things, like drive places because gas was much cheaper. People
cannot do what they use to. Parks are a necessity for people who
cannot afford another type of entertainment. He felt the 10:00 P.M.
curfew for noise, disorderly conduct and alcoholic beverages would
be reasonable (with the exception of where baseball, etc., is
being played until ll:00 P.M.). An ordinance banning alcoholic
beverages would hurt 50 people for every person helped.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 11
Mr. Ray Trichell, involved in the alcoholic beverage
industry, stated they feel the Council should give this item more
thought before making a decision. The decision that is made should
be one that the majority can live with.
Mr. Phil Auer, 238 "B" Street, stated he enjoys taking
his children to the park and it upsets him to see people drunk.
Some type of regulation is needed and banning alcohol in parks is
an easy rule to live with. It is nice to have a beer, etc., when
playing softball, etc., but it is not necessary. People go there
to play, not drink. People can have a lot of fun in the parks
without alcohol.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated Councilman Strong was
correct, the possession of alcoholic beverages cannot be prohibited
and the ordinance would be designed the same way as the one on open
containers on public streets and sidewalks.
Councilman Strong stated he would support a motion that
the Police Department vigorously enforce curfew laws, or if the
Council sees fit to change the curfew law have the Police Depart-
ment monitor the situation and report back to the Council the first
of 1982, especially since the parks are not used as much during the
fall and winter months as they are at the present time. There is
time to gather the kind of information needed for the Council to
make an effective recommendation to the City Attorney regarding an
ordinance. The City needs an ordinance that will be enforced. If
it is not going to be enforced it should not be on the books.
Councilman Strong also stated he hoped the Council would see fit,
if it decides to pass an all inclusive ordinance such as this, to
give the public and Police Department the grace period necessary
in order to pinpoint problem areas and give the Council the opportunity
to make whatever recommendations necessary to take care of it.
Councilman Strong offered a substitute motion that the
existing ordinance of a 12 midnight curfew for closing of four
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 12
community parks remain in effect, a 10:00 P.M. curfew be imposed
at the other parks during the interim period and that this matter
be reconsidered by the Council sometime in January, 1982.
Councilman Christensen requested that any ordinance that
is adopted state that drunks are to be picked up and the minutes
reflect the conversation where Councilman Rockoff stated, speci-
fically, it would be an undo burden on the Police Department to
pick up drunks.
Councilman Barton stated Councilman Strong's substitute
motion did not address the issue of noise, and requested that the
motion be amended to accept the Budget Review and Finance Committee's
recommendation on noise. Councilman Barton also requested that the
motion include a provision that the Committee, in conjunction with
the Police Department, continue to review this matter on a monthly
basis, in all parks, to see if this is getting a handle on the
problem.
Councilman Strong stated he would amend his substitute
motion to include the Budget Review and Finance Committee's recom-
mendation on noise and that
Police Department, continue
basis, in all parks, to see
problem.
the Committee, in conjunction with the
reviewing this matter on a monthly
if this is getting a handle on the
City Manager Kelmar stated Planz and Wayside Parks have
softball leagues that go until 11:00 P.M., however, by the time
the ordinance becomes effective that program would be over. This
is an item that would have to be considered for next year.
Councilman Payne requested that this matter be returned
to the Budget Review and Finance Committee and request them to
work in close liaison with the Police Department to see if they
can effectively enforce the recommendations the Committee might
bring back to the Council.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 13
Councilman Christensen made a motion that the problem of
alcohol and noise in City parks be tabled until August 12, 1981.
This motion failed to carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Strong
Noes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton
Absent: None
matter.
Councilman Rockoff made a motion to close debate on this
This motion failed to carry.
Councilman Christensen stated he wanted to make sure that
carry by the following roll call
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen,
Noes: Councilmen Means, Payne,
Absent: None
vote:
Strong, Barton
Ratty, Rockoff
Councilman Rockoff amended his motion that Budget Review
and Finance Committee Report No. 14-81 regarding City Parks -
Alcoholic Beverage Consumption and Noise Ordinance be accepted;
and the City Attorney be directed to prepare an ordinance to pro-
hibit consumption of alcoholic beverages in public parks and on
public streets. This motion failed to carry by the following
the substitute motion included picking up daytime drunks.
Councilman Strong indicated the motion includes picking
up drunks.
Councilman Strong's amended substitute motion that the
existing ordinance of a 12 midnight curfew for closing four com-
munity parks remain in effect; a 10:00 P.M. curfew be imposed at
the other parks during the interim period; this matter be recon-
sidered by the Council sometime in January, 1982; the recommendation
on noise, as addressed in the report, be accepted; and the Budget
Review and Finance Committee, in conjunction with the Police Depart-
ment, continue to review this matter on a monthly basis in all the
parks to see if this is getting a handle on the problem; failed to
14
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 14
roll call
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
vote:
Councilmen Christensen, Ratty, Rockoff
Councilmen Means, Payne, Strong, Barton
None
Councilman Means made a motion that the Budget
Review
and Finance Committee, with input from the City Attorney and
Police Department, draft an ordinance that places a curfew of
approximately 8:00 P.M. on drinking in neighborhood parks and
approximately 12 midnight in community parks, taking into con-
sideration the exemptions for organized sports; the recommendation
on noise in Budget Review and Finance Committee's Report No. 14-81,
be incorporated; the ordinance be presented to the Council at the
meeting of August 12, 1981, for consideration; and the Budget
Review and Finance Committee periodically review it to determine
roll call
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
its effectiveness. This motion failed to
vote:
Councilmen Means,
Councilmen Ratty,
None
carry by the following
Payne
Rockoff, Strong, Barton
Councilman Christensen
Councilman Ratty made a motion that the matter o£ City
Parks - Alcoholic Beverage Consumption and Noise Ordinance, be
referred back to the Budget Review and Finance Committee for further
study and recommendation back to the Council at the meeting of
August
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
12, 1981. This motion carried by the following roll call
reconvened the meeting at
Councilmen Christensen, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Strong
Councilmen Means, Barton
None
Mayor Shell declared a brief recess at 10:00 P.M. and
10:05 P.M.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 15
City Attorney Oberholzer read a report regarding Recom-
mendation for Claims Adjusting Contract with Carl Warren & Company,
dated July 29, 1981, as follows:
Last year, the City entered into an agreement
with Brown Brothers Adjusters to provide claims
adjusting services for the City of Bakersfield
under its self-insured liability program. The
agreement expired on June 30, 1981. The City
has contracted with Brown Brothers for liability
adjusting services for the last three years.
In May, 1981, the City Attorney's Office and
the Assistant City Manager/Finance prepared a
request for proposals for claims adjusting
services for the City of Bakersfield for fiscal
year 1981-1982. Eight adjusting firms responded
with qualifying proposals.
In order to thoroughly evaluate the firms which
responded with proposals, a committee composed
of representatives from the City Attorney's
Of£ice, the Finance Department and a represen-
tative from the City's broker for excess coverage
met with representatives of each of the firms on
June 30, 1981.
In evaluating the eight firms appearing before
the committee, the following criteria was used
experience with public entities, experience of
claims adjuster assigned to account, reporting
systems, extent and method of claims investigation,
settlement authority and practices, legal co-
ordination, ability to work closely with City's
legal department, proposed contract provisions,
fee for service, proposal presentation and
references.
The fee schedule submitted by each of the pro-
posing firms makes it difficult to rank the
firms solely on the basis of the cost of the
contract. It is estimated that the annual cost
to the City for claims adjusting, as contained
in the various proposals, is in the area of
$22,000.00 to something in excess of $30,000.00.
The fees proposed by the eight firms are attached
to this report.
Although all of the firms interviewed exemplified
professional abilities, it was the unanimous
opinion of the committee that Carl Warren &
Company possessed the best qualified staff and
the greatest experience in handling claims
against municipalities. The City Attorney's
Office therefore recommends that the City
Council contract with Carl Warren & Company for
claims adjusting services.
The recommendation that the contract for claims
adjusting services be awarded to Carl Warren &
Company was based on the following qualifica-
tions:
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 16
1. Currently provide services to 80 self-
insured municipalities in California.
2. Personnel are experienced and well-trained
in all phases of claims administration.
City's investigator will be trained to
handle matters for which the City currently
pays to have handled on contractual basis.
4. Cases will be reviewed monthly with the
City Attorney's Office.
Other cities with whom Carl Warren &
Company contract give excellent ratings
to the service provided.
6. A strong desire to provide claims adjusting
services in Bakersfield.
7. Claims prevention assistance will be pro-
vided.
Unlike some of the other firms responding to
the request for proposal, Carl Warren & Company
does not have an office in Bakersfield. After
considerable deliberation and assurances from
Carl Warren & Company, the committee believed
that the expertise of Carl Warren & Company and
their performance record far outweighs any
potential inconveniences due to the lack of a
local office. Carl Warren & Company has agreed
to have personnel in Bakersfield at least weekly
and on call as needed. In addition, they have
agreed to provide training, to be included in
the $400.00 monthly fee, for the City Attorney
Investigator so that he will be able to handle
matters for which the City now pays an adjuster.
This should result in a decrease in hourly
adjuster charges and can be handled by the City
without an increase in City personnel.
Finally, you will find attached to this report
the results of the ratings as prepared by the
representative from the City's broker for
excess coverage (Kindler & Laucci).
It is recommended that the City Council authorize
the Mayor to execute the contract, a copy of
which is attached, with Carl Warren & Company.
Councilman Rockoff asked who pays for travel to and
expenses while in Bakersfield and if it is in the agreement.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated expenses will not be
charged to the City as a result of their having to come from out
of town. The 30~ per mile will be determined from City Hall out
to the location they must go to for the claims adjusting. The
30~ per mile is in the agreement, but it is not clear from where
and that will be added.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page
¸17
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, report from the City
Attorney regarding Recommendation for Claims Adjusting Contract
with Carl Warren & Company, was accepted; and agreement with Carl
Warren & Company providing claims adjusting services to the City
of Bakersfield under its Self-Insured Liability Program, with the
amendment as discussed, was approved and the Mayor was authorized
to execute same.
Director of Public Works Hawley read a report from the
P~anning Commission regarding Subdivision and Development Improve-
ment Policy and Standards, as follows:
The Planning Commission has evaluated the City's
present policy for funding of major street improve-
ments, street lighting, and street signing in
new developments or subdivisions.
Under present policy the City pays for approxi-
mately 40% of the cost for major collector and
arterial streets and pays all costs for street
signing. The policy for street lighting requires
the developer to furnish and install the street
light poles with P. G. & E. furnishing and
installing the wire, conduit & luminaire for all
lights. Under this policy, the City maintains
the street light pole and P. G. & E. maintains
the conduit wiring and luminaires.
Due to rapid increase in street miles, street
lights & street signs each year and the limited
funds available to maintain the street system
and street lighting, the Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the
following policy and standard:
The developer or subdivider shall pay all
costs for furnishing & installing street
lights which bound or are within any sub-
division or development proposal submitted
to the City for approval, including conduit,
wiring, poles and luminaires. The City
shall maintain all new street lights under
this policy. The City's costs (using
P. G. & E.'s present rate schedule) for a
typical 70 watt street light would be
reduced from $5.19/pole to $1.57/pole per
month.
The developer or subdivider shall pay all
costs in constructing all local and major
streets which bound or are within any sub-
division or development proposals submitted
to the City for approval.
The developer or subdivider shall pay all
costs for furnishing all traffic control
signs and sign posts which are necessary
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 18
'for present or future traffic control needs
in or adjacent to any subdivision or develop-
ment proposal submitted to the City for
approval.
The attached report from the Planning Commission
committee provides additional detail to support
the recommendation from the Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, report from the
Planning Commission regarding Subdivision and Development Improve-
ment Policy and Standards, was accepted; and recommendations as
outlined in the report, were approved.
P~anning Director Sceales read a report from Fire and
Development Services Department, dated July 29, 1981, regarding
Kern River Open Space Policy, as follows:
At their regularly scheduled meeting on June
24, 1981, the City Council ordered the staff
to report back by September 1, 1981 with an
open space policy of the Kern River for their
consideration.
County Planning staff has expressed an interest
in assisting with this project to the degree
of requesting the Board of Supervisors to
commit same staff time and limited funds for a
project consultant. City and County Planning
staffs both agree that with the limited in-
house manpower resources of both entities it
would be wise to consider hiring a qualified
consultant firm for research, data gathering,
and preliminary policy recommendations with
close coordination and supervision by both
staffs.
Kern County Council of Governments staff has
also agreed to request its board to commit
funds for this project due to their interest
in this potential combined City-County project.
Their participation would mainly be a funding
source for the project with minor technical
assistance.
Through discussion with the County and Kern COG
staffs' it was determined that the City's portion
of funds to hire a consulting firm would be
$5,0o0.
The Council's goal should be sufficiently met
through the utilization of this combined effort.
Staff recommends this matter be referred to the
appropriate Council Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, the matter of the
Kern River Open Space Policy, was referred to the Budget Review and
Finance Committee for study and recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 19
19
The
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(J)
(k)
(1)
(m)
CONSENT CALENDAR
following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
Allowance of Claims Nos. 7693 to 7992 and
1 to 102, inclusive, in the amount of
$1,938,967.35.
Claim for Damages from Cleta Rose Bird and
Stephanie Jan Hobbs, 242 "H" Street, Bakers-
field. (Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Personal Injuries from Harry G.
Walker and Maria I. Walker, 612 McDonald
Way, Bakersfield. (Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages from Dorothy L. Belk,
James Alex Belk, Lenna Belk and James Belk,
Jr., 25 Augusta Street, Bakersfield. (Refer
to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages and Personal Injuries
from Frank Demetrius Bailey, Jr., 1213
Dolores Street, Bakersfield. (Refer to
City Attorney)
Claim for Damages and Personal Injuries
from Demetrius Frank Bailey, L. J. Goulsby,
Frederick Bailey, Darryl Ford, Bruce Dwayne
Jennings and Andrew James Wandick, c/o
Michael Millman/Wayne Marshall, Law Offices,
P.O. Box 25924, West Los Angeles, California.
(Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Personal Injury from Robert D.
"Elmo" Shepherd, P.O. Box 5231, Bakers-
field. (Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Personal Injury from Barbara Lee
Shepherd, P.O. Box 5231, Bakersfield.
(Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages and Personal Injuries
from Earl L. Cartwright, 636 Beverly Drive,
Bakersfield. (Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages
from Luis Estrada,
#179, Bakersfield.
and Personal Injuries
5101 Marsha Street,
(Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages and Personal Injuries from
John E. Chilton, P.O. Box 1265, Bakersfield.
(Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages from D. E.
Niles Street, Bakersfield.
Attorney)
Rockwood, ll10
(Refer to City
Claim for Damages from Betty J. Peterson,
7039 Olive Drive, Bakersfield. (Refer to
City Attorney)
2O
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 20
(n)
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
60-Day Leave of Absence Without Pay for
Cathy L. DeMarah, Telecommunicator in the
Police Department. This request is due
to complications from pregnancy. This
request will extend the leave through
October 6, 1981.
Maps of Tract No. 4321, Units E-K, M-Q
and Improvement Agreement with Auburn
Venture for construction o£ improvements
therein, located north of Auburn Street,
east of Fairfax Road.
Improvement Agreement for Parcel Map No.
6288 with Frank A. Collins and Francis
Marion Collins for construction of improve-
ments required by the Planning Commission,
located south of Highway 178 and west of
Kern Canyon Road.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
the County of Kern, 1600 Norris Road,
Bakersfield, for installation of a sign
in the sidewalk area stating "Rubbish
must be covered." Said sign is 24" x 48"
in size and would be located on Alfred
Harrell Highway down ramp north of Panama
Drive, near the curb return.
Notices of Completion and Acceptance of
Work for:
Construction of Farm Road at Plant No.
Contract No. 81-86 with M Construction
Company.
A. C. Pavement on Planz Road between South
"H" Street and Chester Avenue, F.A.U.
Project No. M-F 245(1), Contract No. 81-64
with Granite Construction Company.
Tract No. 4343, Contract No. 80-156 with
Waston Division, U. S. Homes Corporation,
located on the northeast corner of
Barrington Street and Nottingham Lane.
Contract Change Order No. i to Contract
No. 81-79 with James G. Francis for re-
constructing a portion of Eye Street.
This Change Order is necessary to haul,
grade and compact C1. II aggregate base to
fill low areas in the subgrade and will
increase the contract cost $1,047.30.
Sufficient funds are available within the
project budget for this change.
Contract Change Order No. i to Contract
No. 80-199 with Kaweah Construction Co.
for Ashe Water System's Two Million Gallon
Domestic Water Storage System. This Change
Order modifies existing piping system and
deletes grating around the engine. This
Change Order reduces the contract cost
$2,000 and provides for an extension of 37
calendar days due to delay of material
deliveries.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 21
(u)
(v)
(w)
Request from Great Northern Construction
Company for extension of time to complete
improvements in Tract No. 4161, Agreement
No. 80-58 with Kuve Associates. The Public
Works Department recommends a six month
extension. Completion date for this Tract
was April 9, 1981 and the revised date
will be October 9, 1981.
Request from Parkhill Development Associates
for extension of time to complete improve-
ments in Parcel Map No. 5615, Agreement
No. 80-16 with A-M Company. The Public
Works Department recommends a six month
extension. Completion date for this Parcel
Map was January 30, 1981 and the revised
date will be August 30, 1981.
Utilities Agreement No. 9790011 between
the State of California and City of Bakers-
field providing for the State to extend the
City's Box Culvert Irrigation Facility at
Highway 178 and Oak Street within the
State highway right-of-way. All cost to
be borne by the State.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (1), (m), (n), (o), (p),
(q), (r), (s), (t), (u), (v) and (w) of the Consent Calendar, were
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
ACTION ON BIDS
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, low bid of
Associated Automatic Fire Protection, in the amount of $5,280,
for Fire Sprinkler System Yard Facilities for the South Wing
Addition to City Hall, was accepted, the other bid rejected and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, low bid of Hollowform,
Inc., in the amount of $100,700.00, for Refuse Containers, was
accepted and all other bids rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, bids of Abate-
A-Weed for 3 items, in the amount of $181.38, Target
1 item, in the amount of $795.00, and L. A. Chemical
Chemical for
for 1 item.
in the amount of $3,450.00, for Miscellaneous Chemicals for the
Parks Department, were accepted and all other bide rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, bids of Kern
Electric Distributors for 2 items, in the amount of $2,862.00,
and Stewart Electric for 4 items, in the amount of $1,281.54, for
Poles, Fixtures and Lamps for the Parks Department, were accepted
and all other bids rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, low bid of Western
Electric, in the amount of $31,195, for construction of Security
Lighting at Beach Park, was accepted, all other bids rejected and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, low bid of Micon, in
the amount of $25,301, for construction of Kroll Park Sump Under-
drain System Modifications, was accepted, the other bid rejected
and the May was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, low bid of James G.
Francis for Alternate B, in the amount of $99,690, for resurfacing
"F" Street Pavement, 21st Street to Golden State Avenue, was
accepted, all other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, low bid of Granite
Construction Company, in the amount of $42.271, for construction
of Asphalt Concrete Pavement on Panama Lane west of Akers Road,
was accepted, the other bid rejected and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, low bid of Madonna
Construction Company, in the amount of $260,580, for construction
of curb and gutter in the Lowell Addition Area, was accepted, all
other bids rejected and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
contract.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 23
DEFERRED BUSINESS
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2656 New
Series amending Title Seventeen of
the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties
in the City of Bakersfield located
south of California State College,
north of Sunset Railroad, west of
the Arvin-Edison Canal and Gosford
Road, and east of Old River Road.
The application for this amendment was made by Tenneco
Realty Development Corporation and would change subject properties
from an "A" (Agricultural) Zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling),
R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), R-3 (Limited Multiple
Family Dwelling), C-O (Commercial and Pro£essional Office) and C-2
(Commercial) Zones.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Negative Declaration
and Ordinance No. 2656 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
located south of California State College, north of Sunset Railroad,
west of the Arvin-Edison Canal and Gosford Road, and east of Old
River Road, finding said zonings consistent with the General Plan,
were adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Christensen
NEW BUSINESS
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Chapter 1.48 to the Municipal
Code establishing and adopting rules
for the operation of the City's Water
System in the Fairhaven Water Service
Area, amending Chapter 1.46 by adding
Section 1.48.020 D, and amending
Sections 1.46.120, 1.46.150 A (2) a.,
and 1.46.150 B., relative to Operational
Rules for Ashe Water Service Area.
This ordinance provides the standards of operation for
Fairhaven Water System as acquired in Agreement No. 80-36, dated
24
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 24
March 12, 1980, between the City, Fairhaven Industrial Fire Pro-
tection District and Fairhaven Mutual Water Company. The Fair-
haven Water System will operate in a similar manner as the Ashe
Water System. The Water Board recommended adoption of this
ordinance.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Chapter 1.48 to the
Municipal Code establishing and adopting Rules for the Operation
of the City's Water System in the Fairhaven Water Service Area,
amending Chapter 1.46 by adding Section 1.46.020 D, and amending
Sections 1.46.120, 1.46.150 A (2) a., and 1.46.150 B., relative to
Operational Rules for Ashe Water Service Area.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 12.32.020 (a) of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code relative
to License Agreement in lieu of
Encroachment Permit for pipelines
conveying petroleum products.
This ordinance provides that a License Agreement may be
substituted for an Encroachment Permit for encroachments by pipe-
lines conveying petroleum products to or from refineries. The
License Agreement permits the City to be compensated for allowing
pipelines to traverse its property.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 12.32.020 (a)
of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relative to License Agreement in
lieu of Encroachment Permit for pipelines conveying petroleum
products.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 16.24.124 (d) of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code relative
to fees for construction of Planned
Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Facilities
pursuant to adopted plans, and
referring to plans adopted for parti-
cular drainage and sanitary sewer
areas.
Bakersfield, California, Ju~y 29, 1981 - Page 25
This ordinance specifies that the requirement that sub-
dividers pay a fee for construction of Planned Drainage Facilities
applies, pursuant to the plans adopted for such area, to the Pioneer
and Fairview Planned Drainage Areas.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 16.24.124 (d)
of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relative to fees for construction
of Planned Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Facilities pursuant to
adopted plans, and referring to plans adopted for particular
drainage and sanitary sewer areas.
First reading of an Ordinance amend-
ing Title Seventeen of the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of those
certain properties in the City of
Bakersfield located in the proposed
Rio Bravo Golf Course, south of
Highway 178 and east of Miramonte
Drive.
The application for this amendment was made by La Hacienda,
Inc., and would change subject properties from an
Zone to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling),
Zone.
The Planning Commission approved the amendment and recom-
mended same to the City Council.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance amending
Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield
by changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties in the
City of Bakersfield located in the proposed Rio Bravo Golf Course,
south of Highway 178 and east of Miramonte Drive.
Adoption of Resolution No. 58-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field adopting Drainage Plans for
Pioneer and Fairview Planned Drainage
Areas and making findings thereto.
The Pioneer will serve an area of 600 acres in the
vicinity of Morning Drive and College Avenue. Fees of $2,100 per
acre for Residential and $3,200 per acre of Commercial will be
assessed at the time of development.
"A" (Agricultural[)
or more restrictive
9.6
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 26
The Fairview will serve 669 acres in an area bounded by
South "H" Street, Pacheco Road, Union Avenue and the Arvin-Edison
Canal. Fees of $1,700 per acre will be assessed at the time of
development.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Resolution No. 58-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting Drainage Plans
for Pioneer and Fairview Planned Drainage Areas and making findings
thereto, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 59-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field providing for the adjustment
of Property Tax Revenues upon Local
Agency jurisdictional change resulting
from Annexation No. 282, LAFCO Pro-
ceeding No. 736 (Panama Lane No. 3).
Panama Lane No. 3 Annexation cannot be processed until
there is a negotiated exchange of Property Tax Revenues between
the County and City. The County has agreed, by resolution, to
the exchange of Property Tax Revenues and after the City's
acceptance of the exchange the annexation can continue to be pro-
cessed.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Resolution No. 59-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield providing for the adjust--
ment of Property Tax Revenues upon Local Agency jurisdictional
change resulting from Annexation No. 282, LAFCO Proceeding No.
736 (Panama Lane No. 3), was adopted by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 27
Adoption of Resolution No. 60-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field making findings and certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the Truxtun Avenue Improvement
Project.
The EIR discusses and describes the project's environ-
mental considerations and mitigation measures and various alter-
natives to the project, including "no project."
A public hearing on the Environmental Impact Report was
held before the Planning Commission on June 4, 1981. The review
period for written comments was extended by the Commission for an
additional two weeks to June 18, 1981. The City has responded to
all significant points raised by the public in the review and
hearing process.
On June 18, 1981, the Planning Commission adopted and
recommended to the City Council that the Final EIR be certified as
complete.
In answer to questions by the Council, Director of Public
Works Hawley stated the next step would be for the Public Works
Department to complete the Plans and Specifications for the Truxtun
Avenue Alternative for presentation to the Council for approval and
authorization to advertise for bids. The project is Truxtun Avenue
with a traffic signal at the intersection of Oak Street and Truxtun
Avenue. Alternate No. 1 would be a grade separation at the inter-
section of Truxtun Avenue and Oak Street. Alternate No. 2 would be
the 16th Street Alternative at an estimated cost of $2,965,000.
Councilman Christensen stated it bothers him that instead
of paying $4,200,000 now, for an underpass or overpass at Oak
Street, it is going to be postponed 10-15 years when the cost will
be $12,000,000-$15,000,000.
City Manager Kelmar stated he does not see how l0 years
from now, unless things for government improve, the City will ever
be able to afford a grade separation of that magnitude on its own
volition. It is felt by the staff this is the best alternative.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 28
If problems develop then 16th Street will be looked at as an
alternate. The staff shares the Council's concerns and frustrations,
but at this point in time there is no other choice.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Resolution No. 60-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making findings and
certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Truxtun
Avenue Improvement Project, was adopted by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Rockoff made a motion that the staff not pro-
ceed with the expenditure of any funds on the Truxtun Avenue
Improvement Project and the matter be referred to the Business
Development and Parking Committee for study and recommendation.
Councilman Means, speaking against the motion, stated
there are a number of problems with the current project, primarily
at the intersection of Truxtun Avenue Extension and Oak Street.
They exist because of a lack of adequate planning, due to lack of
staff. The current plan is the best the City has and it should
proceed with it.
Councilman Ratty offered a substitute motion that
Alternative No. l, grade crossing at Truxtun Avenue with a signal,
be accepted. After further discussion this motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
stated according to
Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Strong, Barton
Councilmen Christensen, Rockoff
None
Councilman Christensen, in clarifying his negative vote,
the danger involved he cannot accept it.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 29
2¸9
Adoption of Resolution No. 61-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field authorizing the filing of an
Application with the Kern County
Council of Governments for Claim of
Transportation Development Act Funds
for exclusive use of pedestrians and
bicycles.
A portion of the Transportation Development Act Fund is
designated for development of facilities for the exclusive use of
pedestrians and bicyclists. Plans are nearly complete for con-
struction of the project. Sufficient funds have been claimed to
complete Phase I, between Cal-State and Mohawk Street. The proposed
claim, in the amount of $150,000, is required to construct Phase II,
between Mohawk Street and Beach Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Resolution No. 61-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield authorizing the filing
of an Application with the Kern County Council of Governments for
Claim Of Transportation Development Act Funds for exclusive use of
pedestrians and bicycles, was adopted by the following roll call
Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Strong, Barton
None
None
Councilman Christensen
Adoption of Resolution No. 62-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field approving entering into a
Contract with the State Personnel
Board for the performance of tech-
nical services and authorizing the
City Manager to sign the Contract.
This is a renewal of a Three-Year Contract with Cooperative
Personnel Services. City Personnel Division uses this service, when
necessary, for written examinations in order to assure that our
tests are job related.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Resolution No. 62-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving entering into a
Contract with the State Personnel Board for the performance of
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 30
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Christensen, Means,
Strong, Barton
technical services and authorizing the City Manager to sign the
Contract, was~adopted by the following roll call vote:
Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
None
None
Approval of Pipeline License Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and
Independent Valley Energy Company
("IVEC") for a petroleum products
pipeline to convey oil across City-
owned property and across and within
street right-of-ways.
The agreement specifies IVEC's responsibilities, and
acceptance of liabilities relating to the pipeline, and provides
for payment to the City of $12,370.00 for the 35-year License.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Pipeline License
Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and Independent Valley
Energy Company ("IVEC") for a petroleum products piepline to convey
oil across City-owned property and across and within street right-
of-ways, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Agreement of Sale between
the City and California Water Service
Company for acquisition by the City
of the Company's Water Distribution
Facilities within the Fairhaven
Service Area.
The City proposes to purchase the Company's Water Distribu-
tion Facilities, which are located west of Highway 99 and within the
Fairhaven Water District. The purchase price is $220,000. This
sale fulfills a portion of the City's agreement with Fairhaven
Mutual and Fairhaven Industrial Fire Protection District. Sufficient
funds are available in the Domestic Water Enterprise Account.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Agreement of Sale
between the City and California Water Service Company for acquisition
by the City of the Company's Water Distribution Facilities within
the Fairhaven Service Area, was approved and the Mayor was authorized
to execute same.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 31
Approval of Agreement with Kern
County Probation Department for
Adult Diversion Program.
This agreement, if approved, will continue for the second
year a process of handling young adult first offenders of certain
minor offenses without the necessity of being processed in the
normal manner through the Criminal Justice System. The County
provides a Deputy Probation Officer III at no cost to the City, on
a full time basis, to function as a Diversion Of£icer within the
Police Department. The City provides a Clerk Typist II at a cost
to the City of $15,039 per year to handle clerical work for the
Diversion Officer. These costs will be totally reimbursed to the
City by the County of Kern.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Agreement with the
Kern County Probation Department £or Adult Diversion Program, was
approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Addendum to Agreement No.
80-85 between the City, John Carollo
Engineers and Quad Consultants pro-
viding terms and conditions for
preparation o£ a Step I Facilities
Plan for the City's Wastewater
Treatment Plant No. 3.
On March 19, 1981, the City Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on an Environmental Impact Report for the waste-
water effluent disposal alternatives and the expansion of Waste-
water Treatment Plant No. 3. After considerable public testimony
and discussion, the Planning Commission recommended a continuation
of the hearing to permit the staff sufficient time to evaluate
additional wastewater disposal alternatives.
This Addendum directs the City's consultant to proceed
with an Environmental Impact Report, Financial Plan and Revenue
Program for four additional wastewater disposal alternatives. The
cost £or this report will be $16,000. Sufficient funds are avail-
able in the Southwest Sewer Bond Account to fund this report and
program.
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, July 29, 1981 - Page 32
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Addendum to Agreement
No. 80-85 between the City, John Carollo Engineers and Quad
Consultants providing terms and conditions for preparation of a
Step I Facilities Plan for the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant
No. 3, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of New Construction Incentives
Program Agreement with Presidio Con-
struction, Inc., for purchase of five
lots in Census Tract 22 for a total
price of $30,000.
On June 3, 1981, the City Council approved Budget Review
and Finance Committee Report No. 8-81 establishing the New Con-
struction Incentives Program and authorizing Community Development
staff to administer it. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has also approved the program.
Under this program, the City purchases lots at a maximum
of $6,000 and makes them available to developers to build low cost
housing. These funds will be recaptured by the City at the time
the property is sold.
Councilman Payne stated that due to a real or imaginary
conflict of interest he would not participate in this matter.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, New Construction
Incentive Program Agreement with Presidio Construction, Inc., for
purchase of five lots in Census Tract 22 for a total price of
$30,000, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Councilman Payne abstained from voting on this matter.
Approval of New Construction Incentives
Program Agreement with Tommie Townsend,
dba Calico Construction for purchase of
ten lots in Census Tract 22 for a total
price of $60,000.
On June 3, 1981, the City Council approved Budget Review
and Finance Committee Report No. 8-81 establishing the New Con-
struction Incentives Program and authorizing Community Development
staff to administer it. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has also approved the program.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 33
Under this program, the City purchases lots at a maximum
of $6,000 and makes them available to developers to build low cost
housing. These funds will be recaptured by the City at the time
the property is sold.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, New Construction
Incentives Program Agreement with Tommie Townsend, dba Calico
Construction for purchase of ten lots in Census Tract 22 for a
total price of $60,000, was approved and the Mayor was authorized
to execute same.
Approval of Water Service Agreement
with Tenneco Realty Development
Corporation for Parcel Map No. 5726,
located north of Rosedale Highway
and west o£ Fairhaven Drive.
The agreement reserves excess well and storage capacity
for use in Parcel Map No. 5726. Water for domestic, industrial,
and fire protection uses would be provided to the developer at a
fee of $1,500 per acre. This fee pays for the cost of capital
improvements (well, storage and booster systems), however, the
developer will be responsible for constructing all water mains
within the subdivision.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Water Service Agreement
with Tenneco Realty Development Corporation for Parcel Map No. 5726,
located north of Rosedale Highway and west of Fairhaven Drive, was
approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Water Service Agreement
with Lunn Production Service Company
reserving excess well and storage
capacity for use within twenty-nine
acres located at the southwest corner
of Burr and Gibson Streets.
Water for domestic, industrial and fire protection uses
would be provided to the developer at a fee of $1,500 per acre.
This fee pays for the cost of capital improvements (wells, storage
and booster systems), however, the developer will be responsible
for constructing all water mains within the subdivisions.
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, July 29, 1981 - Page 34
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Water Service Agree-
ment with Lunn Production Service Company reserving excess well
and storage capacity £or use within twenty-nine acres located at
the southwest corner of Burr and Gibson Streets, was approved and
the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Adoption of 1981-82 Domestic Water
Enterprise Operation and Capital
Outlay Budget.
This budget was approved and recommended to the Council
for adoption by the Water Board on July 22, 1981.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, 1981-82 Domestic
Water Enterprise Operation and Capital Outlay Budget, was approved.
Approval of request to retain surplus
equipment (Vehicle No. 4172).
The City presently has two trucks equipped with sewer
cleaning equipment. Due to growth of the City's collection system,
and in order to maintain an adequate Sewer Cleaning Program, it has
become necessary to occasionally use a third truck.
The Public Works
to retain a truck equipped
been designated as surplus
would adequately serve the
for several years, if used
Upon a motion by
surplus equipment (Vehicle
Approval of
the City of
Department is requesting Council approw~l -
with sewer cleaning equipment, which has
· The vehicle is ten years old, but
needs of the Sewer Cleaning Sections
on an occasional or stand-by basis.
Councilman Barton, request to retain
No. 4172), was approved.
Lease Agreement between
Bakersfield and the
Bakersfield Association for Retarded
Citizens leasing to B.A.R.C. the
eastern portion of the Senior Citizens'
Center Site.
This Lease Agreement leases to B.A.R.C. the eastern
portion of the Senior Citizens' Center Site from the close of
escrow of the City's purchase from B.A.R.C. to December l, 1981,
at $5,000 per month, and the balance of the site for a one-year
period from the close of escrow, at $2,000 per month, from and
after December 1, 1981. Escrow is scheduled to close July 31, 1981.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 35
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Lease Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Association of
Retarded Citizens leasing to B.A.R.C. the eastern portion of the
Senior Citizens' Center Site, was approved and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
HEARINGS
This is the time set for public hearing regarding Negative
Declaration on First Point of Measurement Metering Facility.
This hearing was duly advertised.
This hearing is for the purpose of hearing any comment
for or against the City's proposal to grant a Negative Declaration
for construction of the First Point of Measurement Metering structure,
which wil~ provide for the accurate measurement and the proper
distribution of the Kern River Diversion Rights. The City of
Bakersfield has been designated as the lead agency in this con-
struction project by the Kern River interests.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation and no one in the audience indicated a wish to speak on this
matter.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Negative Declaration
on First Point of Measurement Metering Facility, was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes None
Absent: None
This is the time set for hearing before the Council on
the revocation of a Secondhand Dealer's Permit held by William
Oscar Bridges, 27 Chester Avenue and 1822 "G" Street.
The owner, Mr. William Oscar Bridges, has been notified
of this hearing, pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Code, in
order to allow him an opportunity to appear before the Council to
rebut evidence presented by the Police Department for revocation
of his Secondhand Dealer's Permit.
Bakers£ield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 36
Deputy City Attorney Dean Rice, representing the Police
Department, stated they are seeking revocation of two Business
Permits issued to William Bridges to conduct business as a Second-
hand Dealer at 27 Chester Avenue and 1822 "G" Street, under the
name of "The Refinery." Section 7.18.080 of the Municipal Code
gives the Council the right to revoke such a permit if it is found
the business is conducting their transactions in an irregular or
illegal manner. The evidence to be presented to the Council this
evening shows numerous violations of both State law and the Muni-
cipal Code, particularly with respect to the Business and Professions
Code, which requires daily reports from Secondhand Dealers showing
the persons property is bought from, the identity and address of
sellers, description of the property and certification by seller
that this information is true. Essentially the legislative intent
behind that statute is to discourage fencing operations. The City
of Bakersfield has a Municipal Code Section patterned after the
State law. Additionally, there is a Business and Professions
Code Section which prohibits these types of businesses from buying
property from minors. Bakersfield has a similar ordinance. Lastly,
evidence will be introduced showing violations of the Penal Code in
receiving stolen property at this business.
After being sworn in by the Assistant City Clerk,
Detective Harry Taylor Scott, Bakersfield Police Department, was
questioned by Deputy City Attorney Rice about the details of two
interviews he conducted at the Bakersfield Police Department with
two juveniles on June 22, 1981 and July 10, 1981, regarding the
selling of stolen property to an establishment called "The Refinery,"
located on "G" Street in the City of Bakersfield. Detective Scott
stated the juveniles identified the individual they dealt with, at
The Refiner~ as Dennis Lee Foster.
Deputy City Attorney Rice filed copies, for the record,
of two Police Reports, identified as Case #81-16968 dated 7-8-81
and Case #81-15903 dated 7-10-81, with the City Council.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 37
After being sworn in by Assistant City Clerk, Police
Officer William Bernard Prins, Bakersfield Police Department, was
questioned by Deputy City Attorney Rice about an undercover operation
that took place at "The Refinery" on "G" Street on July l, 1981,
where he was assigned to conduct sales transactions with that
business. Officer Prins identified the person he dealt with at
"The Refinery" as a person sitting in the audience with a blue
shirt and long blonde hair. He stated that at no time during the
undercover operation was he asked to produce identification or sign
a receipt for the property he sold to "The Refinery."
Deputy City Attorney Rice filed copies, for the record,
of a taped conversation at "The Refinery" on 7/1/81 between Officer
Prins and Dennis Foster at 1030 hours, and Police Report identified
as Case #81-16986 dated 7-8-81, with the City Council.
Dr. Jimmie H. Bridges, father of William Bridges, stated
his son Billy was arrested in April for narcotics. Six officers
from the Police Department searched his home and found about a
quarter of a pound of Marijuana. He was never convicted. He is on
probation at the present time. He has paid society for his errors
and he has said he is not touching it any more. Dr. Bridges stated
he financed Billy into this business on "G" Street and asked the
City Attorney if he could question Dennis Foster.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated the procedure is open to
the City Council. Mr. Foster can be sworn in, however, he must
understand that there are criminal charges pending against him.
Anything he says here can and may be used, and probably will be
used, against him in the criminal proceedings. He has the right to
remain silent and he cannot be compelled to testify before this
body. City Attorney Oberholzer advised Dennis Foster of his
constitutional rights as a criminal charge is currently pending
against him.
Mr. Jimmie H. Bridges, Jr., brother of William Bridges,
operator of the business at 27 Chester Avenue, questioned Detective
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 38
Scott regarding fencing operations, the store located at 27 Chester
Avenue involvement in this matter and the two juveniles that were
questioned on June 22 & July 10, 1981. Mr. Bridges questioned
Officer Prins about the undercover operation he worked on July 1,
1981, at "The Refinery" on "G" Street, the recording device he
had on his person and the transcript made from that tape. Mr.
Bridges stated these businesses are a family corporation, his
brother has the Business Licenses in his name, their father supplies
the money and they handle the buying of gold through the two stores.
For ease, his father, brother and himself are on the road a lot,
his brother William was in town at the time the license was applied
for and he put it in his name,
Mr. William Bridges questioned Detective Scott about the
two juveniles that were questioned by the Police Department, the
undercover operation that took place at "The Refinery" on "G"
Street and the day he was arrested at his home.
After being sworn in by the Assistant City Clerk, Dennis
Foster was asked by the City Attorney if he recalled the rights
he was advised of a few minutes ago?
Dennis Foster replied he did.
City Attorney Oberholzer asked if he was going to waive
those rights and allow himself to be cross-examined, except on such
matters as he wished to exert the Fifth Amendment rights against
self-incrimination.
Dennis Foster replied yes.
Dennis Foster questioned Officer Prins about the transcript
of the tape made on the undercover operation at "The Refinery" on
"G" Street on July 1, 1981.
Deputy City Attorney Rice questioned Dennis Foster about
the transaction he made with Officer Prins in "The Refinery" on
"G" Street, the report of such transaction and the sale of drugs.
Police Captain Patterson stated in this type of business
it is the responsibility of the operator to assure that business is
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 39
carried on in a legitimate manner. They have not taken on this
responsibility. It is State and City law. In this type of
operation continuances can go on for a year in court
business is open and still operating. Word gets out
responsible for the burglaries in town know where to
that word spreads quick. The Police Department had information
this operation was going on, an officer was put in and it was
found to be true without a doubt. The Police Department is trying
to protect the legitimate businesses. The Police Department's
concern is that they will continue to operate pending a court trial
that can continue for one year. If their license is revoked at
this time they cannot continue to operate. They are responsible
for the people that sell over the counter.
Deputy City Attorney Rice stated they have not complied
with record keeping requirements, bought from a minor and received
stolen property.
Councilman Ratty made a motion that the Secondhand
Dealer's Permit held by William Oscar Bridges, 27 Chester Avenue
and 1822 "G" Street, be revoked. After further discussion this
motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
Actions of the Council regarding
Reapportionment of City Ward Boundaries
and alleged violation of the Brown Act.
and the
fast. People
take the stuff,
Map of the Seven Wards furnished to the Council tonight and was
there some indication from staff that this needed to be done.
Councilman Barton stated he authored the map, with the
aid of staff, and input from Councilmen Rockof£, Ratty and Payne
in certain areas.
Councilman Strong asked who authorized the Reapportionment
4O
Bakersfield, Cali£ornia, July 29, 1981 - Page 40
City Attorney Oberholzer stated pursuant to the Charter
Amendment, that was adopted, the City is mandated to reapportion
the ward boundaries, by ordinance, every l0 years after the Federal
Census. It is not mandated, but the boundaries may be altered
every 5 years.
Councilman Strong asked if there was any formal notifi-
cation to the Council as a body.
City Manager Kelmar stated a number of months ago a memo
was placed in the packets indicating that this needed to be done.
The County Clerk has indicated this has to be submitted to his
office sometime in August. A map was placed in the Caucus Room
with all the necessary information.
Councilman Strong asked Councilman Barton, if, what he is
saying, is that, four Councilmen got together and decided.
Councilman Barton stated no, four Councilmen did not get
together and decide. The memo stated this had to be done by August
or the Council would be in nonconformance. No one seemed to be
doing anything with it, so he did.
Councilman Means asked if this represents a consensus of
the Councilmen who had input.
Councilman Barton stated yes, in some areas.
Councilman Means stated the four Councilmen did not meet
together and he asked Councilman Barton if he talked to each one
individually, along with staff.
Councilman Barton stated yes and Planning.
Councilman Means asked if they then arrived at some con-
sensus, which is the plan before the Council.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated he does not know that
they arrived at a consensus or what they did. He does not know
that there was a violation of the Brown Act. He does not know
that any decision has been made. Something has been submitted for
the Council's consideration and he does not know exactly what has
been done with that map.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 41
4i
During discussion, Councilman Means stated the Council is
at a point where it would be very difficult for the City Attorney
to represent what, essentially, is both sides o£ the issue and it
is very conceivable that he will have to get his own attorney to
file a suit. Councilman Means stated he believes there has been
a serious violation of the Brown Act and it is very clear.
Councilman Barton stated there is a memorandum with this
packet that says "Suggested Council Ward Reapportionment Plan
Ordinance." The document given to the Council was drawn by staff,
not me. The original lines were drawn, after consulting with people
in Planning, because of a court decision that the population balance
in wards has to be nearly perfect. The map was drawn, with staff
assistance, using Census Tract Maps. The other four members, that
were consulted, are also seeing this document for the first time.
Councilman Christensen stated that Councilman Barton told
him, the other day, that the meeting of the Water Committee was an
absolute violation of the Brown Act. Councilman Christensen
requested, as an elected official, that the Council have an analysis
from staff that deals with the personality of George Nickel, because
he would like the public to know what was said about him.
Councilman Christensen made a motion, as an elected
official, that a report of the Water Board be given to the Council
as to the personality of George Nickel, because the details of the
Water Board are supposed to come beck to the Council for approval
or disapproval.
Councilman Barton stated he has never told Councilman
Christensen the Water Board was a violation of the Brown Act.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated the factual situation
which Councilman Christensen stated is, in fact, a violation of
the Brown Act. When he said three Council members get together
and called a fourth to get a consensus on a matter, that is a
violation of the Brown Act.
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 42
Councilman Strong asked if injunctive action was sought,
and Councilman Barton was defended by the City Attorney, would the
other Councilmen have the right to employ Counsel at City expense.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated in doing something of
that nature the Council would probably have to employ all outside
Counsel for both sides, because the City Attorney would be put in
a conflicting position, unless he could establish there was a
violation of the Brown Act.
Mayor Shell declared a brief recess at 12:45 A.M. in
order to change the tape of the Council Meeting. The meeting was
reconvened at 12:50 A.M.
Councilman Strong requested that this portion of the
minutes be spread across the minutes and the tapes be preserved
until this matter is cleared up.
In answer to questions by Councilman Strong, Councilman
Barton stated no other Councilman worked on the map. It was
drafted with the help of two staff members from the Planning
Department, because the population has to be as equal as possible.
Population was the only criteria used in drawing the ward boundaries.
The City does not have much time left to comply with the County's
August deadline on this matter. No other member of the Council did
anything with the map on the wall in the Caucus Room, so he took
it upon himself to make the suggestions for reapportionment. Those
suggestions were presented to the Council tonight. The Council has
from tonight to August 26, 1981, to make some kind of decision on
the ward boundaries. Councilman Barton also stated he had the only
copy of a map last Friday, that
Payne, but it was not exact and
because it was out of balance.
was shown to Councilmen Strong and
a lot more work was done on it,
City Attorney Oberholzer stated there cannot be a specific
percentage deviation in the population o£ wards. The courts have
ruled that equal population means equal population. It is his
Bakersfield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 43
¸4.3
interpretation, of that particular section, that if the City has
an area that is rapidly growing it can be slightly below equal
population levels, in anticipation that it is growing at such a
rate that by the time of election it will be equal or possibly
exceed the equal population requirement. In answer to a question
by Councilman Strong, City Attorney Oberholzer stated a deviation
is allowed provided it can be de£ended.
During discussion, Councilman Strong asked if in making
a determination if a violation of the Brown Act occurred, will the
four Councilmen have the City Attorney's assistance, at taxpayers
expense, as opposed to the other three Councilmen having to go
outside this body in order to get some assistance in making that
determination.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated he thinks he should be
able to make that determination regardless of who the Council
members are. The City Attorney does not have the authority to
bring action for misconduct. The Council would have to go to some-
one else. The appropriate action would be to request the City
Attorney's Office to make an investigation and report back to the
Council as to whether or not there was a violation of the Brown
Act.
Councilman Means made a motion that in order to make some
determination, not assuming there was or was not a violation, the
Council ask the City Attorney to give any members, or any side of
the Council, appropriate, legal, unbiased representation other than
by the City Attorney's Office.
Mayor Shell stated there is another motion on the floor
by Councilman Christensen.
Councilman Christensen stated it was not a motion. It
was a personal request, as an elected official, to receive from the
staff a critical analysis as to the personality of Mr. Nickels, as
revealed by the Water Board.
44
Bakers£ield, California, July 29, 1981 - Page 44
Councilman Means repeated his motion as follows: There
needs to be some objective public scrutiny of the actions that
have gone on with the other four Councilmen regarding the Reapportion-
ment Plan up until now, and that the Council authorize legal advice
from someone other than the City Attorney to any member of the
Council, or any group of members of the Council, to advise them
on whether there has or has not been a violation of the Brown Act,
since it is obviously difficult for our City Attorney to be unbiased.
During discussion Councilman Means stated the City Attorney
volunteered to do an assessment of whether there was or was not a
violation of the Brown Act and he would accept his judgment, be-
cause he is a very fair and honest person. Aside from that
particular issue, however, he still felt as a respresentative of
the 5th Ward, and the other two members also, that they need legal
representation and they should be allowed to have that person to
give them advice.
Councilman Means amended his motion to state that legal
advice for any member of the Council be allowed, to make some
recommendation about whether or not there was a violation of the
Brown Act and the City Attorney make a determination about whether
or not there was a violation of the Brown Act.
After further discussion, Councilman Means stated he
would include in his amended motion that a limit of $1,000 total.
Councilman Ratty offered a substitute motion that the
City Attorney be authorized to make an investigation into whether
or not a violation of the Brown Act occurred.
by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
for outside legal
This motion carried
Councilmen Christensen, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton
Councilmen Means, Strong
None
Councilman Means made a motion to authorize an expenditure
advice from an Attorney for those Councilmen who
Bakersfield, California, July 29, t981 - Page 45
45
feel they need legal advice about whether or not there has been
a violation of the Brown Act, in this case, or how to proceed.
Councilman Rockoff stated he will oppose the motion
because there is no limit to the amount of money that will be spent.
call
Ayes:
Councilman Means' motion carried by the following roll
vote:
Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Strong
Noes: Councilmen Ratty, Rockoff, Barton
Absent: None
Councilman Rockoff made a motion that the last vote on
Councilman Means' motion be reconsidered. This motion carried by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton
Noes: Councilmen Christensen, Strong
Absent: None
Councilman Means' motion to
outside legal advice from an Attorney
feel they need legal advice about whether or not there has been a
violation of the Brown Act, in this case, or how to proceed, failed
to carry by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Means, Strong
Ratty, Rockoff, Barton
Noes: Councilmen Payne,
Absent: None
authorize an expenditure for
for those Councilmen who
ADJOURNMENT
further business to come before the
by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was
ZOR 0f~e ~ity of Bakersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:? ~ ~ v~'~6~-- of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
There being no
Council, upon a motion
adjourned at 1:50 A.M.
ma
46
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 8:00 P.M., August 5, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation in the form of a prayer
submitted by Yolonda Augusto, Pastor of the Deliverance Center.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Shell. Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Christensen
Absent: Councilman Barton
SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Mr. Jimmy Sanchez, representing Greater Bakersfield
Crime Commission and California Coalition to End Barrio Warfare,
stated they are planning a rally in Beach Park on August 30, 1981,
and requested that the park fees be waived. Mr. Sanchez stated
the purpose of this request is to get the City of Bakersfield
involved in programs such as this by cosponsoring it.
After discussion, Mayor Shell stated she and Mr. Sanchez
would meet during the week and come up with an official request to
present to the Council at the meeting of August 12, 1981.
CORRESPONDENCE
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from Gary R. Madsen, Chairman of Muscular Dystrophy Softball
Tournament, dated August 3, 1981, requesting that rental fees for
the softball diamonds at Patriots Park be waived on September 5
and 6, 1981, was received and referred to the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, communication from
Mac D. Culver, 3709 River Boulevard, dated July 30, 1981, submitting
his resignation from the Miscellaneous Department Civil Service
Board, was received, resignation accepted and the Mayor was
requested to send a letter of appreciation for his years of service
to the City.
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 2
47
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilman Christensen stated the Sign Ordinance, as
presently written, is a farce, significantly inequitable and lacking
in purpose. He felt it is totally unenforceable. Far too many
special permits and deviations have been granted. The majority of
the City's Planning Commission and most businessmen are opposed to
the current ordinance. Newspaper ads have skyrocketed, as well as
increases in other medias. Signs are the cheapest and best form
of advertising and in these troubled economic times businessmen
are trying to cut costs. The Council has hummed and hawed about
the Sign Ordinance and has not begun to achieve the purpose for
which it was written. It is totally inequitable for the older areas
of this City and is not being enforced in the newer areas. If the
enforcement of the present ordinance, as written, were to be carried
out the City Attorney would be in litigation around the clock.
Councilman Christensen made a motion to repeal the Sign
Ordinance and assign the revamping to the ZORAC Committee for
intensive review and study; and requested that the repeal of the
Sign Ordinance be voted on first.
Councilman Rockoff stated he thought this matter had
been referred to the Business Development and Parking Committee
or some other Council Committee.
Councilman Christensen stated he would withdraw his
motion until just prior to adjournment and following the last
hearing on the agenda.
Councilman Means thanked the City Attorney for completing
his investigation on preparation of the Ward Reapportionment Map
and stated he hoped the whole Council would be able to work to-
gether better.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, memorandum from the
City Attorney, dated August 4, 1981, regarding Investigation of
Preparation of Ward Reapportionment, was received, ordered placed
48
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 3
on
file and spread across the minutes, as follows:
On Wednesday, July 29, 1981, Vice-Mayor Barton
distributed to all Council members a copy of
his "Suggested Council Ward Reapportionment
Plan and Ordinance." See copy of subject
REPORT, attached hereto. The "report" referred
to a revised ward boundary ordinance to be
included as an agenda item at the regular City
Council meeting of August 12, 1981.
At the City Council meeting of July 29, 1981,
Vice-Mayor Barton stated that he received "in-
put" from other Council members. An issue was
raised as to whether this constitutes a violation
of the Brown Act. Council members Barton,
Christensen, Payne, Ratty and Rockoff directed
that the City Attorney's Office investigate to
determine if the action of Vice-Mayor Barton
constitutes a violation of the Brown Act.
After interviewing all seven Council members,
this office concludes that based upon statements
given by the Council members, there was no
violation of public notice and public meeting
requirements of the Brown Act.
ANALYSIS
The Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section
54950 et seq., requires that legislative bodies
of local agencies hold their meetings open to
the public, and conduct their deliberations and
actions in public unless expressly exempted.
Excluded from the public notice and public
meeting requirements are committees composed
solely of less than a quorum of Council members.
A determination of the propriety of Vice-Mayor
Barton's action requires an application of the
facts to legal interpretations of the Brown Act.
A meeting held in violation of the Brown Act
does not void the action taken. The only remedy
to a meeting in violation of the Brown Act in
which action is taken is to charge the partici-
pating legislative members with a misdemeanor.
The participating members must have had knowl-
edge that the meeting was in violation of the
Act in order to be guilty of committing a mis-
demeanor. Another, perhaps less effective
remedy is an action enjoining the members from
participating in any meeting in violation of
the Act, whether or not action was taken, and
even if there was only "deliberation." Such
injunctive action would only serve to protect
against future violations.
If, with respect to Vice-Mayor Barton's proposed
Ward Map, either action was taken by a majority
of Council members or a majority of Council
members deliberated over a matter which would
be the basis of a later decision, then a vio-
lation of the Brown Act occurred.
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 4
49
WAS ACTION TAKEN?
"Action taken" is defined as a "collective
decision made by a majority of the members of
a legislative body, a collective commitment or
promise by a majority . "Government Code
Section 54952.6. "Action taken" can include
a series of meetings or sessions which when
combined result in a consensus from a number
of members sufficient to constitute a quorum
of the legislative body. Attorney General
Op. 80-713.
This office believes that based upon the state-
ments given by each Council member that no
action was taken in any form, whether by con-
sensus, agreement, or commitment. Vice-Mayor
Barton received some verbal input on reapportion-
ment from at least three other Council members
(Payne, Ratty and Rockoff), and a comment from
one other Council member (Strong). Mr. Barton
apparently did not share with others the specific
comments he received from a Council member.
None of the Council members appeared to have
known what each had supplied as an input.
Neither meetings nor discussions regarding re-
apportionment took place when there was more
than one Council member present with Mr. Barton.
The map presented to the members by Vice-Mayor
Barton was prepared by himself with assistance
from staff. No Council member saw the map prior
to its delivery to all Council members on July
29, 1981, for discussion at the August 12, 1981,
City Council meeting. A commitment of support
was neither sought nor obtained from any Council
member. None believed they were committed to
support any map presented by Vice-Mayor Barton.
DID A MAJORITY DELIBERATE?
The issue now turns to whether there was "de-
liberation" of public business upon which
official action would result. In Sacramento
Newspaper Guild vs. Sacramento County Board of
Supervisors, 263 CA2d 41, the court said:
"To 'deliberate' is to examine, weigh,
and reflect upon the reasons for or
against the choice . . Deliberation
thus connotes not only collective
discussion, but the collective
acquisition and exchange of facts
preliminary to the ultimate decision."
While a number of members sufficient to constitute
a quorum violate the Brown Act if, in a series of
meetings, whether formal or informal, they have
had the opportunity to be informed and deliberate
on particular public business, it is not possible
to construe such a violation from the action of
Vice-Mayor Barton.
The key words in the court's definition of
"deliberation" are the "collective discussion,
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 5
collective acquisition and exchange of facts
preliminary to the ultimate decision."
Although "collectivism" can be achieved through
a series of meetings or informal sessions, the
word itself connotes a unity of thought, data,
facts or reasoning considered by all members
of a group or series of groups (if not held at
one time) that constitute a majority of the
legislative body.
In the matter under consideration, Vice-Mayor
Barton singularly acquired the input for his
proposed map. The data, thought, facts, or
reasoning were never available for consideration
or discussion by a group constituting a quorum
either at a single session, conference or dis-
cussion, or at a series of individual sessions,
conferences or discussions. There was never
an "exchange" of facts, data, ideas or reasoning
until Councilman Barton presented his "Suggested
Council Ward Reapportionment Plan and Ordinance"
to all Council members on July 29, 1981, for
consideration at the regular meeting of August
22, 1981.
The acts of Vice-Mayor Barton did not circumvent
either the purpose or itent of the Brown Act.
The object of the Act is to assure that full
public deliberation will take place. Since none
of the Council members examined the proposed
map, viewed or considered the input from other
Council members, or exchanged any ideas, comments
or facts, it seems apparent that when an ordinance
is proposed it will be exposed to full public
deliberation.
GUIDELINES FOR COMt)LIANCE WITH BROWN ACT
The interviews conducted by this office with
the seven Council members indicated a need to
reiterate general criteria for compliance with
the Brown Act.
The following general principles are provided
for your information and guidance:
Except as provided in the Government Code
or except for legally recognized executive
sessions, the public has a right to be
present at all meetings of the City Council.
"Meetings" include all gatherings consisting
of a quorum or more where the public's
business is to be discussed. Thus, no
action need be taken to have a "meeting"
either in the sense of final action or the
broader concept of "action taken" as
defined in this report. The public has a
right to be present where only "delibera-
tions," as defined in this report, occur
regarding the pub~ic's business. The public
notice and public meeting requirements
cannot be circumvented by having a series
of groups of less than quorum, which groups
when considered together, have been pro-
vided the same information and constitute
a quorum.
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 6
3. Committee meetings consisting solely of
less than a quorum of the City Council are
exempted from the public notice and public
meeting requirements.
4. The Brown Act does not preclude attendance
by a quorum or more at social events where
no public business is discussed.
5. Attendance at professional conferences by
a quorum or more is permissible. However,
care must be taken to avoid discussing
matters which are before the City Council
or may potentially come before the City
Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard J. Oberholzer
City Attorney
Mr. Gonzalo Rameriz, member of the Mexican-American
Political Association, stated they feel the community should have
some input into the redistricting of Bakersfield.
Dr. Jess Nieto, member of the Mexican-American Political
Association and Chairman of Kern County Group of Californios' for
Fair Representation, stated they feel redistricting is crucially
important to everyone in the community and it is very important
that the minority community be taken into consideration.
Councilman Strong stated he appreciates Dr. Nieto and
Mr. Ramirez for expressing their dissatisfaction in the way the
redistricting has taken place in the past. There is no doubt it
is very political and has, for the most past, ignored the minority
concerns. There has been some indication by some Council members
that they are willing to look at that and consider it. The
boundaries that have been drawn up are not final and he will do
everything he can to notify them when the plan will be reconsidered,
so they can add their input.
HEARINGS
This is the time set for public hearing for proposed
Maintenance District No. l, which provides the basis for the
benefit assessment for maintaining street landscaping and irrigation
systems to be borne by all parcels or property within proposed
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 7
Maintenance District No. 1, generally extending west from the east
curb line of the median strip of Gosford Road to the eastern
boundary of the Arvin-Edison Canal and the area extending south
from the south curb line of Stockdale Highway to the center line
of Ming Avenue.
This hearing has been duly advertised, posted and the
property owner notified as required by law.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici--
pation. No protests or objections being received, and no one
wishing to speak in favor, the public portion of the hearing was
closed for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Resolution No.
63-81 establishing Maintenance District No. 1 and confirming the
Assessment, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Strong,
Christensen
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Barton
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council on an Appeal by Marc Penner to the decision of the
Board of Zoning Adjustment approving his application for a Condi-
tional Use Permit to allow a bail bond office in a C-O-D (Commercial
and Professional Office - Architectural Design) Zone, subject to
conditions, on that certain property in the City of Bakersfield
commonly known as 1324 "K" Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and the property
owners notified as required by law.
The conditions of approval required by the Board of
Zoning Adjustment are as follows:
(a) Applicant shall obtain a Special Inspection
Permit and comply with all Building Depart-
ment requirements.
(b) Applicant shall provide two off-street
parking spaces instead of one space as
proposed in the application.
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 8
1981, at
pation.
(c)
No more floor area shall be converted
prior to providing the required off-street
parking spaces.
This hearing was continued from the meeting of June 24,
the request of Mr. Penner's Attorney, Rex Mull.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici-
Mr. Rex Mull, representing Marc Penner, stated the only
thing they are appealing is whether or not there should be one or
no parking spaces. Mr. Mull stated he cannot understand the logic
of the Board of Zoning Adjustment requiring two parking spaces when
the staff report states that only one is required. He stated one
space is ample and requested that no parking spaces be required.
Planning Director Sceales stated there are two residences
at that localion (one in the same building and one in the building
behind it), that require parking. The Conditional Use Permit was
approved for the bail bond use, but the Board of Zoning Adjustment
stipulated they wanted off-street parking spaces provided as
required by ordinance.
Mary Wallace, neighbor living across the street, stated
there are several bail bond offices in the area and indicated she
felt adequate parking should be provided.
No further protests or objections being received and no
one else wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Shell closed the public
portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Zoning Resolution No.
282 denying Appeal of condition attached to grant of Conditional
Use Permit to allow a Bail Bond Office on that certain property
commonly known as 1324 "K" Street, was adopted by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Strong,
Christensen
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Barton
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 9
This is the time set for hearing before the Council on
an Appeal by the Kern Karate Federation to the decision of the
Planning Commission denying their request for a Special Sign Permit
for a 6.9 square foot, double-faced, interior illuminated, pro-
jecting roof sign in a C-2 (Commercial) Zone on that certain
property commonly known as 210 Chester Avenue.
Subject nonconforming projecting roof sign was installed
without a Building Permit. The applicant is of the opinion there
is no other location he could place the sign.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation.
Theresa Moody, student at Kern Karate Federation, requested
that the Council grant the Special Sign Permit.
Councilman Strong stated the applicant has requested that
no action be taken on this Appeal tonight, pending a Council
decision on the Sign Ordinance or that the matter be continued for
30 days.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated the sign is in place
now, which is in violation of the Sign Ordinance. The Council
cannot waive the Sign Ordinance without amending it. The only
alternative open to the Council is to grant the Special Sign Permit
for 60 days, after which time it will expire.
No protests or objections being received, and no one
else wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Shell closed the public
portion of the hearing for Council deliberation and action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, request of Kern
Karate Federation for a Special Sign Permit for a 6.9 square foot,
double-faced, interior illuminated, projecting roof sign in a C-2
(Commercial) Zone on that certain property commonly known as 210
Chester Avenue, was granted for a 60 day period by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Means, Payne,
Christensen
Noes: None
Ratty, Rockoff, Strong,
Absent: Councilman Barton
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page l0
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on an Appeal by Beacon Oil Company to the decision of the
Planning Commission regarding a request for approval of plans and
elevations for a neighborhood shopping center site in a C-2-D
(Commercial - Architectural Design) Zone on that certain property
located on the southwest corner of Ming Avenue and Ashe Road.
This hearing has been duly advertised and the property
owners notified as required by law.
The Planning Commission approved the plans and elevations
for a proposed shopping center subject to several conditions.
The appeal concerns one condition required by the
Planning Commission to eliminate the most easterly driveway on
Ming Avenue, in front of a proposed service station site.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation.
Gary Rosa, representing Beacon Oil Company and Project
Manager for the Laurelglen Plaza Project, stated he was present
to answer questions of the Council and their reasons for the
appeal are stated in the letter presented to the Council.
No protests or objections being received and no one else
wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Shell closed the public portion
of the hearing for Council deliberation and action.
In answer to a question by Councilman Means, Director of
Public Works Hawley stated in a policy determined by the Planning
Commission it states "the minimum intersection spacing on major
arterial streets shall be 1/3 mile." It also states "driveway
access on major arterial streets shall be kept to a minimum."
Mr. Hawley stated this is the only policy he is aware of, adopted
by the Planning Commission. When the plan for this development was
first received five driveways were shown and after several meetings,
with the developer, it was reduced to three, which was acceptable
by staff.
.56
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 11
Councilman Means requested an informational memorandum
from the Traffic Engineer regarding his idea of the appropriate
number of entrances and exits that should be allowed along major
arterials, regardless of whether it is a shopping center, etc.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Appeal of Beacon
Oil Company regarding decision of the Planning Commission that
most easterly driveway be eliminated in front
service station site on that certain property
west corner of Ming Avenue and Ashe Road, was
the decision of the Planning Commission,
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty,
Christensen
Absent:
the
of a proposed
located on the south--
granted, overturning
by the following roll call
Rockoff, Strong,
None
Councilman Barton
Councilman Christensen stated he is really serious about
revamping the Sign Ordinance to make it a workable tool or it
should be repealed. He requested that the other Councilmen consider
this matter and he will bring it up again at the meeting of August
26, 1981.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the Council
recessed to an Executive Session at 9:35 P.M. to consider Base
Compensation Section of City Manager's Contract and Step Adjustment
for City Attorney.
The regular meeting was reconvened at ll:40 P.M.
Councilman Strong made a motion that a 5% step increase
in salary, retroactive to July 1, 1981, and fringe benefits granted
to other Management Group employees, be granted to City Manager
Philip Kelmar; his position be considered during any equity pay
adjustments; and his salary be reviewed again on July l, 1982.
Bakersfield, California, August 5, 1981 - Page 12
This motion carried by the following roll
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Christensen
call vote:
Strong,
None
Councilman Barton
Councilman Strong made a motion that a step increase in
Salary from Step 2 to 4, retroactive to July 1, 1981, and fringe
benefits granted to other Management Group employees, be granted
to City Attorney Richard Oberholzer; his position be considered
during any equity adjustments; and his salary be reviewed again
on July
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
1, 1982. This motion carried by the following roll ca21
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen,
adjourned at 11:43 P.M.
Councilmen Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Strong,
Christensen
None
Councilman Barton
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
the meeting was
MAYOR o~f e Cit~o~f~ Bakersfield,
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK and' Ex'Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
ma
Calif.
.68
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 8:00 P.M., August 12, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation in the form of a prayer
submitted by Monsignor Maurice Lahey of St.
Church.
Present:
Absent:
Francis Catholic
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Shell. Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Christensen, Means
Councilman Strong
SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Mr. Leo Whitecotton, ll5 Quincy Street,
Barton,
stated something
has to be done about animals that their owners turn loose during
the late afternoon and very early morning hours. Mr. Whitecotton
requested that the contract with the S.P.C.A., for animal control,
not be renewed until stricter regulations are placed on them for
patrolling neighborhoods on a staggered or nonroutine basis.
Mr. Jimmy Sanchez, 909 - llth Street, Wasco, member of
the Greater Bakersfield Crime Commission and California Coalition
to End Barrio Warfare, stated they have changed the date of their
Rally to Septemb~r 20, 1981, in B~O~'~rk between the hours of
4:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M., and requested that the park fees be waived
or a donation of approximately $150.00 be made or the City Council
endorse the event.
Ms. Janet
End Barrio Warfare,
Flores, member of the California Coalition to
explained the program for the Rally.
Councilman Ratty suggested that the Council's endorsement
of the Rally be used to request donations from local businessmen.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Rally sponsored
by the California Coalition to End Barrio Warfare, September 20,
1981, between the hours of 4:00 P.M. and 8:00 P.M., in Beach Park,
was completely endorsed and supported by the City Council.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 2
59
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilman Ratty, referring to a memorandum from City
Manager Kelmar regarding Council Election Dates, requested that
the Council review it during the next two weeks because he plans
to bring this matter up at the meeting o£ August 26, 1981.
REPORTS
Councilman Barton, Chairman
and Parking Committee, read Report No.
Sales Ordinance, as follows:
of the Business Development
5-81 regarding Sidewalk
Chapter 10.24 of the Municipal Code provides
that permits for "sidewalk sales" shall not
be issued in excess of three per year and no
such permit shall be valid for a period of
time in excess of 24 hours. At the Council
Meeting of June l?, 1981, the City Council
referred to the Business Development and
Parking Committee, a request from the Downtown
Business Association, requesting the ordinance
be changed so that "no more than three permits
per year will be issued and no such permit
shall be valid for a period of time in excess
of 72 hours."
The Public Works Director pointed out that it
was important to plan construction projects
in the downtown area at such time that the
projects would not conflict with anticipated
sidewalk sales. This committee recommended
that construction projects, sales dates and
permits be coordinated between the Public Works
Department and the Downtown Business Association.
Mr. Trainor (representing the Downtown Business
Association) stated he would work with the
Public Works Department on behalf of the Down-
town Business Association so as not to have the
sale dates conflicting with capital improvement
construction projects in the downtown area.
Therefore, this committee concurs with the
request of the Downtown Business Association
and recommends that the Sidewalk Sales Ordinance
be changed as requested and this be considered
first reading.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Business Development
and Parking Committee Report No. 5-81 regarding Sidewalk Sales
Ordinance, was accepted.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 10.24.025 relating
to Displaying Merchandise on Side-
walks, changing the validity of the
Permit from 24 hours to 72 hours.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 3
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 10.24.025
relating to Displaying Merchandise on Sidewalks, changing the
validity of the Permit from 24 hours to 72 hours.
Councilman Rockoff, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 15-81 regarding Refuse Collection
Agreement and Rate Increase, as follows:
On March 20, 1967, the City of Bakersfield
entered into an agreement with Kern Refuse
Disposal, Inc., to provide refuse collection
service to those portions of the City not
being served by the City itself. The referred
to contract terminates on August 31, 1981.
As provided in the contract, the contractor
(Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc.), submitted a
request to the Council to increase their charges
to the City by 14% across-the-board effective
July l, 1981. The City Council referred the
request to the Budget Review and Finance Com-
mittee for study and recommendation.
The Public Works Department has analyzed, in
great detail, the basis for the contractor
requesting an increase of 14%. In addition,
the Public Works Director has made a complete
analysis of cost increases experienced by the
City for refuse collection services. The
analysis of the City's costs by the Public
Works Director reflect an increase of 7.2%.
In addition to reviewing all figures and cal-
culations with City staff, this committee has
met with representatives of the contractor to
discuss the results of the cost analysis and
accept any input and discussion the independent
contractors had to offer. The representatives
of the contractor presented a formula they had
established as the basis for the requested rate
increase, however, this committee feels it must
rely on the operations and records of the City
as a basis for determining the cost of providing
refuse collection services. Of course, this
committee recognizes that the City's figures
must be adjusted to re£1ect differences in the
cost of operations such as additional distance
necessary to travel to the landfill site. In
light of this consideration, this committee
feels an increase of 8% for the months of July
and August, 1981 (while negotiating a new
contract) would be appropriate and justified.
This committee suggested the contractor or
representatives analyze the records which the
Public Works Director used to arrive at the
cost of providing refuse service by the City
of Bakersfield and point out any areas of
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 4
expense the private sector may have over and
above the City costs. Such analyses would
then be taken into consideration in negotiating
a new contract for the period commencing
September 1, 1981.
In conclusion, this committee recommends that
the City Council: l) approve and grant a rate
increase of 8% to the independent contractors
for the period of July l, 1981 through August
31, 1981; and 2) authorize this committee to
negotiate and recommend to the Council a con-
tract between the City of Bakersfield and
Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc., for refuse collection
services for the period commencing September 1,
1981.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Budget Review and
Finance Committee Report No. 15-81 regarding Refuse Collection
Agreement and Rate Increase, was accepted; rate increase of 8%
to the independent contractors for the period July 1, 1981 through
August 31, 1981, was approved; and the Budget Review and Finance
Committee was authorized to negotiate and recommend to the Council
a contract between the City and Kern Refuse Disposal, Inc., for
refuse collection services for the period commencing September l,
1981.
Councilman Rockoff, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 16-81 regarding City Parks -
Alcoholic Beverage Consumption and Noise Ordinance, as follows
On June 3, 1981, the City Council referred the
matter of alcoholic beverages, noise, rowdiness
and obscenities to this committee so that in
the course of discussions regarding the Police
Department budget, this committee could examine
and recommend alternatives, propose additional
alternatives, and determine any financial impact
on the Police budget, which would result from
those alternatives.
While reviewing the Police budget, this committee
recommended the use of existing funds appropriated
for overtime to provide Police protection and
Police manpower in the parks where the problems
exist. Additionally, this committee requested
the Police Department return to this committee
with information on how this matter is being
handled in other cities as well as requesting
the Police Chief to make suggestions and recom-
mendations on how the matter could be dealt
with in the City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 5
A subsequent meeting was held and after a
lengthy discussion, reviewing several alter-
natives and various ordinances from other
cities, this committee concluded that an
ordinance for the City of Bakersfield was
desirable. The committee unanimously concurred
that an ordinance should deal with the "noise"
problem, however, the majority of the committee
preferred to "prohibit" alcoholic beverages ~n
City parks while one member, Councilman Means,
preferred to "limit" alcoholic beverages by
placing a curfew on alcoholic beverages in the
parks.
This committee reported to the City Council on
July 29, 1981, however, the Council referred
the matter back to the committee for further
study and recommendation.
This committee met with members of the staff,
including field supervising officers from the
Police Department. Numerous alternatives and
problems were discussed at great length. The
Police Officers pointed out that problems
primarily exist on the weekends during evening
hours. It was also noted the potential for an
officer to be injured was considerably higher
at night versus daylight hours. Such is the
case, since an individual or individuals in a
crowd are more likely to throw objects such as
bottles, cans and rocks if they are less likely
to be seen due to darkness. It was also pointed
out, and this committee concurs, that multiple
or split curfews, depending on the parks, would
be difficult to enforce and most likely be
confusing to the public.
This committee was also advised that the matter
o£ dealing with "drunks" was not a difficult
matter to handle since these individuals do not
generally congregate as a crowd and become rowdy.
Most often they are intoxicated to the point of
being unconscious or in no condition to resist
arrest and are easily identifiable. While this
matter is not necessarily a problem of difficulty
or danger to the officer, it is a problem of
available manpower.
This committee thoroughly discussed the numerous
possibilities and alternatives including the
pros and cons of each. Pursuant to those dis-
cussions, this committee has concluded and recom-
mends that the City Council direct the City
Attorney's Office to prepare an ordinance to:
l)
"prohibit" the possession of open containers
and drinking of alcoholic beverages in not
only City parks but upon any parkway, play-
ground, or in any place open to the patronage
of the public which premises are not licensed
for the consumption of such liquor on the
premises or
2) an ordinance which will "limit" the possession
of open containers and drinking of alcoholic
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 6
beverages in City parks by establishing
a curfew which will not allow the drinking
of alcoholic beverages in the City parks
before 10:00 a.m. nor after 6:00 p.m.
As noted above, this committee concurs with the
Police Department in that Alternate Number 1 or
Alternate Number 2 would be manageable and en-
forceable within the 1981-82 adopted budget.
Additionally, this committee recommends that
either ordinance selected by the City Council
must contain a provision whereby "noise"
created by car stereos, etc., will be confined
to an area not to exceed 50 feet from the
vehicle or other source. This committee further
recommends that the referred to ordinance take
effect January l, 1982, so as to allow sufficient
time to inform the public.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Budget Review and
Finance Committee Report No. 16-81 regarding City Parks - Alcoholic
Beverage Consumption and Noise Ordinance, was accepted; and action
on the report was deferred until the Council Meeting of August 26,
1981.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 103 to 675,
inclusive, in the amount of $433,038.05.
(b)
Claim for Damages from Angela Tashina
Robinson, 920 - 10th Street, Bakersfield.
(Refer to City Attorney)
(c)
Grant Deed from Orange Coast Developers
Corporation providing a drainage basin
for Parcel Map No. 5793, located on east
side of South Union Avenue, on north side
of Watts Drive.
(d)
Street Right-of-Way Deed from Church of
God of Prophecy Holding Association pro-
viding additional dedication on Latham
Street for Tract No. 4049, located south
of College Avenue, north of Morning Drive.
(e)
Street Right-of-Way Deed from Paul A. and
Mary Galpin providing 15 feet of addi-
tional dedication on Planz Road for
Ranchef's Auto & Tractor Parks, located
at northeast corner of Planz Road and
Union Avenue.
(f)
Street Dedication from Frank A. and
Virginia Collins and Francis Marion and
Shirley J. Collins providing 5 feet of
additional dedication along Highway 178
for Parcel Map No. 6288, located on south
side of Highway 178 at Kern Canyon Road.
f14
Bakersfield,
California,
August 12, 1981
- Page 7
(g)
(h)
(i)
(J)
(k)
(1)
(m)
(n)
Street Right-of-Way Deed from Orange
Coast Developers Corporation for Parcel
Map No. 5793, located on east side of
South Union Avenue, on north side of
Watts Drive.
Quitclaim Deed from the City of Bakers-
field to Parkhill Townhomes, Ltd.,
providing for relocation of Storm Drain
Easement between Columbus Street and
Freeway 178. Storm Drain Easement for
new location has been accepted and
recorded.
Licenses to encroach on right-of-way
belonging to the Arvin-Edison Water
Storage District for construction of
domestic water mains across the Arvin-
Edison Canal at its intersections with
Ming Avenue, White Lane and Gosford Road.
These crossings will convey water to the
developing areas within the Ashe Water
Service Area, south of the State College.
Map of Tract No. 4395 A and Improvement
Agreement with U. S. Home Corporation
for construction of improvements therein,
located on east side of Dunsmuir Road,
north of Business Center Drive.
Improvement Agreement for Parcel Map No.
5793 with Orange Coast Developers for
construction of improvements therein,
located on east side of South Union Avenue,
on north side of Watts Drive.
Notices of Completion and Acceptance of
Work for
Tract No 4417, Contract No. 81-17 with
Lencioni, Altergott and Yates Investments,
located at Dunsmuir Road and East Commer-
center Drive.
Tract No. 4343, Contract No. 80-156 with
Watson Division - U. S. Home Corporation,
located at Barrington Street and Notting-
ham Lane.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Booth's T.V. & Appliance Company, 1931
"H" Street, for construction of an electrical
service box, 14" deep x 30" wide x 72"
high, to be attached to the wall of an
existing building and encroaching 14" into
the alley right-of-way at 1931 "H" Street.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Rosa Diaz, 1317 Niles Street, for con-
struction of a single stair-step, 4" high
x 5' wide, 13 feet behind curb and gutter
at 1317 Niles Street, which will encroach
approximately 1 foot into the right-of-way.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 8
'65
(o)
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Audrey Irene Fornas, 531 Beech Street,
for construction of a four foot high
maximum wood fence and posts to be located
adjacent and behind sidewalk area at 531
Beech Street.
(P)
Contract Change Order No. 2 to Contract
No. 81-79 with James G. Francis for re-
surfacing portions of Truxtun and Chester
Avenues and reconstructing a portion of
Eye Street. This Change Order is necessary
to excavate and pave a thin section of
pavement to stabilize the base on the west
side of Chester Avenue between 13th Street
and California Avenue and to delete Item
(4) Asphalt Rejuvenating and Item (6)
Restore Inductive Loop Vehicle Detectors.
This Change Order decreases the contract
$3,O50.00.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (1), (m), (n), (o) and
(p) of the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton, Christensen,
Means
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Strong
ACTION ON BIDS
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, bid of Kern Turf
Supply, in the amount of $12,562.64, for Annual Contract for Pipe
and Sprinklers, was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, usual bidding require-
ments were dispensed with, in accordance with Section 5.20.060 of
the Municipal Code, and the Finance Operations Manager was authorized
to negotiate a price with Motorola Communications, not to exceed tile
amount budgeted, for twenty-six portable radios for the Police
Department.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, low bid of P. R.
Field, Inc., in the amount of $234,884, for Kern River First
Point Metering Facility, was accepted, all other bids rejected and
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 9
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract. The City's
financial participation in the project is 1/6 of the project cost,
or $39,147, with the balance being paid by other Kern River Interests.
DEFERRED BUSINESS
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2657 New
Series amending Title Seventeen of
the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties
in the City of Bakersfield located
in the proposed Rio Bravo Golf Course,
south of Highway 178 and east of Mira-
monte Drive.
The application for this amendment was made by La Hacienda,
Inc., and would change subject properties from an "A" (Agricultural)
Zone to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Negative Declaration
and Ordinance No. 2657 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield located
in the proposed Rio Bravo Golf Course, south of Highway 178 and
east of Miramonte Drive, finding said zoning boundaries consistent
with the General Plan, were adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton, Christensen,
Means
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Strong
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2658 New
Series of the Counci~ of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 16.24.124
(d) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code
relative to fees for construction of
Planned Drainage and Sanitary Sewer
Facilities pursuant to adopted plans,
and referring to plans adopted for
particular drainage and sanitary
sewer areas.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Ordinance No.
2658 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 16.24.124 (d) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relative to
fees for construction of Planned Drainage and Sanitary Sewer
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 10
Facilities pursuant to adopted plans, and referring to plans adopted
for particular drainage and sanitary sewer areas, was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton, Christensen,
Means
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Strong
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2659 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 12.32.020
(a) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code
relative to License Agreement in lieu
of Encroachment Permit for pipelines
conveying petroleum products.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Ordinance No. 2659
New Series of the Council of the City o£ Bakersfield amending
Section 12.32.020 (a) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code relative
to License Agreement in lieu of Encroachment Permit for pipelines
conveying petroleum products, was adopted by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton, Christensen,
Means
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Strong
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2660 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield adding Chapter 1.48 to
the Municipal Code establishing and
adopting rules for the operation of
the City's Water System in the Fair-
haven Water Service Area, amending
Chapter 1.46 by adding Section 1.46.020
D, and amending Sections 1.46.120,
1.46.150 A (2) a., and 1.46.150 B.,
relative to Operational Rules for
Ashe Water Service Area.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Ordinance No. 2660
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Chapter
1.48 to the Municipal Code establishing and adopting rules for the
operation of the City's Water System in the Fairhaven Water Service
Area, amending Chapter 1.46 by adding Section 1.46.020 D, and
amending Sections 1.46.120, 1.46.150 A (2) a., and 1.46.150 B.,
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page ll
relative to Operational Rules
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
for Ashe Water Service Area, was
Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Means
Barton, Christensen,
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Strong
NEW BUSINESS
First reading of an Ordinance amend-
ing Title Seventeen of the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of that
certain property in the City of
Bakersfield located on the west side
of Fairfax Road, approximately .6
mile north of Panorama Drive, subject
to the specified condition precedent.
The application for this amendment was made by Michael J.
Callagy and would change subject property from an R-1 (One Family
Dwelling) Zone to an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), or
more restrictive Zone.
The Planning Commission approved the amendment and recom-
mended same to the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.52.200
(Conditional Zoning), subject to the following condition:
There shall be a recorded waiver of
access from all lots adjacent to
Fairfax Road.
First reading was considered given to an Ordinance amending
Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of that certain property in the City
of Bakersfield located on the west side of Fairfax Road, approxi-
mately .6 mile north of Panorama Drive, subject to the specified
condition precedent.
Deferral of action on Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and
the Bakersfield S.P.C.A. for Animal
Control.
Councilman Ratty requested that staff ask the S.P.C.A.
to consider Mr. Whitecotton's comments regarding patrolling for
loose animals other than 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 12
Councilman Ratty made a motion that action on agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield S.P.C.A. for
Animal Control be deferred until the Council Meeting of August
26, 1981, in order to allow time for the staff to discuss patrol
hours with the S.P.C.A.
Councilman Christensen requested that staff secure from
the S.P.C.A. the number of estimated dogs in the City and number
of licenses issued.
Councilman Means stated he hopes the Council will be
supportive of this matter if the S.P.C.A. comes back and indicates
that in order to patrol the additional hours it will mean an in-
crease in cost.
Councilman Ratty's motion that action on agreement between
the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield S.P.C.A. for Animal
Control be deferred until the Council Meeting of August 26, 1981,
in order to allow time for the staff to discuss patrol hours with
the S.P.C.A., was unanimously approved.
Approval of Agreement with the Housing
Authority of Kern County for recon-
struction of a sewerline for Adelante
Vista Housing Project, located on the
southeast corner of Lakeview and
California Avenues
The complex was built in 1941 and the existing infra-
structure is in need of repair. The project was part of the
1980-81 Community Development Block Grant Program. The Housing
Authority estimates this activity at $50,000, which is within the
amount budgeted for the project.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Agreement with the
Housing Authority of Kern County for reconstruction of a sewerline
for Adelante Vista Housing Project, located on the southeast corner
of Lakeview and California Avenues, was approved and the Mayor was
authorized to execute same.
7O
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 13
Adoption of Resolution No. 64-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field establishing Sewer Service
User Charges and Fees for Fiscal
Year 1981-82.
This resolution sets fees and charges for sewer services
provided by the City during the 1981-82 fiscal year.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Resolution No. 64-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield establishing Sewer Service
User Charges and Fees for Fiscal Year 1981-82, was adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton, Christensen
Councilman Means
Councilman Strong
Adoption of Resolution No. 65-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field providing for the collection
of Sewer Charges by the County Tax
Collector.
This resolution authorizes the County Tax Collector to
collect the Sewer User Charges, which are to be billed by the
County at the time of billing for Property Taxes.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Resolution No. 65-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield providing for the
collection of Sewer User Charges by the County Tax Collector, was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton, Christensen
Noes: Councilman Means
Absent: Councilman Strong
Deferral of action on suggested
Council Ward Reapportionment Plan
and Ordinance.
Each Council Ward must be of equal population according
to the latest Decennial Census. A suggested plan, including map
and population totals by existing precincts was provided to the
Council earlier for review. This suggested ordinance is being
placed on the agenda at Councilman Barton's request.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 14
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, action on suggested
Council Ward Reapportionment Plan and Ordinance, was deferred until
the Council Meeting of August 26, 1981.
Councilman Ratty stated he hopes the Council will be
ready to make a decision on August 26th, and not opt for further
delays.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:55 P.M.
MAYOR Bakersfield,
ATTEST:
CITY CLE~~an~x~O~ficio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
ma
Calif.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981
Minutes of a budget session of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 8:55 P.M., August 12, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell,
by the Pledge of Allegiance.
followed
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: ~ayor Shell. Councilmen Barton, Means, Payne, Ratty,
Rockoff
Absent: Councilmen Christensen, Strong
PUBLIC HEARING ON FEDERAL REVENUE
SHARING.
Mayor Shell declared the meeting open for public hearing
on Revenue Sharing Funds.
Sandra Bartlett/~-~er Seal Society, stated Kern County
has the highest percentage ~f people (14%), with disabilities in
the State. They have already open a Recreation/Rehabilitation
Center for the Handicapped at 928 - 17th Street, that will help
disabled persons socialize and will be functionally adaptable to
whatever their needs are. Ms. Bartlett requested Revenue Sharing
Funds, in the amount of $49,309, to help buy the equipment needed
for this facility.
Councilman Ratty made a motion that the request for
Revenue Sharing Funds for equipment needed for the Recreation/
Rehabilitation Center for the Handicapped, be referred to the
Intergovernmental Relations Committee or Budget Review and Finance
Committee for study and recommendation.
City Manager Kelmar stated the amount placed in the
Capital Improvement Program budget was an estimate. Staff is in
the process of closing the books and there is a possibility there
might be additional funds, beyond those presently in the budget.
The Council might want to authorize staff, if there are additional
funds in the Revenue Sharing upon closing of the books, to appro-
priate those in a Contingency Account within the Revenue Sharing,
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 2
so that
priated.
during the year approved projected could have funds appro-
Councilman Barton requested that Councilman Ratty's
motion include that this matter be referred to the Budget Review
and Finance Committee for some recommendations regarding a policy
for spending Revenue Sharing Funds for social organizations for a
one time only expense to help get their projects started.
Councilman Ratty amended his motion to refer all the
requests tonight to the Budget Review and Finance Committee for
study and recommendation, policy suggestions for spending Revenue
Sharing Funds for social organization projects and funds be
appropriated to a Contingency Account within the Revenue Sharing
Funds. Councilman Ratty requested that his motion be held until
everyone has been heard from.
Mr. Bob Ashbeck, President of the Kern Chapter of the
California Association of the Physically Handicapped, stated they
fully endorse the Easter Seal concept and requested that the
Council grant their request for Revenue Sharing Funds.
Mr. Lou Lopez, representing the Bakersfield Chapter for
Independent Living, introduced Tracy Kinset, Deaf Interpreter, who
will be interpreting for Judy McMahon.
Judy McMahon, Counselor & Case Manager for Bakersfield
Center for Independent Living, outlined the purpose and intent of
their organization and stated the Title 7 Grant they have requires
that matching funds be secured.
Mr. Tom Jarvis, Senior Senator of the newly formed
California Senior Legislature, stated they received a $25,000 grant
from the Levi Strauss Foundation, $24,000 from the State Departmen~
on Aging and $7,000 from private donations to help finance and
defray costs of the 120 senior citizens who were elected to be
Assemblymen and Senators. The California Commission on Aging is
authorized to accept donations and he is present tonight to request
Revenue Sharing Funds to help get this project started. This is a
one time donation.
74
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 3
Mr. Joe Quigley, a disabled person, requested that the
Council appropriate Revenue Sharing Funds so they will have a
place to go to.
Irma Carson, Bakersfield resident representing the youth
of this community and a group of concerned citizens and also a
Sergeant in the Bakersfield Police Department, stated they are
concerned with the problem of youths involvement in serious crime
in this community, because we are not adequately meeting their
needs in today's society. Mrs. Carson stated this need can be met
by providing a place between the home, police and probation. Mrs.
Carson requested that Revenue Sharing Funds, in the amount of
$150,000, for a Youth Service Center, be set aside until a plan
can be presented to the Council.
Alice Stiles, Director of Opportunity for Industriali-
zation Center of Kern County, addressed the Council regarding some
of the problems youth is having with schools and education. Ms.
Stiles requested Revenue Sharing Funds for a Youth Training Center.
Mr. Bill Williamson, President of Kern Children's
Service Center, spoke in support of the request made by Irma
Carson and asked that the Council grant the Revenue Sharing Funds
for the Youth Service Center.
May Nix, worked with children for years, spoke in supporL
of the concept presented by Irma Carson and Bill Williamson, be-
cause it is the only answer to getting in and helping youth.
Janet Luttrell, Easter Society's Development Center,
Counselor and Teacher of Independent Living Skills to the Blind,
requested Revenue Sharing Funds for the Braille Audio Library,
which features books and music in braille and tapes that are rotated
periodically to keep current.
Mr. Rick Lewis, President of the Local Chapter of the
National Federation of the Blind, requested Revenue Sharing Funds
for the Braille Audio Library.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 4
Councilman Ratty's amended motion to refer all the
requests for Revenue Sharing Funds to the Budget Review and Finance
Committee for study and recommendation and the Committee also make
suggestions regarding policy for spending Revenue Sharing Funds
for social organization projects, was unanimously approved.
No one else in the audience indicated a wish to speak
and Mayor Shell closed the public hearing.
Mayor Shell declared a brief recess at 10:05 P.M. and
reconvened the meeting at 10:10 P.M.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1981-82
Assistant City Manager-Finance Higginbotham briefly out-
lined the steps taken by the staff and Planning Commission which
culminated in the preparation of the 10-Year Capital Improvement
Program.
regarding
The following is a letter from the Planning Commission
the Preliminary Capital Improvement Program 1981-82
Honorable Mayor Mary K.
City Council
City Hall
1501Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, California
Shell
Honorable Mayor and Gentlemen:
The Planning Commission herewith submits the
Capital Improvement Program for the years 1981-
1991, inclusive, pursuant to Sections 64501 and
65402 of the State Planning and Zoning Laws.
The Commission recommends approval of the 10-
Year Capital Improvement Program, as submitted
with the added recommendation:
That the City Council consider capital
expenditures in the downtown area for
additional parking and better circu-
lation.
Respectfully submitted,
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
GERALD VAN HORN, CHAIRMAN
Dated: May 21, 1981
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 5
The Council and staff reviewed the Capital Improvement
Program for Fiscal Year 1981-82 by categories, as follows:
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
A total of $28,460,800 is proposed for improve-
ments related to storm drains, sewers and waste-
water treatment for the next ten years.
Storm drains in the amount of $1,842,800, are
being proposed. Two projects being requested
for next year are of particular interest. The
"M" Street storm drain between 21st and 23rd
Streets is necessary to correct a serious drainage
problem existing in the City, as portions of the
street are totally under water during heavy rains.
Modifications at the Landfair/Sundale Pump Station
will eliminate the need for the two pumps since
the modifications will provide drainage by
gravity flow.
Sewer projects total $6,060,000, the most signi-
ficant being the East Niles-Morning Drive
Intercepter sewers which amount to $4,900,000.
These main trunk lines will serve the growing
Northeast areas. It is intended that as developers
connect to these lines, the City will be reim-
bursed through connection charges.
Wastewater treatment projects amount to $20,558,000,
the major one totaling $20,000,000 for the
expansion of Wastewater Treatment Plant #3, which
serves the southwest area.
Director of Public Works Hawley stated six storm drain
projects have been recommended for the 1981-82 fiscal year. As
noted in the City Manager's transmittal letter it was necessary to
eliminate two projects, Fairview Road Drainage and Kingsland Avenue
Storm Drain, due to lack of General Tax Revenue funds.
RECREATION AND CULTURAL SERVICES
A total of $8,072,550 is proposed for improve-
ments related to parks and the Civic Auditorium.
In addition to various improvements to the
existing parks throughout the City, the City
contemplates new park sites totaling $6,550,000.
Anticipated financing will be through the use
of $1,900,000 of State and Federal funds and
$4,650,000 of Improvement and Maintenance
District Funds.
Civic Auditorium improvements consist of property
acquisition for future needs of additional
parking.
Director of Public Works Hawley stated as noted in the
City Manager's transmittal letter due to lack of funds, General
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 6
¸77
Tax Revenue projects for parks have been deleted, except those
which are tied in with State Park Bond Act funds.
Councilman Rockoff expressed his objections to the
University Avenue Park Improvements being deleted, because it was
his understanding it would be completed by September 15, 1981.
Councilman Rockoff stated he would like the $17,500.00 funded to
complete that park.
City Manager Kelmar stated this item was deleted at this
point in time and will be reviewed next year if adequate funds are
available. It is the Council's prerogative to complete this park
in place of some other project.
PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES
A total of $1,759,300 is proposed for improve-
ments related to the Public Safety Services of
the Police and Fire Departments over the next
ten years.
The Police Department requests include improve-
ments at the Police Pistol Range for safety and
noise purposes now that the surrounding area is
beginning to be utilized and the replacement of
lost parking due to the construction of the
Truxtun Avenue extension. The staff examined
the alternatives of using the facilities of the
Kern County Sheriff's Department and the Cali-
fornia Highway Patrol as well as relocating our
own facility, however, found the existing Pistol
Range, with the proposed improvements, to be
the most economically and operationally feasible
solution. Also, additional parking for police
vehicles will be needed in the future behind the
Police Building.
Fire Department improvements include the re-
maining two phases at Station #1. The construc-
tion of squad room and cooking facilities was
budgeted in 1979-80, however, as some of these
funds were utilized in order to meet the bid
for the construction of the new station in the
Southwest and due to the rise in construction
costs, an additional $91,000 is being requested
for completion in 1981-82. Community Development
funds are being utilized to make necessary
improvements to the fire main system in the
Southeast to improve fire protection. A future
fire station in the Rio Bravo area is another
significant request.
Assistant City Manager-Finance Higginbotham stated the
$260,000 has been recommended for enclosing the Police Pistol Range
due to noise and safety reasons. Nothing will be done with that
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page
project until the Kern River Land Use Study has been completed, as
the City has received an offer to purchase the Police Pistol Range,
which would involve relocation.
City Manager Kelmar stated the staff is evaluating the
moving of this facility, if economically feasible, to the area
north of the City Corporation Yard, which is within the Kern River
Land Use Area.
Director of Fire & Development Services Needham explained
the three phases involved in remodeling and upgrading the main Fire
Station located at 21st and "H" Streets.
DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
A total of $24,135,260 is proposed for improve-
ments related to street, street lighting, traffic
signals, and parking for the next ten years.
The street related projects total $22,900,260.
Of that amount, proposed financing will include
$3,279,760 of Revenue Sharing Funds. Also,
$129,760 has been included to convert existing
street lights to energy efficient high pressure
sodium vapor lights.
A total of $575,000 is included to acquire
property as it becomes available to complete
the Civic Center Plan.
Director of Public Works Hawley stated at the time the
Preliminary Draft of the 10-Year Capital Improvement Program was
developed the Public Works Department recommended to the Planning
Commission that the City adopt a policy which would require developers
to pay 100% of the cost of major arterials. The policy was adopted
by the Council on July 29, 1981. Mr. Hawley presented each Council-
man with the following copy of the results of that policy:
DEVELOPMENT & TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
FISCAL YEAR 1981-82
The following projects are recommended for
deletion from the 1981-82 Fiscal Year Budget,
as a result of the change in City policy re-
garding funding of major streets in new
developments.
1. Fairview Road Construction $ 50,000
(Hughes Lane to South "H"
Street) - Transportation
Funds - SB 325
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 8
79
2. Ming Avenue Construction $201,000
(Gosford Road to Old River
Road) - Transportation Funds
SB 325.
3. La Costa Street Construction 19,000
(San Miguel to University
Avenue) - Transportation
Funds - SB 325.
4. University Avenue Construction 16,000
(La Costa to Panorama Drive) -
Transportation Funds - SB 325.
5. Gosford Road Construction 100,000
(Ming Avenue to Pacheco Road)
Revenue Sharing Funds.
$386,000
The following projects are recommended for addi-
tion to the 1981-82 Fiscal Year Budget, in lieu
of the above deleted projects:
1. Panorama Drive Resurfacing $ 92,000
(Mt. Vernon Avenue to
Wenatchee Avenue) - Revenue
Sharing Funds.
Union Avenue Resurfacing
(SPRR to Golden State Avenue) -
Transportation Funds - SB 325
Revenue Sharing Funds.
28,000
8,000
3. Wilson Road Reconstruction 112,000
(Hughes Lane to Castro Lane)
Transportation Funds SB 325.
4. Auburn Street Reconstruction 72,000
(Oswell Street to Highland
Court) - Transportation Funds -
SB 325.
5. South Chester Avenue Resurfacing 74,000
(Sunset Spur RR to Planz Road) -
Transportation Funds - SB 325.
$386,000
Additional funds are available for street improve-
ments in Fiscal Year 1981-82 because actual
revenue received in Fund 35 (Transportation
Fund) was greater than earlier estimates and
there were some savings from prior year projects
in Fund 33 (Gas Tax). These funds should be
placed in the Council Contingency Fund for
Capital Improvements.
The following is a recommended priority listing
of projects for these additional funds.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 9
NA~ AND LOCATION OF PROJECT
South Real Road Resurfacing (Wilson Road to
Planz Road).
Sundale Avenue Reconstruction (Bermuda Street
to New Stine Road).
White Lane Construction (Arvin-Edison Canal
to Gosford Road).
Auburn Street Reconstruction (Oswell Street
to Highland Court).
South Chester Avenue Resurfacing (Planz Road
to South City Limits).
21st Street/Carrier Canal Reconstruction.
South "H" Street Resurfacing (Planz Road to
200' south of White Lane).
Auburn Street/Oswell Street Signal Modification.
"H" Street Mast Arm Signal Modificaton.
Columbus Street/Oswell Street Signal Modification.
Mt. Vernon Avenue/Columbus Street Signal Modi-
fication.
Stine Road Resurfacing (Park Circle to Ming
Avenue).
Beech Street Resurfacing (24th Street to "F"
Street).
30th Street Reconstruction (Union Avenue to
"Q" Street).
Loma Linda Drive Resurfacing (Union Avenue to
Thelma Drive).
Fjord Street Resurfacing (New Stine Road to
Valhalla Drive).
Flower Street Resurfacing (Baker Street to
Owens Street).
South "H" Street Resurfacing (Ming Avenue to
Planz Road).
City Manager Kelmar stated rather than not utilizing
these additional funds until the following fiscal year, staff
proposed that they be placed in a Council Contingency Account with
the appropriate funds and during the year, as projects are ready,
Council could authorize withdrawal. This money could be used this
year to do another $700,000 or $800,000 worth of street projects.
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page 10
Councilman Ro~ko~f pointed out that the Auburn Street
reconstruction, betwee'~?.0swell Street and Highland Court ($72,000),
has been listed two times.
Director of Public Works Hawley stated it should not have
been listed the second time.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means the priority list is
to include channelization at each end of E1Prado Drive, between
South "H" Street and South Chester Avenue.
SUPPORT SERVICES
A total of $1,160,000 is proposed for improve-
ments to City Hall and the Corporation Yard
for the next ten years.
City Hall improvements include a new cooling
tower to replace the original cooling tower
which is over 25 years old. Also included are
needed improvements to the parking lot in the
rear of City Hall to the railroad tracks.
Requests for the Corporation Yard include the
construction of women's restroom facilities in
the equipment and lunch room buildings. Storage
mezzanines in the equipment and crafts building
will provide needed storage space.
Councilman Rockoff indicated that he intends to request
the Budget Review and Finance Committee to consider recommending
the completion of University Avenue Park if Revenue Sharing Funds
are available after the books are closed. Councilman Rockoff stated
staff had told him this park would be completed in September and he,
in turn, told this to constituents. Now he finds himself with egg
on his face and expressed his public disapproval of this situation.
Adoption of Resolution No. 66-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field approving and adopting the
Operating and Capital Improvement
Budgets for Fiscal Year 1981-82,
as modified.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Resolution No. 66-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield approving and adopting
the Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets for Fiscal Year 1981-
82, as modified, was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Barton, Means, Payne, Ratty,
None
Councilmen Christensen, Strong
Rockoff
Bakersfield, California, August 12, 1981 - Page ll
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Barton, the budget sessions
were adjourned at 10:55 P.M.
MAYOR of f Bakersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
CLER~ x Of~
CITY lerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
ma
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers
of City Hall at 8:00 P.M., August 26, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell,
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Mayor Shell.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Shell. Councilmen Ratty, Rockoff, Strong,
Absent: None
followed
Barton,
Christensen, Means, Payne
The minutes of the regular meetings of July 29, 1981,
August 5, 1981, and August 12, 1981, and budget session of
August 12, 1981, were approved as presented.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Erika Harris and Yogi Bear of the Ice Capades extended
invitations to the Mayor and Council members to attend the 1981
edition of the Ice Capades at Civic Auditorium.
Linda Pesi, Manager of the Sands Inn, 701 Union Avenue,
addressed the Council regarding the prostitution problem on Union
Avenue, Chief Price stated he would be glad to meet with any of
the business people and motel owners regarding this problem.
CORRESPONDENCE
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, communication from
Merle A. Harthorn, et al, filing a complaint regarding the sweeping
of the Oak Lane Shopping Center Parking Lot, located at the corner
of Oak Street and Chester Lane at 3:00 A.M., creating excessive
noise and dust, was received and referred to staff for appropriate
action.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from Cal Haggard, Retired Fire Chief, dated August 14, 1981,
thanking the Council for assuming the increased cost of retired
employees Blue Cross premiums, effective July 1, 1981, was received
and placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, communication from
Cornerstone Engineering, Inc., dated August 17, 1981, withdrawing
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 2
their request for abandonment of Fortune Street (Tract No. 4060)
from Panama Lane to Tomlinson Street, was received and referred
to the Planning Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, communication from
Rod Harman, Chairman of the Parking and Traffic Committee of
Westwind Condominiums, 1335 Aquarius Court, dated August 14,
1981, regarding lack of traffic signs and curb markings within
the Westwind Condominiums complex, was received and referred to
the Public Works Department.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Bakersfield Association for Retarded Citizens (B.A.R.C.) dated
August 18, 1981, thanking the Council and staff for their support
of B.A.R.C. and its programs through consideration of purchasing
the property at 430 - 4th Street, was received and placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, communication from
Klassen Corporation, dated August 24, 1981, regarding expansion
of the office building on the southeast corner of 21st and Oak
Streets and reconstruction of the existing 21st Street crossing
was received and referred to the Water and City Growth Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from the League of California Cities, dated August 21, 1981,
regarding the designation of voting delegate for the League's
annual conference, was received. Upon a motion by Councilman
Means, Councilman Barton was designated as voting delegate and
Councilman Christensen was designated as voting alternate for
the League of California Cities Conference in San Francisco,
October 17-20, 1981.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, communication from
Assemblyman Don Rogers, dated August 24, 1981, expressing his
support to the Bakersfield Center for Independent Living, Inc.
in its application to the Bakersfield City Council for Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds, was received and referred to the Budget
Review and Finance Committee.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 3
Sgt. Irma Carson, member of the Bakersfield Police
Department and member of the Board of Education, Bakersfield City
School District, presented for the Council's perusal a brochure,
"Proposal - The Turning Point," on behalf of the youth of Bakers-
field for a proposed Youth Service Center.
On July 29, 1981 the City Council approved an agreement
with Tommy Townsend, dba Calico Construction, for the purchase of
ten lots as a part of the New Construction Incentives Program.
Tommy Townsend stated three of the lots have already been sold
and requested the Council to approve the substitution of an addi-
tional three lots. Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, the Council
approved substituting three lots for the three that are no longer
available, subject to the approval of those lots by HUD.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilman Ratty brought up the matter of Councilmanic
election dates, referring to the City Manager's memorandum to the
Mayor and Council dated August 7, 1981, and made a motion that
the Council instruct the City Attorney to draw up a Charter amend-
ment and bring it back for Council approval.
Councilman Means stated there are a number of issues
that have not been worked out and made a substitute motion that
the matter of Councilmanic election dates be referred to the Budget
Review and Finance Committee. This motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Barton nominated William Jing, 2730 - 3rd
Street, to fill the vacancy on the Miscellaneous Departments Civil
Service Board, due to the resignation of Mac D. Culver, and would
ask for the Council's vote at the next meeting.
Councilman Ratty announced his intention to reappoint
Clarence Westra, 4200 Boise
Appeals Board and would ask
meeting.
Street, No. 12a, to the Business Tax
for the Council's vote at the next
REPORTS
Councilman Rockoff, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 17-81 regarding Council Policy
for the Use of Revenue Sharing Funds, as follows:
86
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 4
At the Public Hearing before the City Council on
August 12, 1981, the Council received various
requests for Revenue Sharing Funds. After hearing
all those who wished to speak, the City Council
referred the requests to the Budget Review and
Finance Committee for study and recommendation.
This committee met to discuss the requests, how-
ever, feels the Council has been to use Revenue
Sharing Funds for capital projects which serve
all City residents. This City Council has pur-
posely avoided the use of Revenue Sharing Funds
for ongoing operations so as to avoid the continued
dependency on Revenue Sharing Funds in the event
the Revenue Sharing program was discontinued.
It was further noted by this committee that the
City Council had established a similar policy
with the use of Community Development Block
Grant Funds. That is, the Council has authorized
the use of CD funds for "one time" requests.
As this committee further discussed the matter,
we feel the City Council may wish to expand the
use of available Revenue Sharing Funds. However,
this committee feels it is important the Council
establish policy on how Revenue Sharing Funds are
to be used in the future.
This committee has several suggestions on the
policy the City should follow and would request
input from the entire City Council with regards
to establishment of policy. First, as noted above,
it has been the policy of the City to use Revenue
Sharing Funds for capital projects that serve all
of the residents of the City of Bakersfield. Such
having been the policy, this committee feels that
the continuance of this practice be given the
"highest priority." This committee feels an
expansion of this concept would allow, as Revenue
Sharing Funds are available, for the Council to
provide funding to organizations requesting
Revenue Sharing Funds for "one time" requests.
That is, this committee recommends the Council
not approve the use of Revenue Sharing Funds to
finance ongoing operations. In addition, when
such projects will be providing services to County
as well as City residents, this committee recom-
mends the Council approve funding providing the
County provides funding in a proportionate and
significant amount. Further, this committee
feels it is important the City Council thoroughly
review all requests and make certain any funding
approved will be adequate to assure the projects
of being "viable" projects. Depending on the
availability of Revenue Sharing Funds, this could
possibly result in some requests not being funded.
In conclusion, this committee recommends that prior
to reviewing individual requests for Revenue Sharing
Funds, the City Council establish a policy for the
use of Revenue Sharing Funds and the Council policy
incorporate the above suggestions.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Budget Review and
Finance Committee Report 17-81 regarding Council Policy for the
Use of Revenue Sharing Funds was accepted.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 5
Councilman Strong moved that the contents of the report
be established as Council policy.
Joe Lewis, 4000 Dana Street, addressed the Council sug-
gesting that Revenue Sharing Funds be used to expand the Police
Department for more personal protection of lives and property.
Councilman Strong's motion that the contents of the
report be established as Council policy was unanimously approved.
Councilman Rockoff, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read Report No. 18-81 regarding the Kern River
Component of the Open Space Element, as follows:
The City Council recently directed staff to
present Council with a draft of a Kern River
Component of the Open Space Element, covering
all lands within the River corridor from the
mouth of the Kern Canyon to Interstate 5.
This committee has thoroughly reviewed the
points brought forth from the meetings
between City, Kern County Planning, and Kern
County Council of Governments staffs. The
points discussed included:
1) The Kern River corridor consists of bo.th
City and County lands, which lends itself to
the concept of a combined effort in formu-
lating the Open Space policy along the River.
2) Kern Cog is vitally interested and would
be a funding source in light of the multi-
jurisdictional facet for this project.
3) Existing staffs are not able to completely
facilitate a study. As such, a qualified
consultant firm is needed to assist in the
data collection, field work, and basic prelimi-
nary formulation of the text in conjunction
with close supervision by staff personnel of
both City and County Planning Departments.
The land use policy recommendations of the
study of the Kern River corridor would include
mainly those lands within the flood plain
primary and secondary. Presently, a study
is underway as commissioned by the Water
Board to study their recently adopted deve-
lopment plan for ground water recharging.
The Water Board's report covers the area
from Chester Avenue to Interstate 5 on the
uses of City owned property only. The pro-
posed study being review by this committee
would include only those lands not considered
in the study presently underway for the Water
Board. In fact, the Water Board's study
would be attached to the Council's study to
form a document which will completely cover
the Kern River corridor as directed by the
City Council. This plan will assure that
there will be no duplicated effort in this
study.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 6
The cost of the study is estimated to be $25,000.
The City's portion would be $5,000 with the
County and Kern Cog funding the balance.
In conclusion, the Budget Review and Finance Com-
mittee recommends the City Council authorize the
appropriation of $5,000 from the Council Contin-
gency Account for the study and direct staff to
proceed with a draft Request for Proposal to be
returned to the City Council for approval prior
to proceeding further.
After considerable discussion, Councilman Rockoff made
a motion, including additions to the motion requested by Council-
man Means, to accept the report and authorize the appropriation
of $5,000 from the Council Contingency Fund for the study, direct
the staff to proceed with a draft Request for Proposal to be
returned to the City Council for approval prior to proceeding
further, and request the consultant who is hired to advise the
Council of the expected time line and continue to keep the Council
abreast on their progress so the Council could assist in expe-
diting the matter. This motion passed unanimously.
Councilman Rockoff, member of the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee, read Report No. 14-81 regarding a Request to Waive
Rental Fee on Softball Diamonds, as follows:
On August 5, 1951, the City Council referred to the
Auditorium-Recreation Committee a request from
Gary R. Madsen, Chairman of Muscular Dystrophy
Softball Tournament, requesting that rental fees
for the softball diamonds at Patriots Park be
waived on September 5 and 6, 1981.
This committee has reviewed Mr. Madsen's request
and recognizes the contribution of the softball
tournament on behalf of Muscular Dystrophy,
however, as with similar requests from other
organizations and agencies, it has been the policy
of the Council not to waive fees for the use of
City facilities. It was noted a large number of
nonprofit, community, charitable, and public
agencies rent City facilities on a year round
basis for a variety of functions. This committee
also noted the rental fees merely cover the costs
of the related facility. Pursuant to this policy,
this committee would recommend the City Council
deny the request of Mr. Madsen.
Upon ~. motion by Councilman Rockoff, Auditorium-
Recreation Committee Report No. 14-81 was accepted and the recom-
mendations approved.
City Manager Kelmar reported on the current status of
the downtown shopping center.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 7
In the middle of June the Council approved a recommenda-
tion of the Redevelopment Agency to enter a 60-day implementation
agreement for the purposes of negotiating a new Joint Development
Agreement with John S. Griffith Company in connection with the
downtown shopping center. On August 11 an agreement was reached
on the economic terms of the Joint Development Agreement. A
special meeting of the Agency was held on August 14 for the purpose
of requesting a45-day extension in order to allow the Attorney
sufficient time to prepare a Joint Development Agreement. The City
Manager said the reason he recommended that extension was the fact
that the economic terms had been agreed upon.
He further stated there would be a special meeting of the
Redevelopment Agency and the City Council on September 30 for a
formal presentation of that Joint Development Agreement, and the
Council would have an opportunity to review that Agreement prior to
the date of the meeting. Sometime between October 15 and October 30
another special meeting will be called for the purpose of formally
acting on that agreement.
Further, the Agency approved up-dating the Environmental
Impact Report on the downtown shopping Center, and it will be com-
pleted sometime in the middle of October.
Councilman Means expressed his concern regarding the
financial ability of the shopping center itself and prior to the
September 30 meeting he would like to meet with the city's finan-
cial consultants, along with any of the Council members who might
have any questions personally.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 676 to 944,
inclusive, in the amount of $480,666.55.
(b) Claim for Personal Injuries from Mitzi
Jo Armstrong, 1300 Miller Street, Bakers-
field. (Refer to City Attorney)
(c) Claim for Damages from Otto James Perry,
302 "E" Street, Bakersfield. (Refer to
City Attorney.
9O
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 8
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(J)
(k)
Claim for Damages and Personal Injuries
from Floyd De Zarn, 1000 West Columbus
Street, Space 135 A, Bakersfield.
(Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages and Personal Injuries
from Nora De Zarn, 1000 West Columbus
Street, Space 135 A, Bakersfield.
(Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages and Personal Injuries
from Lee Bernie Stallings, 824 "P"
Street, Bakersfield. (Refer to City
Attorney)
Street Right-of-Way Deed from Tenneco
Realty Development Corporation to the
City of Bakersfield, and Quitclaim Deed
from the City of Bakersfield to Tenneco
Realty Development Corporation.
Street Right-of-Way Deed from Tenneco
West, Inc., providing additional dedi-
cation at the southeast corner of Coffee
Road and Truxtun Avenue.
Map of Tract No. 4344, consisting of 7
lots on .22 acres of land, located on
the northeast corner of 18th and "B"
Streets. The subdivision is being
developed by Adolf W. Schwart.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Park West, a Limited Partnership, The
Penstar Group, General Partner, 1991
North Gateway Boulevard, Fresno, Cali-
fornia.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Adrian and Steve Ochoa, 1412 E1 Toro Drive,
Bakersfield.
Notices of Completion and Acceptance of
Work on the following:
(i)
Tract No. 3892 (A), Contract No.
77-185 with Cutbirth-Sill Develop-
ment Company, located at Bernard
Street and Sill Place on East Hills
Drive.
(2)
Tract No. 3892 (B), Contract No.
78-30 with Cutbirth-Sill Develop-
ment Company, located at Bernard
Street and Sill Place on East Hills
Drive.
(3)
Tract No. 3892 (F), Contract No.
78-30 with Cutbirth-Sill Develop-
ment Company, located at Bernard
Street and Sill Place on East Hills
Drive.
(4)
Tract No. 4277 (3), Contract No.
81-20 with Tenneco Realty Develop-
ment Corporation, located at White
Lane and Lilly Drive.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 9
(d),
(q),
vote:
(e),
(r),
(m)
(n
(P)
(q)
(r)
(s)
(t)
(u)
Upon
(f),
(s),
(5)
Tract No. 4277 (4), Contract No.
81-21 with Tenneco Realty Develop-
ment Company, located at Olympia
Drive and Gallup Drive.
(6)
Construction of Beach Park Irrigation
System, Contract No. 81-92 with Black
Oak Nursery, Inc.
(7)
Resurface portions of Truxtun Avenue
and Chester Avenue and reconstruct a
portion of Eye Street, Contract No.
81-79 with James G. Francis.
(8)
A. C. Pavement on portions of South
"H" Street, Fairview Road and White
Lane, Contract No. 81-78 with James
G. Francis Contractor, Inc.
Plans and Specifications for Curb and Gutter
Construction in the Lowell Addition Area,
Phase II, Community Development Project,
consisting of construction of curbs, gutters,
cross gutters and wheelchair ramps in the
area bounded by California Avenue, 4th Street,
"N" Street and "T" Street.
Plans and Specifications for resurfacing White
Lane, between Hughes Lane and the City Limits.
Plans and Specifications for resurfacing
portions of California Avenue, New Stine Road
and Ming Avenue.
Plans and Specifications for resurfacing portions
of Ming Avenue, Wilson Road, Real Road and Stine
Road.
Plans and Specifications for construction of
Traffic Signals at Stockdale Highway and
Gosford Road.
Request from Davis Loustalot for annexation of
property located on the southeast corner of
Stine Road and Hosking Road extension, con-
taining approximately 160 acres of land.
License to Encroach on right-of-way belonging
to the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District.
Request from Lawton Powers, Inc., for extension
of time to complete improvements in Parcel Map
No. 5365, located between 40th Street and West
Columbus Street, east of Chester Avenue.
Resolution of Intention No. 949 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield declaring its
intention to order the vacation of a 33 foot
Alley in Block 351 between "L" Street and "M"
Street, north of 14th Street, and setting the
date of hearing for September 16, 1981.
a motion by Councilman Means, Items (a), (b), (c),
(g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (1), (m), (n), (o), (p),
(t), and (u) were adopted by the following roll
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 10
Ayes: Councilmen Ratty, Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen.
Means, Payne
Noes: None
Absent: None
ACTION ON BIDS
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, low bid of The
Suppliers, Inc., in the amount of $6,168.14, for Barricades and
Flashers was accepted and all other bids rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, low bid of
Western Electric and Engineering, in the amount of $4,234.44,
for Transmitters, Receivers and Indicators was accepted and the
other bid rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, usual bidding pro-
cedures and requirements were dispensed with, in accordance with
Section 5.20.060 of the Municipal Code, and the Finance Operations
Manager was authorized to negotiate a price not to exceed the
budgeted amount of $7,900 for One Used Car for Police Department
Undercover Work.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, bid of B.C. Chemical
for Annual Contract Water Treatment Chemicals, in the amount of
$9,168.62, was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to execute
the contract.
Following discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff,
low bid of Hollowform, Inc., for 500 Refuse Containers, in the
amount of $50,350, was accepted and all other bids rejected.
DEFERRED BUSINESS
Agreement between the City of Bakers-
field and the Bakersfield S.P.C.A.
for Animal Control.
Action on this item was deferred from the Council Meeting
of August 12, 1981, to allow staff time to discuss patrol hours
with the S.P.C.A.
Sue Hoy, Director of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals, stated that night patrol for dogs was totally unreal-
istic, as the dogs cannot be seen in the dark and the S.P.C.A.
does not have the right to remove a dog from anyone's property
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 11
without the property owner's permission. Further,
an animal control agency in the United States that
service.
there isn't
provides this
Councilman Means suggested having someone on duty from
6:30 to 8:30 A.M. and also between 4:30 and 8:30 P.M.
Ms. Hoy suggested people telephone the S.P.C.A. if there
is a problem with dogs during the night and they will go out.
Extending the patrol hours would require a 3/4 or full-time animal
control officer and a dispatcher, and more staff means more money.
the S.P.C.A. cannot agree to patrolling the streets after
However,
dark.
Councilman Barton moved that this matter be referred to
the Budget Review and Finance Committee for a report at the next
Council Meeting, September 9, and the previous contract be extended
until that date.
Councilman Christensen stated he thought he had asked
staff to determine from the S.P.C.A. the number of dogs that are
licensed~ compared to the number that are unlicensed.
Ms. Hoy indicated there is one dog per person in the
City of Bakersfield, or 109,010, and of these approximately 8,000
are licensed. The problem is that the vaccination clinics that
come to town twice a year will run 300 to 400 dogs through in one
day and do not require them to buy a license.
Councilman Christensen requested that staff and the
Budget Review and Finance Committee discuss the matter of unlicen-
sed dogs and include their findings in the report.
Councilman Barton's motion to refer the matter of the
S.P.C.A. contract to the Budget Review and Finance Committee for
a report back at the next Council Meeting, September 9, the
previous contract be extended until that date, and the report
from the Committee to include findings regarding the matter of
unlicensed dogs passed unanimously.
Report No. 16-81 from the Budget
Review and Finance Committee regarding
City Parks - Alcoholic Beverage Con-
sumption and Noise Ordinance, and
first reading of Ordinance.
94
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 12
This report was read and accepted at the meeting of
August 12, 1981 and action on the recommendations contained in
the report was deferred until tonight's meeting.
Councilman Rockoff made a motion that the City Attorney
be directed to prepare an Ordinance to prohibit the possession of
open containers and drinking of alcoholic beverages, not only in
City parks, but on any parkway, playground, or any place open to
the patronage of the public which premises are not licensed for
the consumption of such alcoholic beverages on the premises, and
to include in that Ordinance a provision whereby noise created by
car stereos, etc. be confined to an area not to exceed fifty feet
from the vehicle or other source.
Councilman Strong expressed his appreciation to Coun-
cilman Rockoff for giving him the opportunity to express his
views on this Ordinance, inasmuch as it was necessary for him to
be out of the City at the time the report was read. He stated he
recognized the problem probably as well or better than anyone in
the City inasmuch as he has operated across the street from one
of the problem parks for the last fourteen years.
Councilman Strong continued to say that in his experience
over the years there has been no problem in the park he mentioned
prior to 11:00 P.M. and proposed that the Council pass an Ordinance
imposing a curfew on all parks at that hour. This should take care
of 90% of the problem, with the exception of one park, and, hope-
fully, we can get together with some of the people who frequent
that park and see if we can work out a solution. If after that it
appears the Police Department is still experiencing some problems,
Councilman Strong said he would support the recommendations in
the report.
Councilman Strong offered a motion that the Council impose
a curfew in all nineteen City parks from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.,
defer action on implementing the recommendations of the Budget
Review and Finance Committee Report 16-81 until February 1, 1981,
and incorporate the recommendations of the Committee as stated in
their report regarding noise limits.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 13
95
City Attorney Oberholzer, in response to a question posed
by Councilman Rockoff, stated that the present curfew in all parks
is midnight to 5:00 A.M.
Joe Lewis, 4000 Dana Street, complained to the Council
regarding the littering of beverage bottles in the parks and on
private property.
Bernice Munoz addressed the Council, stating not all
people could afford to go to some of the more expensive places of
business nor do they have a nice backyard where they can have a
beer, and she feels the matter of prohibiting drinking in the parks
is a bit discriminatory.
Councilman Strong stated if what he has suggested tonight
doesn't help correct the problem, then this Council is empowered
to pass the no-drinking ordinance. He stated the problem of
rowdiness emanates from crowds, as he has observed over the last
fourteen years. The problem that exists in
passing this kind of all-inclusive measure.
an 11:00 P.M. curfew have been assessed and
one park doesn't warrant
After the effects of
the Police Department
still feels an Ordinance prohibiting drinking in parks is warranted,
he would support that action.
J. Michael Baker, a Bakersfield resident and taxpayer,
objected to the non-drinking Ordinance, as it would deprive him
and his friends of the use of the parks as they wish.
Councilman Means said he would support Councilman Strong's
motion as an Ordinance to ban the drinking of all alcoholic beverages
in parks is overboard.
Councilman Payne stated he would support Councilman
Rockoff's motion.
In response to a question from Councilman Christensen as
to the response time from the Police Department when they receive
a telephone call that there are drunks in a park in the daytime,
Police Chief Price indicated this would depend upon the workload
and the priority the call is given, anywhere from fifteen to forty
minutes. However, if there were officers patrolling and they
observed drunks in a park, they would take action without a call.
96
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 14
Councilman Christensen asked how many additional police-
men it would take in order to clean up the park and littering
problems and establish law and order in the City and requested
Chief Price to report to the Council at the next meeting regarding
how many police officers would be needed to enforce the Ordinance
and laws now on the books. Councilman Christensen further stated
that if the present laws are not going to be enforced he intends to
make a motion at the next meeting that they be taken off the books.
Chief Price stated that in order to maintain complete
law and order in the parks it would require the stationing of
officers in the nineteen City parks for a major'part of the day.
Alan Stramler stated he has followed the matter of
drinking in public and not many people disagreed with the restric-
tion of drinking on streets, alleys, and sidewalks, but by pro-
hibiting alcoholic beverages in parks and all other public places
not licensed, the citizens of Bakersfield are deprived of their
rights.
Councilman Strong said all he is asking, through his
motion, is to give the curfew a chance and give the Police Depart-
ment an effective tool to solve the problem. He pointed out that
the Police Department itself says that crowds form just around
11:00 P.M. in California Avenue Park. The Police Department has
also indicated that dealing with drunks is not a difficult matter
to handle as these individuals do not generally congregate as a
crowd. He went on to say that he feels his proposal will do more
to dissipate crowds than anything else, and it would be effective
in eighteen of the nineteen parks in Bakersfield.
In response to a question by Councilman Christensen,
City Attorney Oberholzer stated that public drunkenness is
covered by the Penal Code.
Councilman Strong's motion that the Council impose a
curfew in all nineteen City parks from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.,
defer action on implementing the recommendations of the Budget
Review and Finance Committee Report 16-81 until February 1, 1982,
and incorporate the recommendations of the Committee as stated in
97
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 15
their report regarding noise limits passed by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means
Councilmen Ratty, Rockoff, Payne
None
First reading was considered given an Ordinance to
impose
a curfew in all nineteen City parks from 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.,
defer action on implementing the recommendations in the Budget
Review and Finance Committee Report 16-81 until February 1, 1981,
and incorporate the recommendations of the Committee as stated in
their report regarding noise limits.
Councilman Christensen said he would like to see the
Ordinance carried out to the exact detail between its adoption and
the end of January so that the Council will have a true evaluation
of whether the curfew will be effective, and if it is not effective
then the Council will have to take sterner action.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
Amending Ward Boundaries.
Each Council Ward must be of equal population according
to the latest Decennial Census. A suggested plan including map
and population totals by existing precincts was provided to the
Council earlier for review. This suggested Ordinance has been
placed on the Agenda at Councilman Barton's request. Action on
this item was deferred from the Council Meeting of August 12, 1981.
Councilman Barton stated at the Council Meeting of
July 29 he submitted a suggested plan for reapportionment of ward
boundaries. Since then he has had input from other Councilmen
and he is submitting a second proposed map.
Mayor Shell called a recess at 9:55 P.M. to give the
Councilmen an opportunity to study the map.
The Council Meeting reconvened at 10:05 P.M.
Councilman Means presented another proposed ward boundary
map for Council consideration.
In response to a question by Councilman Strong, City
Attorney Oberholzer explained that the Charter requires that the
98
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 16
wards be reapportioned after the Federal Decennial Census to get
as nearly as possible equal population. The situation the Council
is faced with is that the County of Kern is requesting reappor-
tionment before the June 1980 election so they can redesignate ~.
the precincts. The County originally requested the City's reap-
portionment in the month of August, but as of today they indicated
they would need the new boundaries by September 15. If the City
does not reapportion, a lawsuit could be instituted to force the
reapportionment.
After further questions by Councilman ~trong, City
Attorney Oberholzer stated that under the Equal Population Rule
reapportionment is based on the Federal Decennial Census. The
City does have the prerogative to do it on its own volition
after the five-year census.
Councilman Strong questioned whether the Council can
reapportion the wards of its own volition if it was felt it was
necessary. City Attorney Oberholzer said he believes the Council's
powers are limited by the Charter and would not allow the Council
to redistrict the wards; however, he would have to research the
matter.
Referring to possible annexations in the future, City
Attorney Oberholzer said there were no guidelines in the Charter;
however, the areas would have to be contiguous to the present
wards. The population in the annexed area would have to be allo-
cated as closely as possible to the surrounding wards to achieve
equality.
Councilman Strong questioned whether there was any
legislation that the ward boundaries shall take on a certain shape
or appear to be reasonable.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated our Charter does not
provide that; our Charter provides that the boundaries be estab-
lished to be as equal in population as is reasonable. State law
says topography, contiguity, geography, and areas of interest
should be considered in drawing ward boundaries. The courts
have said a controlling factor is equal population.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 17
99
Councilman Strong mentioned gerrymandering, and City
Attorney Oberholzer said he would have to look at all kinds of
issues with respect to gerrymandering.
Councilman Barton moved that the ward map he presented
this evening be accepted by the Council.
Councilman Means questioned whether the Supreme Court
defines "reasonable." Also would the symmetry in the design of
the wards be considered?
City Attorney Oberholzer stated he has never seen a
deciation of the Supreme Court addressing symmetry. The Court
might consider wards that are split by topography and geography to
be unreasonable.
Responding to Councilman Means, City Attorney Oberholzer
stated what the courts have ruled so far. With respect to ethnic
minorities, a map which eliminates the ability of the people to
participate in the political process would be susceptible to
challenge. There is no requirement to maximize the vote of any
particular special interest or minority group.
Councilman Means pointed out that his map leaves the ward
boundaries about the same as they are now; there are minor changes.
Under Councilman Barton's proposal over 30,000 people would be moved
from their current wards to other wards, he said, and in his proposal
there would be about 16,000. He claimed that Councilman Barton's
changes were purely political.
Councilman Christensen questioned the contiguity of Ward
One where two sections are joined by Brundage Lane. City Attorney
Oberholzer stated contiguity is a suggested consideration in ward
reapportionment. The courts look to equal population; if contiguity
is not possible, then you don't have contiguity. The area of the
sewer farm in Ward One could not be a separate ward as the popula-
tion there is not large enough.
Councilman Means stated he would vote against Councilman
Barton's proposal and his motion as it was obvious under Councilmall
Barton's proposed map he is designing wards that will allow for
strong Republican representation.
IO0
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 18
Councilman Barton's motion that the ward map he presen-
ted this evening be accepted by the Council passed by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Councilmen Ratty, Rockoff, Barton, Payne
Councilmen Strong, Christensen, Means
First reading was considered given an Ordinance amending
the ward boundaries.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, the Council agreed
unanimously that all three ward maps presented to the Council would
be made part of the permanent record.
Councilman Means stated he
specific map ready tomorrow, but the
less than one-tenth of one per cent.
intends to have a final,
figures would probably change
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2661 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield Amending Section
10.24.025 Relating to Displaying
Merchandise on Sidewalks, Changing
the Validity of the Permit from 24
Hours to 72 Hours.
This Ordinance was given first reading at the Council
Meeting of August 12, 1981.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Ordinance No. 2661
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield Amending
Section 10.24.025 Relating to Displaying Merchandise on Sidewalks,
Changing the Validity of the Permit from 24 Hours to 72 Hours was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Ratty, Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen,
Means, Payne
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2662 New
Series Amending Title Seventeen of
the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield by Changing the Land Use
Zoning of that certain property in
the City of Bakersfield located on
the west side of Fairfax Road,
approximately .6 mile north of
Panorama Drive, subject to the
Specified Condition Precedent.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 19
The application for this amendment was made by Michael
J. Callagy and would change the subject property from an R-1
(One Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-3 (Limited Multiple Family
Dwelling) Zone.
The Planning Commission approved the amendment and
recommended same to the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.52.200
(Conditional Zoning), subject to the following condition:
There shall be a recorded waiver of access
from all lots adjacent to Fairfax Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Negative Declaration
and Ordinance No. 2662 New Series Amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by Changing the Land Use
Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield located
on the west side of Fairfax Road, approximately .6 mile north of
Panorama Drive, subject to the Specified Condition Precedent,
and find said zoning consistent with the General Plan, were
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Ratty, Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen,
Means, Payne
None
None
Ayes
Noes
Absent:
NEW BUSINESS
First reading of an Ordinance
Amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield commonly known as
4701 through 4711 (odd only)
La Mirada Drive, 200 through
313 Pauma Court, 100 through
222 Durham Court, and 4900
through 4912 Durham Avenue.
Application for this amendment was made by Tenneco Realty
Development Corporation and would change the subject properties
from an "A" (Agricultural) Zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling)
Zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this
amendment by the City Council.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance Amending
Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield
commonly known as 4701 through 4711 (odd only) La Mirada Drive,
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 20
200 through 313 Pauma Court, 100 through 222 Durham Court, and
4900 through 4912 Durham Avenue.
First reading of an Ordinance of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field amending Section 17.12.020
of Title 17 of the Municipal Code
changing the Land Use Zoning of
that certain property located on
the northwest corner of Wilson
Road and Real Road, approving the
Preliminary Development Plan and
making findings in connection with
P.C.D. Zone (Conditional)
The application for this amendment was made by Vons
Realty Company and would change the subject property from an R-1
(One Family Dwelling) Zone to a P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Deve-
lopment) Zone, consisting of 69,731 sqare feet of commercial
lease space.
The Planning Commission recommends, and this Ordinance
will impose, a condition that installation of curb, gutter and
paving on Real Road be completed within ninety days of first
reading of the Ordinance. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section
17.52.200, only if such improvements are installed within such
90 day period will the Ordinance return to the Counci~ Agenda
for adoption.
City Attorney Oberholzer mentioned that the Planning
Commission had recommended, when they sent this to the Council,
that there be a condition on the Preliminary Development Plan that
speed bumps be located at 100 foot intervals behind all of the
shops. Speed bumps are a real liability and he recommends that
the City not impose speed bumps on a property owner because that
might put the liability back on the City. He would recommend
that when this Ordinance comes back to the Council for second
reading that a condition be included that vehicular speed behind
the shops shall be limited to ten miles per hour instead of
requiring speed bumps.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of
the Council of the City o£ Bakers£ield amending Section 17.12.020
of Title 17 of the Municipal Code changing the Land Use Zoning
of that certain property located on the northwest corner of
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 21
10:5
Wilson Road and Real Road,
Plan and making findings in connection with P.C.D.
tional).
approving the Preliminary Development
Zone (Condi-
Community Development Block Grant
Grantee Performance Report 1980-81
to be submitted to HUD for review.
Pursuant to Section 104 (d) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, each jurisdiction receiving Community
Development Block Grant funds must report to HUD on the progress
of activities funded for the past program year. This report must
be submitted to HUD by August 31, 1981.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Community Deve-
lopment staff was authorized to submit Community Development Block
Grant Grantee Performance Report for HUD review.
Agreements between American Sign
and Indicator Corporation, The
Bakersfield Californian, American
National Bank and City of Bakersfield.
These agreements provide for the acceptance of the dona-
tion by The Bakersfield Californian and American National Bank of
the marquee at the Civic Auditorium and for the responsibilities
of each party to the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement,
The Bakersfield Californian and American National Bank will donate
the marquee to the City and will provide maintenance and insurance
for ten years. During the ten year period the City will allow
The Bakersfield Californian and American National Bank each one
advertising panel and six 15-minute advertisements each day.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the agreements
were approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute.
City Manager Kelmar stated that the members of the
Citizens Advisory Committee for the California Avenue Neighborhood
Park Facility are desirous of obtaining a sign to advertise the
activities at the center. He requested that the Council allow,
upon installation of the new marquee at the Civic Auditorium, the
transfer of the present sign to the California Avenue Neighborhood
Park Facility. Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, the Council
unanimously approved the transfer of the sign.
104
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 22
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2663 New
Series, levying upon the full taxable
value o£ the taxable property in the
City of Bakersfield, except that area
known as the Rio Bravo Annexation, a
percentage rate of taxation upon each
dollar of valuation for the Fiscal Year
beginning July 1, 1981 and ending
June 30, 1982.
This Ordinance represents the Property Tax levies for
the 1981-82 Fiscal Year for the outstanding general obligation
bond issues of the City of Bakersfield (1966 Municipal Improvement
Bonds, Series A and Series B).
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Ordinance No. 2663
New Series, levying upon the full taxable value of the taxable
property in the City of Bakersfield, except that area known as
the Rio Bravo Annexation, a percentage rate o£ taxation upon each
dollar of valuation for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1981
and ending June 30, 1982, was adopted by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Ratty, Rockoff,
Means, Payne
Noes: None
Absent: None
Strong, Barton, Christensen,
Authorization to dispose of Surplus
Property at 2215 East Brundage Lane.
The City of Bakersfield owns a residence located adjacent
to the Old Dog Pound site, which does not meet building and health
regulations and cannot be occupied without substantial improvements
being made. The Public Works Department recommends this building
be declared surplus and authorization be given to the Purchasing
Officer to dispose by sale or by demolition.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, the building at 2215
East Brundage Lane was declared Surplus Property and the Purchasing
O£ficer was authorized to dispose.
Bakersfield, California, August 26, 1981 - Page 23
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:50 P.M.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
mp
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 8:00 P.M., September 9, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation in the form of a prayer
submitted by David Newquist, Pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Shell. Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton,
Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of August 26, 1981 were
approved as presented.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Mr. Joe Ducato, Chairman of the Greater Bakersfield Crime
Commission, introduced several members of that Commission and
stated it was formed on May 1, 1981, by Mayor Shell and Kern County
Supervisor Tackett; and also requested that the Council submit
ideas on how to prevent crime. Mr. Ducato announced that the
Rally to help prevent Barrio Warfare will be held in Beach Park
on Sunday, September 20, 1981, from 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., and
invited the Mayor and Council to attend.
Mr. Jimmy Sanchez thanked the Council for their positive
response to the Rally on prevention of Barrio Warfare.
Mrs. Paula Freeborn addressed the Council about out of
control dogs and requested that an ordinance be adopted that pro-
vides for citing and fining owners.
fines be as follows:
First Offense
Second Offense
Third Offense
The offender should be given
after that time, if it is not paid, it
Mrs. Freeborn suggested that
$ 10. oo
50.00
500.00
30 days to pay the fine and
should be made a lien against
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 2
107
their property taxes. If a renter is cited the fine should be
collectible against their wages or source of income. Once the fine
is collected it should be forwarded to whatever governing agency
is handling the dog problem. It would be unfair to raise the cost
of licenses, vaccinations or other assessments on dog owners who
obey the laws. The owners of any dog found outside their yard
during a quarantine period should be fined no less than $1,000.00.
Dogs who have attacked someone and need to be quarantined should
be picked up during this period and the owners fined $10.00 per day
for their care, until the animal's health is determined. This
animal is apparently out of control,
never have the right to reclaim it.
or dealt with accordingly.
therefore, the owner should
The dog should be adopted out
Councilman Christensen stated there are enough laws and
licensing procedures on the books, that, if enforced, would cure
the problem.
Councilman Rockoff reported that the Budget Review and
Finance Committee met with staff and Mrs. Hoy, representing the
S.P.C.A., to reach an agreement or understanding that in the new
contract with the S.P.C.A. problems brought before the Council
would be solved. There are various problems, one of which is
financial. The cost of evening patrol cannot be met without some
additional funding. If the Licensing Law could be enforced, more
than sufficient money would be available to provide night patrol.
However,' there is more than money involved. How do you knock on
someones door in the middle of the night and ask if it is their
dog. Someone with a gun might be trying to defend their property
and if the patrol went onto private property serious injuries
could occur. There are various problems that do not obviously
meet the eye when the Council tries to solve the problem of roving
dogs. The contract with the S.P.C.A. can be extended on a month
to month basis, and that is the way it is being handled at this
point. The Council has requested staff to bring ordinances and
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 3
ideas from other cities that can be used to either enforce existing
laws or adopt additional ordinances in order to solve the problem.
The Budget Review and Finance Committee will continue to hear this
to, hopefully, come up with a solution. The problems that have to
be addressed are the mechanics of patrolling in the nighttime hours
when most of the offenses occur. Councilman Rockoff requested that
Mrs. Freeborn furnish the Council with a copy of her suggestions,
so they can be used by the Budget Review and Finance Committee as
input.
Mrs. Jessie Tappy read a prepared statement regarding the
problem with unleashed dogs. Mrs. Tappy also submitted a statement
from Gerald J. and Margaret A. Haberman regarding an experience they
had with a roving dog in their neighborhood.
Councilman Means read a statement from Ella M. Wheeler
who was attacked by two dogs and required hospitalization.
CORRESPONDENCE
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Mr. Don Winlack, Secretary of the Bakersfield Host Lions Club,
dated August 20, 1981, supporting the Bakersfield Center for
Independent Living, Inc., was received and referred to the Budget
Review and Finance Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Hr. Victor Salcido, Manager State of California Employment Develop-
ment Department, dated August 25, 1981, expressing the Agency's
ongoing support for the program and activities of the Bakersfield
Center for Independent Living, Inc., was received and referred to
the Budget Review and Finance Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, communication from
Mr. Thomas S. Kelly, Management Agent for the Stonepine Condominium
Association, dated August 25, 1981, requesting City's consideration
for the construction of a facility to allow southbound vehicles on
Ashe Road to make a left turn into the 1700 Ashe Road address
portion of Stonepine Condominiums, was received and referred to the
Public Works Department.
IO0
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 4
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Mr. Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator, City of Huntington
Beach, California, dated August 28, 1981, regarding participation
in the Municipal Homeowners Insurance Program, was received and
referred to the Budget Review and Finance Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, communication from
Leonard T. Harris, 7904 Calle Espada, dated September 3, 1981,
requesting a General Plan Amendment for commercial use of property
bounded on the south by proposed Paladino Drive and approximately
~ mile east of Fairfax Road (under construction), was received and
referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from Marguerite Arnold, 625 Arvin Street, Bakersfield, dated
September 5, 1981, requesting that owners of unleashed dogs be
fined, was received and referred to the Budget Review and Finance
Committee.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Clarence Westra, 4200
Boise Street, No. 12a, was reappointed as a member of the Business
Tax Appeals Board, term expiring July l, 1984.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton,
3rd Street, was appointed to fill the vacancy,
William Jing, 2730 -
created by the
resignation of Mac D. Culver, on the Miscellaneous Departments
Civil Service Board, term expiring December 31, 1982.
REPORTS
Director of Fire and Development Services Needham read a
report regarding Appeals Board for Access Requirements for Physically
Handicapped, as follows:
On March 25, 1981, the City Council received a
letter from Mr. Brad Henderson at the local
chapter of the American Institute of Architects
which addresses the need for an Appeals Board
regarding access requirements for the handi-
capped.
As stated in Mr. Henderson's letter, it would
be beneficial to establish a review committee
"to hear written appeals brought by any persons
regarding action taken by the Building Depart-
ment in enforcement of the requirements"
of the Health and Safety Code regarding "access
1 if)
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 5
to public accommodations by physically handi-
capped persons."
In the attachment headed "Privately Funded
Accommodations, Health and Safety Code," it
suggests a five-member appeals board consisting
of two physically handicapped persons, two
persons experienced in construction, and one
public member. This option is allowable under
State law and staff concurs with this process.
The attached resolution is constructed to
facilitate such an appeals board.
Staff recommends this matter be taken under
submission by the Council and referred to the
appropriate City Council committee for study
and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, the matter of an
Appeals Board for Access Requirements for Physically Handicapped,
was referred to the Budget Review and Finance Committee for study
and recommendation.
Director of Fire and Development Services Needham read a
report regarding Request for Proposal for a Kern River Component
to the Open Space Element, as follows:
The Mayor and Council members received a draft
copy of a request for proposal to prepare a Kern
River component to the Bakersfield Metropolitan
Area General Plan - Open Space Element in this
week's Council Meeting information packet.
This document was drafted in conjunction with
County Planning and Kern COG staffs.
City staff requests each Council member review
the Draft R.F.P. by Wednesday, September 16th.
After the 16th, staff will contact each Council
member for their comments and suggested changes.
The document will then be redrafted and presented
at the following Council Meeting for consideration.
Staff requests the Council authorize this pro-
cedure in this matter.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, report from Staff
regarding Request for Proposal for a Kern River Component to the
Open Space Element, was accepted; and the procedure as outlined in
the report, was authorized.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 945 to 1197,
inclusive, in the amount of $615,683.74.
(b)
Claim for Personal Injuries from R. B.
Vandernoor, 1430 Truxtun Avenue, Suite
777, Bakersfield, on behalf of Carroll
Edward Griggs. (Refer to City Attorney)
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 6
11'l
(c)
Claim for Damages from Helen Jean Mahler,
4817 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield.
(Refer to City Attorney)
(d)
Claim for Personal Injuries from Eric
Criswell, by and through his Guardian,
ad Litem, Sharon K. Criswell, 1713 MeMay
Street, Bakersfield. (Refer to City
Attorney)
(e)
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work on upgrading Fire System on South
Owens Street, between East 9th and East
10th Streets, Contract No. 81-13 with
California Water Service Company.
(f)
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work on fencing north bank of the Carrier
Canal, between Kern High School Farm and
Saddleback Drive, Contract No. 81-85 with
Alcord Fence Company.
(g)
Notice o£ Completion and Acceptance of
Work on Tract No. 4265, Contract No. 81-28
with Tenneco Realty Development Corporation,
located at Truxtun Avenue and Quailridge
Drive.
(h)
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work on the Kern River Canal Spreading
Ground Turnout Structure, Contract No.
81-36 with Genkev Construction.
(i)
Quitclaim Deed from Tenneco Realty Develop-
ment Corporation providing fee title for
an existing canal easement southeast of
the intersection of 21st Street and Oak
Street.
(J)
Plans and Specifications for 2nd Floor
millwork and moveable walls (partitions)
for 1st and 2nd Floors, South Wing Addition
to City Hall.
(k)
Contract Change Order No. i to Contract
No. 81-82 with Safety Electric Corporation
for the California Avenue Traffic Signal
at Mervyn's. This Change Order is
necessary to correct problems with curb
alignment and pavement grade on the median
that were created by the project. The
Change Order increases the contract
$802.00, and the total contract price as
a result of this increase is $95,665.00.
Per Agreement No. 81-5, Mervyn's has agreed
to pay the additional cost upon final
accounting of the project.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) of the Consent Calendar,
were adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne, Ratty
Noes: None
Absent: None
112
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 7
ACTION ON BIDS
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, low bid of Boise
Cascade, in the amount of $8,868,45, for Annual Contract #10583
for Office Supplies, was accepted, the other bid rejected and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, all bids for construction
and modification of Traffic Signal Systems at the intersections of
Coffee Road and Truxtun Avenue, Wilson and New Stine Roads, and
Ming Avenue and Castro Lane, were rejected and the staff was
authorized to re-evaluate and readvertise the project.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, low bid of Valley
Tree and Construction, in the amount of $10,550, for demolition of
various structures, was accepted and all other bids rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, low bid of Cal-Police
Equipment Company, in the amount of $6,919.68, for Aero Dynic Light
Bar Systems, was accepted and all other bids rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, usual bidding require-
ments were dispensed with, in accordance with Section 5.20.060 of
the Municipal Code, and the Finance Operations Manager was authorized
to negotiate a price with Motorola Communications, not to exceed
the amount budgeted, for portable radios, charges and power boosters
for the Fire Department.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, bid of Downs Grading
and Excavating, in the amount of $70.00 per hour, for Annual Contract
for Operated Crawler Hoe for the Agricultural Water Department, was
accepted and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
DEFERRED BUSINESS
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2664 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Ward Boundaries.
Councilman Ratty made a motion to adopt the ordinance
amending Ward Boundaries.
Councilman Means offered a substitute motion that the
adoption of the ordinance amending Ward Boundaries be deferred for
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 8
11a
two weeks to see if some consensus of the Council can be reached,
because he feels the proposed boundaries change the shapes of the
wards more than necessary. It also makes it difficult, if looking
at future annexations, to determine where precincts will go.
Councilman Strong stated Councilman Means' point is very
important and asked some questions of the staff regarding annexations.
City Manager Kelmar stated there was a letter in the
Council's packets from Quad Consultants indicating that the Cost-
Revenue Model will soon be finalized.
Councilman Barton stated there has been a lot of discussion
over the past few weeks regarding the plan he submitted and the one
submitted by Councilman Means, and questions have been ask regarding
certain statistics. Councilman Barton then read "Population and
Racial Composition of Ward 1," which was prepared by Advance
Planning on August 31, 1981, and "Persons of Spanish Origin in Ward
2," which was prepared by Advance Planning on September 8, 1981.
Councilman Barton also read the Kern County Democratic Central
Committee's "City Council Ward Demographics for the Current Plan,
Barton's Plan and Democratic Plan."
After discussion, Councilman Means' substitute motion
that the adoption of the ordinance amending Ward Boundaries be
deferred for two weeks, failed to carry by the following roll call
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Strong, Christensen, Means
Councilmen Rockoff, Barton, Payne, Ratty
None
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty,
of the Ward Boundaries was cutoff, by the following roll
debate on the amending
call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Barton, Payne, Ratty
Noes: Councilmen Strong, Christensen, Means
Absent: None
114
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Ordinance No. 2664
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Ward
Boundaries, was adopted by the £ollowing roll call vote:
Councilmen Rockoff, Barton, Payne, Ratty
Councilmen Strong, Christensen, Means
No action taken on Agreement between
the City of Bakersfield and the
Bakersfield S.P.C.A. for Animal
Control.
Councilman Rockoff stated this agreement was the basis
for a verbal report made earlier tonight and the City is presently
operating on a month to month contract with the S.P.C.A.
City Attorney Oberholzer stated there is no need to take
action tonight because the existing contract will continue to be
in force on a month to month basis.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2665 New
Series amending Title Seventeen of
the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties
in the City of Bakersfield commonly
known as 4701 through 4711 (odd only)
La Mirada Drive, 200 through 313
Pauma Court, 100 through 222 Durham
Court and 4900 through 4912 Durham
Avenue.
The application for this amendment was made by Tenneco
Realty Development Corporation and would change subject properties
from an "A" (Agricultural) Zone to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling)
Zone. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amend-
ment by the City Council.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Negative Declaration
and Ordinance No. 2665 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain
properties in the City of Bakersfield commonly known 4701 through
4711 (odd only) La Mirada Drive, 200 through 313 Pauma Court, 100
through 222 Durham Court and 4900 through 4912 Durham Avenue, finding
None
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 10
said zoning consistent with the General Plan, were adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Means, Payne, Ratty
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Christensen
NEW BUSINESS
Approval of Amendment to Agreement
No. 79-121 with John Gordon for
administration of School Crossing
Guard Program.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Amendment to Agreement
No. 79-121 with John Gordon for School Crossing Guard Program, was
approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 67-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field establishing a Records-Retention
Schedule for the Police Department and
approving destruction of records in
accordance therewith.
This resolution adopts a procedure for the annual
destruction of certain records pursuant to Government Code Section
34090 et seq. The City Attorney has given his written consent for
the destruction of the records.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Resolution No. 67-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield establishing a Records-
Retention Schedule for the Police Department and approving destruction
of records in accordance therewith, was adopted by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rockoff, Strong, Barton, Christensen, Payne,
Ratty
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Means
Approval of Agreement with Donald
Renfro & Associates, AIA Architects,
for preparation of necessary plans
to remodel the BARC facilities for
a Senior Citizens Center.
Nine proposals were received from architects wishing to
prepare the necessary plans for the remodeling of the BARC facility
116
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page
located at 530 - 4th Street. The total cost of the remodeling
project is estimated to be $250,000, including architectural fees,
which is within the amount allocated as part of the Community
Development Block Grant Program for this project.
Councilman Ratty requested that the staff investigate
the possibility of opening large architectural contracts to
competitive bidding, rather than judging them on qualifications.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Agreement with Donald
Renfro & Associates, AIA Architects, for preparation of necessary
plans to remodel the BARC facilities for a Senior Citizens Center,
was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 5.40.050 (j) of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code, relative
to Park Curfew, and adding Section
5.40.050 (1) to the Bakersfield
Municipal Code, relative to Unlawful
Noise.
This ordinance incorporates the decision of the City
Council to amend the Park Curfew Ordinance to provide that all
City parks be closed between the hours of ll:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.,
except by permit, and to adopt a Noise Ordinance for amplified
sound on streets and parking lots surrounding parks.
Councilman Barton suggested that if this ordinance is
adopted that staff place notices to the public in the parks of
these new laws.
Councilman Rockoff requested that staff place this matter
on the agenda for review by the Council again next February.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 5.40.050 (j)
of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, relative to Park Curfew, and
adding Section 5.40.050 (1) to the Bakersfield Municipal Code,
relative to Unlawful Noise.
Bakersfield, California, September 9, 1981 - Page 12
117
First reading of an Ordinance amend-
ing Title Seventeen of the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of those
certain properties in the City of
Bakersfield commonly known as 3910
South Chester Avenue and 2309 South
Union Avenue.
The application for this amendment was made by John B.
Antonino and would change subject properties from a C-2-D (Commercial
Architectural Design) Zone to an M-1 (Light Manufacturing), or more
restrictive Zone.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of this
amendment by the City Council.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance amending
Title Seventeen of the Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by
changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties in the City
of Bakersfield commonly known as 3910 South Chester Avenue and 2309
South Union Avenue.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
MAYO o ~ ~
~YOR~ofe City of Bakersfield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY CLE K x ~ffie±o Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bal~ersfield, California
ma
118
Bakersfield, California, September 16, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of City
Hall at 8:00 P.M., September 16, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell,
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Mayor Shell.
Present:
Absent:
followed
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Shell. Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means,
Payne, Ratty, Rockoff
Councilman Strong
CORRESPONDENCE
dated September 10, 1981,
Sunday Night Summer Band
and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from Tenneco Realty Development Corporation, dated September ll,
Charles P. Michel, 410 Lansing Drive,
thanking the City for sponsoring the
Concerts in Beale Park, was received
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Bill J. Jackson, Auditor-Controller of Kern County, dated August
13, 1981, regarding Estimated Contingent Tax Liability at June 30,
1981, was received and referred to the Budget Review and Finance
Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, communication from
Anheuser-Busch Companies, dated August 13, 1981, regarding Busch
Industrial Products Corporation, Bakersfield Yeast Plant, was
received and referred to the Water and City Growth Committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, communication
from State Department of Transportation, dated August 26, 1981,
inviting the City of Bakersfield to submit an updated application
for a State grant for funding of a transportation terminal, was
received and referred to staff.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, communication from
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, regarding
Census Data User Workshops, was received and ordered placed on tile.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, communication from
Bakersfield, California, September 16, 1981 - Page 2
119
1981, requesting a change in their application of approximately
two years ago for an amendment to the General Plan for property
located on the southeast corner of Coffee Road and Truxtun Avenue
and southeast corner of future Camino Media and future Old River
Road, was received and referred to the Planning Commission for
study and recommendation.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilman Rockoff stated that for the safety of school
children crossing major streets he would request that the Traffic
Authority investigate the possibility of placing a stop sign at
the intersection of Wenatchee Avenue and Renegade Avenue, and also
placing a School Crossing Guard on Auburn Street to help children
who live on the south side cross the street and attend Eissler
School.
Assistant Public Works Director Schulz stated an investi--
gation would be made and a report made to the Council at the next
meeting.
REPORTS
Councilman Payne, Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, read Report No. ll-81 regarding New
Position and Reclassification, as follows:
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Com-
mittee (GEP) met recently with the staff to
discuss a new position in the Police Department
and reclassifications in the City Clerk's
Office and the Fire Department. Attached to
this report are detailed background requests
regarding each of these matters.
The Police Department request for an additional
Clerk Typist is based on a contract with the
County of Kern for an Adult Diversion Program.
This agreement was approved last year, however,
this position was inadvertently left out. Funds
for the position and office equipment are reim-
bursed by the County. If this program is
eliminated in the future, this position would
be abolished.
The City Manager's request is to upgrade a Clerk
Steno II position to Deputy City Clerk. A
complete study has been conducted on the position
in the Clerk's Office, and it is felt that in
120
Bakersfield, California, September 16, 1981 - Page 3
order for the City to have the necessary backup
for the City Clerk, a classification of Deputy
City Clerk should be created. The total annual
cost for this reclassification would be $2,907.
The Director of Fire and Development Services
has requested a reclassification of one Fire
Captain position to Business Manager. The
Captain position recently became vacant due to
a retirement and had been used in the past as
Equipment Mechanic Supervisor. Since the
Equipment Maintenance has been transferred to
Public Works, this position is no longer needed.
An overall savings of $8,915 will result if
this reclassification is authorized.
The GEP Committee, after reviewing all the
attached and after discussion with the staff,
is recommending Council approval of the
following:
One new position - Clerk Typist I Police
Department. Cost to be reimbursed by
County and continued authorization pending
reimbursement.
2. Reclassification of one Clerk Steno II to
Deputy City Clerk.
3. Reclassification of one Fire Captain position
to Business Manager (Fire Department).
In order to effectuate this report, we further
recommend Council approval of the attached
changes in the Salary Resolution and attached
job specifications.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee Report No. ll-81 regarding New Position and
Reclassifications, was accepted; and recommendations as outlined in
the report, were approved.
Adoption of Resolution No. 68-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field amending Resolution No. 56-81,
setting salaries and related benefits
for Officers and Employees of the City
of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, Resolution No. 68-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Resolution No.
56-81, setting salaries and related benefits for Officers and
Employees of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Strong
Bakersfield, California, September 16, 1981 - Page 4
Police Chief Price reported that for the first time in a
few years there is some good news on crime statistics, however, he
hesitates to make a report this early in the year. It appears that
for the first six months of 1981 there will be an overall crime
decrease of 12% and a 8% crime decrease in those areas reported by
the F.B.I. The Council is cautioned not to get excited about this,
because during the early months of winter (November and December),
some very different trends usually occur. The case clearance rate
is up from 27% last year to 37%. This is attributed to the four
additional Detectives, which were given to the Police Department
in last year's budget, plus the fact Patrol Officers have been able
to effectuate approximately 30% to 50% more felony arrests in the
field. Two people arrested were responsible for over 60 and 90
residential burglaries each. Hopefully, if the courts do their
part, that will be over 150 crimes not committed next year. Most
of the decrease is in property crimes, burglaries and thefts. The
violent crimes are still on the increase, but not as heavy as last
year. Call for services are up by 5% this year. Chief Price also
commented on the Career Criminal Program being planned by the
District Attorney's Office.
HEARINGS
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on Resolution of Intention No. 949 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the vacation
of a 33 foot Alley in Block 351 between "L" Street and "M" Street
north of 14th Street, in the City of Bakersfield.
This hearing has been duly advertised.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, the public
portion of the hearing was closed for Council deliberation and
action.
Upon a motion
69-81 of the Council of
by Councilman Christensen, Resolution No.
the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation
]22
Bakersfield, California, September 16, 1981 - Page 5
of a 33 foot Alley in Block 351 between "L" Street and "M" Street
north of 14th Street, in the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means, Payne, Rockoff
Noes:
Absent:
Ratty,
None
Councilman Strong
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on an Appeal by Carl R. Moreland to the decision of the Planning
Commission denying his application to change the zoning boundaries
from an R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural
Design) Zone to a C-1 (Limited Commercial) Zone, affecting that
certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 1441
Pacheco Road.
This hearing has been duly advertised and the property
owners notified as required by law.
The Planning Commission was of the opinion the requested
C-1 (Limited Commercial) zoning would not be compatible with the
surrounding residential area. The Commission recommended that an
Environmental Impact Report be prepared if applicant wishes to pursue
the C-1 zoning.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation.
Mr. Frank Slaghuis, representing Covington Technologies,
spoke in favor of the zone change and stated they own the property
to the west, which is being developed with approximately 157 homes
and they also are in the process of requesting a General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change.
No protests or objections being received and no one else
wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Shell closed the public portion of
the hearing for Council deliberation and action.
In answer to a question by Councilman Christensen, Planning
Director Sceales stated the Planning Commission felt that the planned
Bakersfield, California, September 16, 1981 - Page 6
use of a 7-11 or Circle "K" Store, which are open late at night,
on this small corner lot, right next door and across the street
from homes, would not be compatible. An Environmental Impact Report
on this parcel of property would cost approximately $3,000-$4,000
to prepare.
Mr. Carl Moreland, applicant, stated the Planning staff
recommended approval of this application and a Negative Declaration.
The zoning must conform to the change made in the General Plan and
that is what they are trying to do at this point.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Negative Declaration
and Ordinance No. 2666 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of that certain property in the City of Bakersfield commonly
known as 1441Pacheco Road, finding said zoning consistent with the
General Plan, were adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty,
Rockoff
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Strong
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on an Appeal by Dallis I. Higdon to the decision of the Board of
Zoning Adjustment denying his application for a Modification of a
C-O (Commercial and Professional Office) Zone, to permit the elimina-
tion of the required three off-street parking spaces on that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield commonly known as 819 "H" Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and the property
owners notified as required by law.
Mayor Shell declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation.
Mr. Dallis Higdon, applicant,
grant the Modification because it will not
Mr. Higdon outlined the background on this
that is zoned commercial. He stated there
requested that the Council
create a parking problem.
single family residence
is not enough space
124
Bakersfield, California, September 16, 1981 - Page 7
between the back improvements and the property line to turn a car
around, therefore, it is impossible to use the parcel for commercial
purposes. Also because of the size, the parcel map that was granted
makes it illegal for residential use. It is difficult to find a
use for the property now and will probably put him out of business.
Mr. Higdon also stated he would not be backing a vehicle out onto
"H" Street, which would be unsafe, but onto Forrest Street, which
is not a busy street.
No protests or objections being received and no one else
wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Shell closed the public portion of
the hearing for Council deliberation and action,
City Attorney Oberholzer stated for the past several years
many complaints have been received regarding parking problems on
"H" Street. "H" Street use to be primarily residential and changed
to commercial when it was widened. As a consequence of the parking
problems on "H" Street, between California Avenue and Brundage Lane,
about 6 or 8 months ago a program was launched to clean up that
problem. The City went so far as to go to court to obtain in-
junctions to close down some businesses, because they did not comply
with the order issued with respect to the Parking Ordinance.
Councilman Christensen asked Mr. Higdon if this was
deferred for two weeks would it give him time to solve the problem
with the former property owner.
Mr. Higdon replied he did not think it would and requested
that the Council make a decision tonight.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Zoning Resolution No.
283 denying Appeal from the Board of Zoning Adjustment's denial of
Modification to permit the elimination of the required three off-
street parking spaces on that property commonly known as 819 "H"
Street,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
was adopted by the following roll call vote:
Councilmen Barton, Christensen, Means, Payne,
Rockoff
None
Councilman Strong
Ratty,
Bakersfield, California, September 16, 1981 - Page 8
125
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:55 P.~.
'OR o~it~ of Bakersfield,
MAYO o ~'~ ~~ Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY O the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
ma
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Council of
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers
Hall at 8:00 P.M., September 23, 1981.
The meeting was called to order by ~ayor Shell,
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Mayor Shell.
Present:
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
the City
of City
followed
Mayor Shell.
Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty,
Rockoff, Strong, Barton (seated
at 8:10 P.M.)
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of September 9,
approved as presented.
PRESENTATION OF RETIREMENT PLAQUE
1981 were
Mayor Shell presented a retirement plaque to Edward E.
Miller, Police Captain, who completed 25 years of service with the
Police Department of the City of Bakersfield, effective August l,
1981.
SCHEDULED PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Mr. Fred McKenna, Marketing Director of Airport Bus of
Bakersfield, requested that the Council authorize the Mayor to
write a letter to the Public Utilities Commission endorsing the
Airport Bus of Bakersfield, which is owned and operated by local
businessmen in the best interest of the City and also fulfilling
a transportation need.
Adoption of Resolution No. 70-81 o£
the Council o~ the City of Bakers-
field commending and supporting Air-
port Bus of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Resolution No. 70-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield commending and supporting
Airport Bus of Bakersfield, was adopted, and the Mayor was requested
to forward a copy to the Public Utilities Commission, by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981 - Page 2
127
CORRESPONDENCE
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, communication from
the Downtown Business Association, dated September 22, 1981,
requesting that the Loitering and Littering Ordinances be enforced
at 19th Street and Chester Avenue and GET's transfer point be
changed to help clean up that intersection, was received and referred
to the Business Development and Parking Committee for study and
recommendation.
COUNCIL STATEMENTS
Councilman Barton reported he attended a meeting this
afternoon at the Chamber of Commerce regarding air service being
proposed for the Bakersfield area. Golden West Airlines will be
serving this area with flights to Los Angeles on an emergency basis,
subsidized by the government, for 60 days starting October 1, 1981.
After the 60 day period they anticipate remaining as a permanent
commuter service in this area, with expanded service to other areas
in California.
CONSENT CALENDAR
The following items were listed on
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
the Consent Calendar:
(e)
Allowance of Claims Nos. 1198 to 1569,
inclusive, in the amount of $643,460.94.
Voucher No. 1214 to Ralph Andersen &
Associates, in the amount of $10,696.00,
for Management Compensation Study.
Claim for Damages from Michael David
Komaromi, 5900 Hesketh Drive, Bakersfield.
(Refer to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages from Robert C.
Route l, Box 167, Bakers£ield.
City Attorney)
Thompson,
(Refer to
Claim for Personal Injuries from Willie
Leo Harris, a minor, by and through his
Guardian at Litem, Jerlene Harris, 819
South Haley Street, Bakersfield. (Refer
to City Attorney)
Claim for Damages from R. Middleworth on
behalf of Pacific Telephone Company, 1917
"N" Street, Room 211, Bakersfield. (Refer
to City Attorney)
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981 - Page 3
(f)
Improvement Agreement for Tract No. 3972,
Units C & D, with Coleman T. and Rebecca
G. Proctor for construction of sidewalks
and survey monuments required by the
Planning Commission, located south of
Pacheco Road and west of Akers Road.
(g)
Notice of Completion and Acceptance of
Work on Tract No. 3972, Units C & D,
Contract No. 80-103 with Coleman T. and
Rebecca G. Proctor, located south of
Pacheco Road and west of Akers Road.
(h)
Application for Encroachment Permit from
Electrical Pension Fund, 2020 Westwind
Drive, for construction of a 24" high
retaining wall along back of sidewalk on
21st Street and Westwind Drive.
(i)
Resolution of Intention No. 950 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield,
declaring its intention to order the
vacation of a portion of "O" Street
between 38th Street and 40th Street,
adjacent to Block 664, in the City of
Bakersfield, and setting Wednesday,
October 14, 1981, for hearing on the
matter before the Council.
(J)
Resolution of Intention No. 951 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield,
declaring its intention to order the
vacation of a portion of Oak Street at
Truxtun Avenue, in the City of Bakers-
field, and setting Wednesday, October
14, 1981, for hearing on the matter
before the Council.
(k)
Resolution No. 71-81 of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield initiating pro-
ceedings for annexation of territory to
the City of Bakersfield identified as
Proceeding No. 736, Annexation No. 282
(Panama No. 3), in accordance with LAFCO
Resolution making determination. This
resolution sets the date of hearing for
Wednesday, October 28, 1981.
(i)
Agreement between Southern Pacific
Transportation Company and the City of
Bakersfield providing for construction
of a 36" Sanitary Sewer Main in Gosford
Road at its intersection with the
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks.
Upon a motion by Councilman Means, Items (a), (b),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k) and (1) of the Consent
Calendar, were adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
c),
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981 - Page 4
129
Francis,
Ming Avenue, Wilson Road,
accepted, all other bids
execute the contract.
ACTION ON BIDS
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, low bid of James G.
in the amount of $211,126.25, for resurfacing portions of
South Real Road and Stine Road, was
rejected and the Mayor was authorized to
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, low Base Bid, plus
Additions A and B, of Granite Construction Company, in the amount
of $242,514, for resurfacing portions of California Avenue, New
Stine Road and Ming Avenue, was accepted, all other bids rejected
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, bid of Jim Alfter
Construction, in the amount of $21,022.50, for Annual Contract for
Canal Liner Repair, was accepted and the Mayor was authorized to
execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, low bid of
Motorcycle Supplies, in the amount of $4,828.83, for Motorcycle
Tires, was accepted and all other bids rejected.
Upon a motion by Councilman Payne, low bid of L. N. Curtis,
in the amount of $5,215.20, for helmets and turnout coats and pants
for the Fire Department, was accepted and all other bids rejected.
DEFERRED BUSINESS
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2667 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Section 5.40.050
(j) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code,
relative to Park Curfew, and adding
Section 5.40.050 (1) to the Bakers-
field Municipal Code, relative to
Unlawful Noise.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Ordinance No. 2667
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 5.40.050 (j) of the Bakersfield Municipal Code, relative
to Park Curfew, and adding Section 5.40.050 (1) to the Bakersfield
Municipal Code, relative to Unlawful Noise, was adopted by the
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981 - Page 5
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2668 New
Series amending Title Seventeen of
the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties
in the City of Bakersfield commonly
known as 3910 South Chester Avenue
and 2309 South Union Avenue.
The application for this amendment was made by John B.
Antonino and would change subject properties from a C-2-D
(Commercial - Architectural Design) Zone to an M-1 (Light Manu-
facturing) Zone.
Upon a motion by Councilman Barton, Negative Declaration
and Ordinance No. 2668 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield by changing the Land Use
Zoning of those certain properties in the City of Bakersfield
commonly known as 3910 South Chester Avenue and 2309 South Union
Avenue, finding said zoning consistent with the General Plan, were
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
NEW BUSINESS
Adoption of Resolution No. 72-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field making certain assurances to
the California Department of Trans-
portation, designating a Lead Agency
for construction of an Inter-City
Terminal, and agreeing to act as
conduit for disbursement of Local
Funds.
In October, 1980, an application was submitted to the
State Department of Transportation jointly by Golden Empire District
and Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency for funding to construct an
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981 - Page 6
1.ql
Inter-City Terminal. The terminal would be utilized by AMTRAK and
the major bus carriers. The application was not accepted by the
State. The State has now requested that the City indicate its
support for the project as they are now very interested in it.
Local funding will be provided by KERNCOG.
In answer to a question by Councilman Payne, City Attorney
Oberholzer stated that Councilman Payne could participate in the
voting on this matter because the site selected is located outside
the boundaries of the Downtown Redevelopment Project Area.
Mr. Joe Leal, Chief of Mass Transportation for Caltrans,
District 06, Fresno, stated the State highly endorses the Inter-City
Terminal and hopes the Council will act as Caltrans' conduit for
local funds. State funds will finance up to 75% of the total cost
of this project. Site acquisition for the project will probably
begin sometime in 1982 and the total completion of the terminal
will probably take approximately three years.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rockoff, Resolution No. 72-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield making certain assurances
to the California Department of Transportation, designating a Lead
Agency for construction of an Inter-City Terminal, and agreeing to
act as conduit for disbursement of Local Funds, was adopted by the
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Christensen, Means, Payne, Ratty, Rockoff,
Strong, Barton
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Agreement with Security
Transport for air transportation of
prisoners for the Police Department.
The cost of transportation is 45~ per mile, which repre-
sents a 7~ per mile increase from the prior contract with Security
Transport. However, even with the increase, it is still requested
to utilize Security Transport, in that it is cost effective and
would relieve one or possibly two Detectives from this duty. It
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981 - Page
also should be noted this transport service will only be utilized
occasionally, and when transporting individuals in excess of
approximately 150 miles.
Upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, Agreement with
Security Transport for air transportation of prisoners for the
Police Department, was approved and the Mayor was authorized to
execute same.
Approval of Contract Change Order No.
12 to Contract No. 80-48 with Granite
Construction Company for the Truxtun
Avenue Extension, Phase II, FAU Project
No. M-F 252(1).
This Change Order is necessary to remove two existing
1200 GPM pumps and replace with two 2500 GPM pumps, including
related electrical wiring and service, piping and testing. This
change was required by Caltrans based on additional pump capacity
needed during heavy Kern River flow and storm water runoff.
The Change Order increases the contract $50,000. The
total contract price as a result of this increase is approximately
$3,067,308.19. This change will be funded with State Grade
Separation Funds.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Contract Change Order
No. 12 to Contract No. 80-48 with Granite Construction Company for
the Truxtun Avenue Extension, Phase II, FAU Project No. M-F 252(1),
was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Sections 7.18.010 and 7.18.020
and repealing Sections 7.18.030 through
7.18.220 of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code, relative to Secondhand Dealers,
Pawn Brokers and Junk Dealers.
This ordinance conforms Chapter 7.18 of the Municipal
Code to State law, adopting the State law definition of "Second-
hand Dealer" and requiring compliance with the State regulations
governing Secondhand Dealers. Sections of Chapter 7.18 which are
inconsistent with State law are repealed by this ordinance.
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981 - Page 8
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 7.18.010 and
7.18.020 and repealing Sections 7.18.030 through 7.18.220 of the
Bakersfield Municipal Code, relative to Secondhand Dealers, Pawn
Brokers and Junk Dealers.
Adoption of Resolution No. 73-81 of
the Council of the City of Bakers-
field fixing the time of Meetings of
the Council during the months of
October, November and December, 1981,
and January and February, 1982.
Councilman Christensen stated he is opposed to the Council
meeting every other week, because he feels the taxpayers are being
shorted.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Resolution No. 73-81
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing the time of
Meetings of the Council during the months of October, November and
None
December, 1981, and January and February,
following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Payne, Ratty, Rockoff, Barton
Noes: Councilmen Christensen, Means, Strong
Absent:
1982, was adopted by the
Approval of Contract with Panama
School District for Community
Recreation Program.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Contract with Panama
School District for Community Recreation Program, was approved and
the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakers-
£ield Chamber of Commerce for the
service of advertising the City and
promoting the Industrial Development
of the City.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Contract between the
City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
for the service of advertising the City and promoting the Industrial
Development of the City, was approved and the Mayor was authorized
to execute same. Councilman Rockoff abstained from voting on this
matter because he is an officer in the Chamber of Commerce.
Bakersfield, California, September 23, 1981 - Page 9
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakers-
field Chamber of Commerce providing
for the operation of a Convention
Bureau.
This contract incorporates the same provisions as last
year's contract, except that it adds a provision for paying the
Chamber matching dollars generated from fees assessed for new
memberships, up to $7,500.
Upon a motion by Councilman Ratty, Contract between the
City of Bakersfield and the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
providing for the operation of a Convention Bureau, was approved
and the Mayor was authorized to execute same. Councilman Rockoff
abstained from voting on this matter because he is an officer in
the Chamber of Commerce.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Christensen, the meeting was
adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK a~d Ex Officio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
ma
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981
Minutes of a Special Joint Meeting of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency,
held in the Council Chambers of City Hall at 8:00 P.M., September 30,
1981.
Chairman
by Mayor Shell.
Present:
Absent:
Present:
Absent:
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Shell and Agency
Casper, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
The City Clerk called the
Mayor Shell. Councilmen Means,
Barton,
Councilman Payne
The City Clerk called the roll of the Agency,
Agency Members Casper, Foth, Mooneyham, Puder, Winer
Agency Members Bilas, Lewis
Presentation of Proposed Amended Joint
Development Agreement between the Bakers-
field Redevelopment Agency and Bakersfield
Associates for the Downtown Shopping Center.
roll of the Council, as follows;:
Ratty, Rockoff, Strong,
Christensen
as follows:
it was necessary for the Agency and the
a UDAG Grant, an Urban Development Action
to finance a part of the public's responsi--
bility that time, which was for the construction of the parking and
the parking garage. The City applied on three occasions, I believe,
for that grant and never received the grant. In June of this year the
because of the financing,
Council to try to obtain
Grant, from HUD in order
(The following is a transcript of the Special Joint Meeting)
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: Mayor Shell and members of the
Council and Chairman Casper and members of the Bakersfield Redevelop-
ment Agency, this evening we're here to present to you an Amended
Joint Development Agreement for the Downtown Bakersfield Retail
Center. That is the sole purpose of the meeting this evening. There
will be no action that will be required on the part of either body.
Just basically to go back a little bit in time and so to bring you
up to date as to what's transpired over the last couple of years .... as
both bodies will recall in December of 1979, both the City Council
and the Agency voted to approve the Joint Development Agreement for
the Downtown Center. Subsequent to the approval of that agreement,
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 2
developer came to the Agency and the City Council and indicated that
he had obtained financing to support not only the share that he was
proposing previously, but his financing to also pick up the
$7,500,000.00 for the parking and parking garage. At that point in
time the Agency, with the concurrence of the City Council, entered
into a 60-day Implementation Agreement. The developer, at that time,
put up a $500,000 good faith deposit. The agreement was for the
purposes of negotiating another Joint Development Agreement under
the new circumstances. In early August I came to the Agency and
indicated that we had reached agreement on the economic terms,
however, it was not possible to put together a formal agreement in
the remaining few days. At that time I asked the Agency for a 45-day
period, extension period, for the sole purpose of preparing the
document that you have before you. That is where we are at this
point in time. You have before you a Proposed Agreement that has
been signed by the developer. This evening we have a number of the
Consultants that have worked on the agreement that are here. The
developer is here, Mr. Donahue. What I would like to do is basic-
ally to have each of them speak concerning their respective areas
and make a presentation. After all the presentations are completed
the .... anyone may ask, obviously any questions that they so desire.
Mr. Murray Kane from the law firm, is sitting on the end here, will
basically describe the document and the process that will be before
you. Mr. Botti, he's sitting behind me, is the representative from
Keyset Marston, whose ba§ic purpose was to analyze the private side
or what the developer was proposing. Mr. Hollis, who is sitting next
to me, is the Financial Consultant for the Redevelopment Agency and
he will explain some of the economics
this evening, sitting in the audience,
Bond Consultant for the Redevelopment
Mr. Donahne.
of the agreement. Also present
is Mr. Jim Rafferty who is the
Agency. If we may begin with
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 3
DAN DONAHUE: My name is Daniel W. Donahue. I am President
of John S. Griffith and Co. We are headquartered in Costa Mesa,
California and we are the 50-50 Joint Venture with Daon Corporation
of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, in a partnership known as
Bakers£ield Associates. It is tonight that we deliver to you the
Amended Joint Development Agreement between Bakersfield Associates
and the City of Bakersfield. The document has been executed on behalf
of our company and on behalf of Daon. Since we were last here some
month and a half has gone by and I would like to just personally say,
publicly, that the last month and a half has been a very difficult one
for, not only our company and Daon, but also for the City staff and
for its consultants. We have spent many hours negotiating, revising,
redrafting this document. I hope that all of you will take a good
hard look at it, will understand exactly the terms of it and that
we can have some very good dialogue so that the City, the public, and
the private side or the private development side will all understand
exactly what the contract says and what each of us is expected to
perform. We will be, provided that you'll agree to this document, in
a position to provide the financing as called for and specified in
the document, which I believe is in the next 30 to 45 days, whenever
you execute same. On a personal note, I've spent a great deal of time,
also, in the last few weeks traveling around the country. It is
amazing the amount of vitality and the amount of interest that people
have in other cities of this country into what's going into Bakers-
field. Some of your efforts, Madam Mayor, have been paying off. I
was recently in Washington, as a matter of fact last Wednesday and
Thursday, and it's very interesting the reaction to Bakersfield. We
had a meeting of the Trustees of the International Council of Shopping
Centers and during that meeting we spoke of Bakersfield, as one of the
Trustees has recently acquired an interest in the center down at the
Valley Plaza. So it's an interesting subject. A lot of national
interest has now focused on Bakersfield and I can assure you this
evening that we will be providing you a fantastic, excellent downtown
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 4
shopping center.
Thank you.
MURRAY KANE:
the Agency. Our task
MAYOR SHELL:
Be happy to answer any questions as we go on here.
Mayor and Councilmen, Chairman and members of
in ....
Excuse me Mr. Kane, for our record would you
identify yourself and who you represent again?
MURRAY KANE: Thank you. Murray Kane from the law firm
of Weiser, Kane, Ballmet & Berkman. Special Counsel to the Agency.
Our task in negotiating and preparing the Amended Joint Development
Agreement and bringing it before you, for your consideration, was to
find a method of financing the responsibilities of the Agency and of
the developer under the agreement so as
the project; at the same time making up
funds that were previously applied for.
to assure the feasibility of
for the loss of any grant
Basically the Amended Joint
Development Agreement is a specification of each of the responsibili-
ties of the Agency in assembling the site and limiting and defining
which funds of the Agency are to be expended and how the various costs
of the Agency are to be met and outlines the responsibilities of the
developer in participating in most of those methods of financing,
accepting the lease of the public parking facility site and accepting
conveyance of the retail parcel and fee and developing the shopping
center, pursuant to plans to be approved by the Agency and the City
in accordance with the schedule that would be agreed to in the docu-
ment. I'd like Mr. Cal Hollis, from the fiscal consultants of the
Agency, and Mr. Dick Botti, who is seated behind me, who is the
economic analyst that the Agency has hired in this matter, to speak
to the specifics of these fiscal and economic matters. First I would
like to just outline where we go from here and what legal procedures
and what legal framework there is in front of us in the consideration
of this agreement. As Mr. Kelmar mentioned, the developer has signed
the agreement, that is before you. Before the Agency and the City
Council may consider that agreement, the Agency must complete the
environmental review process, which we anticipate completing in the
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 5
in the next 30 days, 30 to 35 days. We must also prepare a Summary
Report of the transaction listing the costs to the Agency and which
items of cost; the acquisition cost, the demolition cost, the public
improvement costs and so on, relocation payments, and where that
money is coming from. The explanation of the value of this property
and the economic details that Mr. Botti and the fiscal details Mr.
Hollis will be speaking to shortly. We anticipate, therefore, that
sometime early in November, after the environmental processes are
complete after the necessary report that I've just mentioned has
been prepared and after the necessary notices have been published
and mailed to the property owners and published in the newspaper
(as required by State law), that we would be able to come before you
for a formal Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Redevelop-
ment Agency, at which time testimony could be taken from any inter-
ested person and formal consideration of the agreement could take
place. In between this time and that moment, of course, any questions
and issues that arise can be considered by the Agency and the Council
and that's one of the purposes of tonight's meeting. In the event
that hearing takes place and the Amended Joint Development Agreement
is approved, the developer would immediately deposit with the Agency,
concurrently with the Agency's execution of that agreement, a letter
of credit in the amount of $3,350,000.00. The $3,000,000.00 represents
three of the $4,000,000.00, that is the purchase price for the convey-
ance of the fee portion of the site. The Agency would immediately
draw down those $3,000,000.00,in funds and invest these mo~ies and earn
the interest as its property. Once--the next step would be for
the Agency consultants and staff to finish the details of the financ-
ing package, the various tax exempt bonds that have to be prepared
and marketed and sold, and bring those tax exempt issuances back to
you. I should emphasize that the agreement before you is a far more
restrictive agreement in the sense of far more limited Agency or
City tax exempt issues than in the Joint Development Agreement that
was previously approved. The major difference is that the parking,
140
Bakers£ield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 6
the structured parking and the surface parking, is solely the
obligation of the developer and is to be solely financed by the
developer. The only portion of that that would be proposed to be
financed in the agreement before you would be the acquisition and
assembly of the property that would be the public parking facility
site and that would be leased to the developer in accordance with
the details in the agreement. I would like to, at this time, call
on Mr. Dick Botti of Keyser Marston and Associates to present to
you a summary o£ the economic analysis that is behind the purchase
price that you see in the Joint Development Agreement Amendment and
also the lease payments that the developer will be obligated to pay
if that agreement is approved.
MAYOR SHELL: Mr. Botti.
man Means, did you have a question?
speaks I
front of
Excuse me just a moment, Council-
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Just a comment. Before each person
would hope that they have something in writing to have in
us while you're talking. I refer to your comments in terms
of a time line. I'd like to see that and anyone else that is
going to speak I hope we have something in front of us that outlines
what you're talking abut.
MURRAY KANE: The time line could be found in the Schedule
of Performance, which is attached to the agreement.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: If they could refer to that when they're
talking I'm sure we .... I'm sure that somewhere in all the stuff we
have .... I'd like them to point it out and I'd like to look at it as
they're ~oing along.
MAYOR SHELL: Yes, if you would point to the pages of the
documents that have been submitted to us .... I understand what you
mean, Councilman Means. Mr. Botti is there any .... would you like to
draw our attention tc your tether?
DICK BOTTI: We have submitted to the City and Agency a
document called the Re-Use Analysis - Bakersfield Regional Shopping
Center prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, September 1981.
Bakersfield, CAlifornia, September 30, 1981 - Page 7
MAYOR SHELL: I think this is the document that you
received yesterday, dated September 28th .... isn't that correct? I
want to be sure everyone has it before you begin, just a moment.
Mr. Botti, you've already been identified; very well, so please
continue.
DICK BOTTI: Okay. The role of Keyser Marston Associates
in the analysis of the Bakersfield Regional Shopping Center was to
determine what constitutes fair compensation for the development
opportunity that the developer is asking for. In determining what
constitutes the fair compensation, we have looked at both the
economics and the proposed development in terms of the potential
cost, revenues, developer's profit and the whole set of economics
pertaining to that development, as well as other regional shopping
center transactions within the State of California. I should say
that fair compensation in these complicated real estate developmeni;s
include both the purchase price of the land, plus any lease payments
that the developer would agree to make, plus any participation income
that the Agency or City would receive, plus any sort of other
guarantees that the developer would take upon himself in terms of
cost overruns or any other cost, potential cost to the developer.
Our analysis indicates that the proposed transaction as outlined in
the Disposition and Development Agreement, at least the economic
terms of that agreement, in terms of both the direct compensation
and in terms of the other guarantees that the developer is provid-
ing, exceed our estimate of the fair compensation for the site.
Let me say right here that what our, again, our role is to identify
what the minimum compensation should be, and in this instance the
developer, for a number of reasons, pertaining primarily to the
fiscal status of the Agency has agreed, perhaps reluctantly, but
has agreed to provide additional compensation in order
project together. As indicated in our Re-Use Analysis,
developer had .... that the cost to the developer of the
plus
to put the
what the
land,
the parking, plus the present value of the parking payments,
142
Bakersfield, CAlifornia, September 30, 1981 - Page 8
is in excess of all but a few other unique regional shopping
centers in the State of California. It is, therefore, our opinion
that the developer has met our requirements for the fair compensation
for the shopping center and is of itself taking a fair amount of
risk in putting this project together. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes, I'd ask him why he says that.
What do you base the statement that the developers paying higher
than anyone else in the State? On what figures?
DICK BOTTI: We have presented a Table .... Table i in our
document presents an analysis of five recent regional shopping
center transactions within the State of California. I should say
five transactions of .... I indicated in this Table the Modesto
Regional Shopping Center transaction, which is somewhat of an old
transaction, was in the Spring of 1977, and we have not used that.
I simply presented that as an indication of comparison of where
the developer is today as compared to the Modesto transaction. But
you'll see at the bottom of that Table .... we have indicated there,
at the second line from the bottom of the Table, a total cost of
Land and Parking per square foot of gross leasable area, and the
various transactions show a range from $20.19 a square foot to
$26.15 a square foot. The developer has agreed, in Bakersfield, to
insure a cost approaching $30.00 a square foot, if we simply assume
a three department store center, and $25.00 to $26.00 a square
foot if we assume that he is successful in attracting a fourth
department store. Based upon the cost of money that the developer
is facing, as compared to these other transactions, plus adjusting
for inflation, it's our conclusion that the developer has, in terms
of this cost of land and parking per square foot of GLA, is at the
upper end. We do know of certain other transactions, again in the
State, that are unique in terms of their location within the highly
dense urban areas in which the developer, for a number of reasons,
has included office space or hotels in which he's exceeded that. But
essentially for the type of shopping center that we're talking about
here, the range of $25.00 to $26.00 a square foot is at the upper end.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 9
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Yes, in Table l, I tried to put
the Bakersfield development with four department stores or three
department stores on a comparable basis with the others, and I'm
not sure that I picked up the proper figures in each category. I
was wondering whether you could check me or if you had done the same
thing so you could fill in a column for Bakersfield that would be
comparable to Fairfield, Santa Rosa, Modesto, Burbank, Escondido.
DICK BOTTI: All right. We are .... the land value for
Bakersfield would be $4,000,000.00. The on and off site costs,
which is essentially the cost of the parking, is $7,500,000.00.
The present value of the parking payments is $7,000,000.00, leading
to a total compensation for land and parking of $18,500,000.00. If
we divide that by the square footage of the three department store
center being 617,000 square feet, we come back to a cost per square
foot of gross building area of $29.97. If we divide that by the
area of a four department store center, and I've assumed the fourth
department store at a 100,000 square feet, we would come back to a
value of $25.79.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Then I think my next computation .....
I'm not 100% sure of .... less the department store contribution
I used $1,750,000.00 and I'm not sure that's right, per store.
DICK BO?TI: That is incorrect ....
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: That is incorrect, okay .... .
DICK BOTTI: We have assumed that to the developer
that compensation coming from the fourth department store will be
$1,750,000.00, which would be a combination of the land payment
plus his pro rata share of parking payments. The total compensation
coming from the initial three department stores, as we outlined in
our report, is, at the best, zero, which means that the developer
will neither lose money nor make money on the initial three depart-
ment stores. You may want to ask the developer about that, but
we're finding today that in order to attract initially, the three
initial department stores to the transactions, that the developer
is normally incurring a loss on those department store transactions.
We have assumed, however, that he would not incur a loss on the
fourth department store.
Bakers£ield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page l0
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: I guess I don't understand how you
consider that a loss. In other words, wouldn't they be making some
contribution when they purchase the land that they're going to
build their store on?
DICK BOTTI: Well, in the case of this transaction that's
right, one of the department stores will be purchasing land. They
will all be making contribution toward the parking payment; however,
the developer has to build some of the department stores and the
capitalized value of that rental payment, coming from the department
store, is substantially less than the cost of building that store.
As yqu know, the department stores are driving very hard bargains
with respect to the rents they are willing to pay. The rent from
that department store is less than the cost .... less .... the capital-
ized rent is less than the cost. ?aken together it turns out to be
zero.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Could we be given a copy of that
computation sometime ....
DICK BOTTI: I will prepare that for ....
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: I would appreciate that ....
DICK BOTTI: Thank you.
CAL HOLLIS: My name is Cal Hollis from the firm of
Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates in Los Angeles. Madam Mayor,
members of the Council, Mr. Kelmar and members of the Agency, what
I'd like to do at this point is to go over the proposed financing
for the shopping center. The financing has gotten somehwat more
complicated than the last agreement that the Agency approved. In
this final round of negotiations we took it as our goal, meaning
the Agency staff's goal, to try to accomplish several things with
the overriding goal of putting together a plan that worked. The
first goal was to maximize the private expenditure. We felt in
this project that it was the Agency's and City's goal that every~
thing that could possibly be paid for privately should be and so
that was an overriding goal in the last round of negotiations, and
Bakersfield, california, September 30, 1981 - Page
in doing so we would, o£ course, minimize the public expenditure.
The other goal that we took in this round, is we saw an opportunity
to minimize any exposure to the City of Bakersfield, to, as much as
possible, reduce risks down to risks that were borne by the Agency
and risks that would, therefore, be related to tax increment genera-
tion and to, as much as possible in this transaction, reduce the
risks to the City. You recall, the last financing plan, when the
Agency was responsible for the parking, there was a lease revenue
issue of approximately $20,000,000.00. Under that type of financing
the City would have signed a lease with the Agency to lease the
parking facilities, would agree to make annual payments equal to
debt service on the $20,000,000.00 worth of bonds. The City would
then look to the Agency to reimburse them for their annual cost out
of tax increment and look to the developer's sublease payments to
the City to additionally reimburse the City. The financing plan
that was brought to you at that time the identified revenues, those
coming from the Agency and those coming from the developer, were
equal to the amount of the debt service, so that to the extent those
monies continue to be there the City felt no impact from the project.
We saw an opportunity here, with the developer assuming construction
of the parking, to reduce any possible risks to the City under a
lease revenue financing scenario. The current financing continues
to include lease revenue financing. We couldn't find another way
to do it, but we reduced the value of those bonds, or the amount of
those bonds, from $20,000,000.00 down to approximately $9,500,000.00.
So I think we've come a long way towards reducing any potential
exposure to the City under a lease revenue scenario. The financing,
and I would refer you to something that was distributed to you, I
believe, at the beginning of the meeting or just prior to the meeting.
This is a two page set of tables that were prepared by our office.
I believe the top sheet is titled "Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency
Retail Center Financing Parking Area Financing," the second page
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 12
being "Retail Center Financing Pad Area Parking." What I'm refer-
ring to when I refer to the parking area versus the pad area, the
pad area is the part that will be owned by the developer in fee on
which the retail center stores and mall will be constructed. The
parking area is the property that would be leased to the developer
on which he would build the parking. We have, in the tables you
have in front of you, divided the costs for each of the areas.
That's something that we had to go through when we developed the
financing plan. I direct you to the sources section of the first
Table, which is the lower portion of the Table, and these are the
sources of funds available to meet the costs for the parking area.
You see, the first amount are lease revenue bonds. The proceeds
from lease revenue bonds would be used primarily to acquire the
property on which the parking will ultimately be constructed. You
see an assessment bond item. The developer has agreed to an annual
assessment. The proceeds from these assessment bonds will be used
to cover the off site improvements. Those items include what street
work needs to be done, off site utilities, traffic signalization,
those things that can properly be financed through a pure assessment
district. The developer has agreed to, in effect, loan the money
to the Agency to make these assessment payments. The developer's
property will be subject to an assessment, he will make an annual
payment of $200,000.00 per year. The Agency, through this agreement,
would agree to reimburse him for the cost of that $200,000.00 to the
extent there is tax increment money available to do so. Our current
projections show that in the near term, meaning from the time the
retail center is completed, out of five, six, seven years, absent
new construction within the Redevelopment Project Area, increment
will not be sufficient to reimburse the developer, so this is a
cost he will be forced to ~bsorb. The Agency, through this agree-
ment, will be obligated to repay, to reimburse him, for these
assessments at such times as it had increment available. The only
obligation to the Agency would be to reimburse him to the extent it
had tax increment and there would no liability to the City, whatso-
ever, to make those payments.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 13
147
The last item we're using as a source of funds for the
parking costs are interest earnings and these are interest earnings
on the lease revenue bonds and the assessment bonds during the
acquisition process. We've, I believe, conservately estimated what
interest .... interest that would be earned by the Agency during the
acquisition program.
Mr. Kelmar reminds me that in the agreement the Daon
Corporation, as a corporate entity, is guaranteeing for a three year
period, guaranteeing that the lease payments .... the sublease payments
will be made by the shopping center. So during this initial start
up period, the period of time when if there's a shortfall from the
shopping center's point of view, during the initial leasing period
and so forth, if there's a shortfall and for some unknown reason the
shopping center was unable to make its lease payments, the Daon
Corporation is providing a corporate guarantee to the Agency to make
those payments. So you have additional security during the early
lease up period of the shopping center that these lease payments
will be made.
The second page identifies the sources of funds
the property on which the retail center buildings will be
We're suggesting that a tax increment, or tax allocation bond, tax
increment bond, be sold. The amount that you see there is the amount
that would be supported by tax increment that's currently being
generated within the Redevelopment Project. That's why it's in that
amount. We've taken what was generated last year in tax increment
and we've determined how much in bond proceeds we think could be
acquired through the use of that increment and that amount of bonds
would be sold. Again, the only obligation, the only security the
Agency or City would be offering for payment on these bonds is tax
increment itself and there's absolutely no exposure to the City.
They have no obligation for a debt service on these tax allocation
bonds.
for acquiring
constructed.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981
Page 14
Additional sources of funds: The developer's first payment
$3,000,000.00, which, as has been explained, will be available upon
execution of the agreement by the Agency. An additional payment
to occur approximately June of '82 - $1,000,000.00, which is an
additional payment by the developer. Agency cash - the Agency in
the previous agreement had committed this amount, $1,160,000.00,
of cash that the Agency currently has on hand, to this development.
That amount has stayed the same as from the earlier financing plan.
City property is this - The Council and Agency knows the City owns
certain parcels within the development site. What's being asked
in this financing plan is that the City defer being paid by the
Agency for these properties. We've shown it .... it's included in the
acquisition budget as a cost and now we identify it here as a source
of revenue and that the City would not request being paid by the
Agency at this point in time. The Agency would incur an obligation
to repay the City at such time as monies would be available. Real-
istically, this would be sometime in the future and repayment would
depend upon additional development within the Redevelopment Project,
so that additional increment would be generated. So this .... this
is the one area where it's .... City funds or City property, if you
will, is being committed to the project. This was also included in
the last financing plan, so there has not been a change in this item.
As an additional item where we said cumulative net tax increment
required, this was sort of a balancing number. There was .... as we
added up all the sources of funds and added up the costs we were
short, in this case $155,000.00. What we're saying is tax increment
generated during the construction, or during the acquisition program
beginning from this year forward .... of all the increment that would
be generated during this three year time period, $155,000.00 would
be required. As an alternative to using this money the developer
has agreed to make available to the Agency in the form of a Letter
of Credit, additional Letfer of Credit, which the Agency may borrow
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 15
:149
from the developer. So you have as an alternative to using this
tax increment, the $350,000.00 that the developer is offering as
a loan to the extent that it is required.
Finally, we have an interest earnings item .... again this is
interest earned on Agency funds during the acquisition program and
this is interest earnings on all funds, bond issues, the money that's
been advanced by the developer and so forth. This, very quickly,
is the financing plan that has been proposed to you. There are,
in recap, three bond issues, a lease revenue bond issue and a tax
allocation bond issue, which would .... both of which would be sold
early, as soon as possible. after the City Agency execute the agree-
ment. A third bond issue .... an assessment bond issue would be sold
after the property was conveyed to the developer and a lien could be
placed on the property that he would be owning. This would occur
sometime in .... between late summer and December o£ next year and,
again, these proceeds of the assessment bonds would be used for,
off-site improvements that the Agency is agreeing to pro-
Additional sources include Agency cash, deferral of paying
the City for its property, interest earnings and the $4,000,000.00
the developer is paying for his property.
The agreement further provides a participation formula
and under this formula, to the extent revenues are generated above
certain minimum specified amounts that are explained in the Disposition
and Development Agreement, the Agency would participate in those
revenues and this would be additional .... this would be paid in the
form of additional sublease payments from the developer to the City.
We have not included any of those revenues. We have not included
them primarily because we believe it's going to be several years
before those are generated. We are looking at those as extras to the
City and the Agency and we didn't want to include .... to be counting
on those funds as a financing vehicle.
basically,
vide.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 16
One final note on the financing plan as it's been presented,
the .... during the last 60 days we've seen a bad market, bond market,
get worse. In the last week we've seen some--call it strengthening
of the bond market. 'The financing plan, as it Sits now, we beiieve,
is a feasible plan, however, the bond market is going to have to
recover somewhat more from where it is now. We have time, based on
the physical number of things that have to occur, before the Agency .....
we would go to the bond market that from .... where we have some time
for that bond market to come back around. We will be meeting shortly
with the Bank of America, who has agreed to assist the Agency in
providing some additional financial structuring to explore some
short-term financing, which would be more attracted to the bond
market than long-term financing. Short-term financing would be for
the amounts that you see with the provision to issue longer-term
financing at such time as when the bond market improved. We're
looking at a situation now, where, as you are probably well aware,
the bond market, whole financial market, is just terrible. We
believe we've structured this agreement in such a way that it is
as feasible an agreement as we could possibly put together and Mr.
Rafferty, the Agency's Bond Consultants, can speak to his thoughts
on the financing structure as we've laid it out to you and its
ultimate marketability. Be happy at the conclusion of the presenta-
tions to answer any questions that the Agency Council may have.
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: I have a question, sir. What
kind of additional financing structure will be provided by Bank of
America?
CAL HOLLIS: What we're looking through, for the bank,
is to assist in designing, if you will, these bond issues so that
they are most attractive to the investor. The assumptions that we
have used all along, up to the last 60 days,
would all be traditional long-term financing,
Because of the uncertainty in the market now,
would be that these
25 year bonds.
25 year bonds are not
very attractive. We believe that with the Bank of America's exper-
tise they can assist the Agency in restructuring these bonds in
terms of the length of the bond issue (whether they be serial bonds
or term bonds), the amounts of the bonds (whether you use one or two
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 17
series as a whole), list of technical design items in making the
bonds the most attractive to the bond market. We believe that some--
one like the Bank of America, who is very active in the bond under-
writing field, can provide up-to-date assistance to the
structuring these bonds. They have
the Agency to structure a bond that
market in a very bad market.
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: In other words, they're really
not going to give any additional financial outlay. They're merely
going to develop a sales package.
CAL HOLLIS: Initially that's what we will be requesting
of them. We are not asking them, obviously, to make commitments to
purchase bonds or those kind of things, although they have, again,
they have indicated a great interest in the project and a great
interest in the City of Bakersfield.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Mr. Hollis, the original $500,000,
that the developer paid, is that in any way part of this cash that
we have on hand or is it any part of the cash on hand?
CAL HOLLIS: It is not included in the $1,160,000.00,
Councilman, it is included within the $3,350,000.00 that will be
initially made available to the Agency. That $500,000, of the
$3,350,000.00, $500,000 will continue to act as good faith security
deposit and is subject to forfeiture under terms of the agreement.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Okay. In figuring the value of
$635,000 of City property that is going to be put into the project,
does that include value of the streets that are going to be deeded
into the retail parcel?
CAL HOLLIS: No sir, it does not. That's the appraised
value of the parking .... I'm sorry .... I believe there are parking
facilities, properties within the project areas, that does not
include the value of the streets that would be vacated.
Agency in
indicated a willingness to assist
is the most attractive to the
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Should there be a value given to
the City for the dedication of those streets to the project?
CAL HOLLIS: Yes sir. I would suggest that a value be
determined for those. That they be included in the amount which
the Agency will be owing to the City and would be an additional
liability of the Agency and would be paid, again, at such time as
increment is being generated. The payment, again, will be sometime
in the future and I didn't want to give the impression that these
monies would be available to the City in the near term.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: In line with that, is the developer
being charged for the street dedication?
CAL ttOLLIS: The developer .... the amount the developer is
being paid takes into account the entire area that he will be (1)
owning; or (2) leasing. So the entire development site has been
considered in determining the fair value of the property.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: I have one more question. In going
through the annual debt service, if I've added it correctly, it's
1,785,000. We've discussed .... oh no, we haven't discussed, but I
know the agreement calls for 700,000 being received on rental of
the parking lot land and 200,000 from the assessment bonds, that's
900,000, where does the balance come from?
CAL HOLLIS: The balance is being paid from tax increments
generated by the development and by the project.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Has that been computed to make, as
certain as humanly possible, that there will be at least that much
available?
CAL HOLLIS: It has been part of our office's role in
this project to project revenue that would be available to the City--
--to the Agency, I'm sorry, tax increment revenue that would be
available. Our projections for revenue include only increment
being generated currently and increase of 2% on currently existing
property within the project area per year and the value of the retail
center itself. So the basic assumption here, is that, nothing else
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 19
occurs within the entire Redevelopment Project,
method of calculating increment we have arrived
feel will be available to service the bonds.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF:
1,785,000,
am I ....
so zero, zero, zero,
and based on that
at the amount we
from the tax increment
future?
CAL HOLLIS:
CAL HOLLIS: Yes, that's correct ....
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Correct. 885,000 and it is your
opinion that there's no reasonable doubt that tax increment will,
at least, bring in $885,000 a year?
CAL HOLLIS: Currently Councilman Rockoff our last year ....
let's go back to 1980, I believe the increment generated in the
Redevelopment Project was approximately $500,000. This additional
development will generate, I believe, an additional $600,000. The
Agency has some current obligations. The obligation which will
continue .... which be in place at the time that the debt service
begins on these bonds, is reimbursing the City for the debt service
on the "K" Street Garage, which is 130. So if you take the total
that I've given you and subtract 130, that's the amount that is
remaining and available to the Agency for the additional financing.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Councilman Rockoff had some of the
similar questions I did. One small part of that had to do with ....
again when you were talking about the City property and that in
some point in the far future there will be enough money available
to repay the City for that, how far in the
Madam Mayor, Councilman Means, I was trying
to be very careful not to say that there would be money available
to repay the City. The impression I meant to give, is that it would
shown as a debt, by the Agency, to the City, and in the event tax
increment, maybe that's the proper word to use, in the event tax
increment rose to the point where there was money available to repay
the City. I would ask you, again, to consider the method we used
So that's, let's see, 900,000 from
eighty-five .... that's what, 885,000
154
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981
Page 20
in projecting property tax revenue, that being that nothing
occurs in the entire Redevelopment Project other than the retail
center. So I am quite confident that there will be additional
tax increment generated. I didn't want to try to estimate how
much that was going to be, try to guess how many office buildings
or other development would occur within the downtown area. So,
I cannot tell you when that money would be available to you for
repayment. I would look at it as an amount that the City was
putting into the project, a noncash amount the City was getting
to put into the project, with the good likelihood of getting
return on that money, but not necessarily counting on that money
for budgetary purposes.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes, you did say .... that was what you
said previously, when it gets to a tax increment, when it gets to
a certain point. What would that point be though?
CAL HOLLIS: The obligations that this agreement puts on
the Agency, on tax increment, is the debt service that Councilman
Rockoff spoke of and that approximately 830,000 of tax increment
would be required to meet the debt service under this agreement.
The 830,000, plus the 130,000 in the "K" Street garage, is $960,000.
Additional amounts that the Agency is agreeing, to the extent it's
available, is to reimburse the developer for his annual assess-
ment of $200,000. So that is $1,160,000, if my numbers are correct,
of tax increment that will have to be .... is really prepledged, if you
will. When revenue gets above that amount then the Agency will have
funds for'its other purposes, including repaying the uity, doing
other developments, whatever the Council and the Agency decide they
want to do with that tax increment. So that's approximately the
level I would certainly expect that this kind of development, as
it goes forward, will attract additional development around it as
other regional centers have and it will be a relatively short period
of time for additional increment to be generated, but you know your
community much better than I and I think you can make better esti-
mates as to when development is going to occur within the community.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 21
But roughly there are times the Agency has a $1,200,00 in annual
tax increment, it can start looking to additional increment being
available for its other developments or for repaying the City.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Madam Mayor, I .... Mr. Hollis, I
concur with your conservative method of discussing the tax increment.
On the other hand I would .... I want the agreement to establish a
point above which that money would then be paid back to the City,
and I would expect of the agreement that we assign would include
a point at which the tax increment gets to that level that you
mentioned, that the first priority after that would be the repay-
ment of this $635,000.
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor, Councilman Means, what I would
suggest that that be a pleasure that in the agreement, not this
agreement, but the agreement by which the City conveys title to
the Agency, that you specify whatever payment terms you would like
to do, and therefore, it's not within this agreement, it's a direct
relationship between the City and the Agency. In that agreement
you can place whatever terms, whatever interest terms, that you would
like to place on it. So, I think that's between you and the Agency
to work out.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Good. Thank you. I think that's a
good suggestion. Another question I have is .... before we get to
Mr. Rafferty .... would be the .... what effect does 'the use Of the short-
term bonds have on the amount of interest that would be available
to the Agency? That you calculated in here.
CAL HOLLIS: It shouldn't have any effect. The only
interest that we've assumed is a short-term interest period. So
that we've assumed interest only during the time in which the Agency
would be assemblying the property and putting in the public improve-
ments in the term .... in term of the short-term notes would be through
completion of the development. So it should have no effect on the
amount of interest earned.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981
Page 22
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN Christensen: The obligation of tax increments
would be 600,000, wouldn't it, per year for 25 years?
CAL ttOLLIS: I believe, Madam Mayor, Councilman, it's
$830,000 total increment that would be used by the Agency to set
aside its obligations under this agreement.
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: How many years?
CAL ttOLLIS: Probably 25 years.
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: That's what I thought, thank you.
COUNCILMAN BARTON: Yes, this question is of our staff
and it goes back to Mr. Mean~' question regarding City property.
In the Council-Agency Agreement, didn't we have provisions in there
for the reimbursement processes that .... in the event, like Mr. Means
is talking about, under the Agency-Council Agreement?
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: Mayor Shell, Councilman Barton, I
think the only reimbursement agreement in that is specifically for
the time that the City staff provides as staff to the Agency. One
of the provisos, when the Redevelopment Agency was formed, there
were actually two provisos, one being that any eminent domain
action that would be involved would require the approval of the
Council and the other being that the Agency would not have its own
staff, that City staff would be utilized for the Agency and the
Agency would reimburse the City for that. So, I believe under that
particular agreement that would be the sole reimbursement. Now, there
is another agreement, I believe, in connection with that "K" Street
Parking Garage, that provides for reimbursement for that particular
project.
COUNCILMAN BARTON: Okay, thank you.
MAYOR SHELL: Do any members of the Agency have questions?
I have some questions. Your figure of $600,000 in tax increment,
now you expect the regional shopping center to generate that much
a year? Mr. Hollis.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 23
157
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor, I'm trying to recollect,
excuse me a minute .... when we did our increment projections, we,
o£ course, did them on a project wide basis, including the develop-.
ment. We did it in annual amounts so I trying to reconstruct in
my mind the amount of the retail center. As I recall ....
MAYOR SHELL: .... it would be 1% of the cost of ....
CAL HOLLIS: .... roughly 1% of the market value of the
property, including personal properties. So it's the construction
cost, plus the value of the land, plus the value of the parking,
plus the utilities, approximately, as I recall it, $635,000 is what
we have estimated would be generated by the development in total.
MAYOR SHELL: I see, that's just the center. In other
words you that doesn't ....
CAL HOLLIS: Just the center itself ....
MAYOR SHELL: You are not counting on any development
around the shopping center?
CAL HOLLIS: No, again, we have only .... now we are
assuming because it takes an annual, roughly $835,000 in tax
increment, to fund the bonds being issued for this project,
$635,000 would be coming from the retail center itself. The
balance would be coming from properties within the project area.
MAYOR SHELL: And you've already deducted the obligation
that's ....
CAL HOLLIS: On the "K" Street Garage, yes mam.
MAYOR SHELL: Now there's a guarantee of the parent corp-
Daon, to guarantee the lease payments to the City of
a default after three
oration,
$700,000 for three years. What if there's
years? What is the position of the City?
CAL HOLLIS: I'd like your legal
counsel to provide that
for you.
MAYOR SHELL: All right, Mr. Kane.
158
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 24
MURRAY KANE: Thank you. The Agency and the City will be
parties to another document, which is to be brought back to you in
the near future, called a Reciprocal Easement Agreement. That doc-
ument, which is scheduled to be completed and signed 6 months after
this agreement is executed by the Agency, establishes all of the
rights and remedies of the parties in the event of default under
this arrangement. If the lease payment is not paid, the Agency
would have a variety of remedies, including security interest,
the normal remedies of obtaining judgments and filing liens against
the developments .... developer's assets. There would be remedies oi'
simply terminating the lease and closing down the parking. There'd
be basically real property security interests that would protect
the Agency, in addition to those remedies. Each of these remedies
would be set out in the Reciprocal Easement Agreement, which must be
brought back to the City and the Agency prior to execution.
MAYOR SHELL: Thank you. One other question, why is the
parking lease a three way transaction? Why isn't it just between
the developer and the Agency? Why is the City involved in that?
CAL HOLLIS: Madam ~ayor, this is a marketing considera-
tion. In order to issue a bond like this the bond holder will
be looking at security for the lease. Security for the lease in
this arrangement would be the City itself. That makes a public
bond like this marketable, so that, again, its .... in the event
that the developer didn't pay his lease payment, the bond holders
could look to the City for payment under those bonds. Now for the
developer not to make his payment it would also mean that the
department stores, the major department stores, did not make their
payments. So that .... and .... it would mean that the department stores
have not made their payments. So we believe that by lowering the
amount of the bond issue, we've lowered the risk to the City and
there is a risk and I've tried each time we've talked about lease
revenue bonds to explain this, this risk. That there is a risk
to the City in the event that, for some unknown reason, the lease
payment wasn't made the Agency could look to the City. Technically,
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 25
159
the Agency could look to
bond holders
City to make
revenue bond,
the City for payment of its lease. The
could sue the Agency to force the Agency to force the
its lease payment. So that is the risk of a lease
is that the City looks .... the City is the lessee. We
think we have minimized that risk by reducing the size of the bond
issue such that much of those annual lease payments coming to the
City is coming £rom major department stores, which we feel have a
pretty good credit rating, the department stores that are being con-
sidered for this project.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Yes, one £urther question on the tax
increment on the center itself. Did I understand that that was going
to be roughly 600,000, based on the current land values and construction
values.
CAL HOLLIS: I'm sorry Councilman, I missed the first part
of your question.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: All right. The tax increment on the
center itself would be 600,000, based on the land value and the con-
struction value?
CALL HOLLIS: Land construction and the private property of
the department store, that's roughly a $60,000,000 center.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Okay, now does that mean that there
is no tax revenue from that area at the present time, because I
understand tax increment is only the addition?
CAL HOLLIS: Yes, what we have done, again, when we did the
increment projection we did it for the project as a whole and we
subtracted from the .... our projected total value of the project as
a whole the entire base year value for the project, so that if we
look .... if we look at this as a segment, look at only the retail
center site, total property tax would be about 630,000. Current
year taxes are approximately 40 .... well, I don't want to guess .... I
have it somewhere, but I don't have it with me, so I don't want to
guess what it is. But you're right, it will
incremental will be something less than 630.
630,000 in taxes a portion of that, and it's
be something less,
If the center will pay
a very minor portion,
lf;O
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 26
will go to the taxing entities. The balance will go to the Agency.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes, on the figures that Mr. Hollis ....
that you gave us for the tax increment .... I realize that you're only
projecting the tax increment based on the current Redevelopment
Agency structure and with the addition of the shopping mall, but
I would like to get those projections. Do I have those someplace,
the projections?
CAL HOLLIS: No sir, you do not. I can make my projec-
tions available to you. To the Council and Agency members, be
happy to do so.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I would like that and in addition, I'm
not sure a .... you're aware of the lease the a .... what is it .... the
a .... the option that the a .... the developer has on the land in
the immediate vicinity of the shopping center to use for office
structures?
CAL HOLLIS: Yes, the agreement provides .... are you speak-
ing of the option that granted in this particular .... in this agree-
ment, Councilman Means?
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes.
CAL HOLLIS: Fine. The developer does has a one year
option, in the agreement, to negotiate with the Agency for that
property. It doesn't give them a right the property, merely a first
right to negotiate for that property. And he has a one year from
the execution of this agreement to enter into a separate agreement
with the Agency for development of that property. We have not
included as incremental revenue any revenue generated from develop-
ment of that property.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Right.
CAL HOLLIS: Similarly we've not included development for
anything else that the Council may be aware of, construction or
developments that are proposed for the downtown area.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 27
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Do you .... my question .... right ....
that's correct .... my question is, do you .... do you feel that
those discussions of the .... of what might happen with the prop-
erty immediately adjacent to the shopping mall are anywhere close
to being at a point where you could estimate the tax increment
from those properties?
CAL HOLLIS: Not those specific discussions. The
developer is .... a major negotiating point in the agreement was
the right to negotiate on those properties. I think Mr. Donahue
could express his interest in those properties. He would like very
much to develop those properties and knows he has a limited amount
of time in which to negotiate with the City for development. So
in all likelihood the developer will come back to you within a year
with an agreement for your approval for development of those prop-
erties. Because if he doesn't he knows there's going to be several
people standing in line as soon as first shovel is turned out there
for rights to develop around that site.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I realize that your primary considera-
tion in assessing the amount of tax increment is to take care of
this particular obligation, but in addition, certainly one of the
things that we've talked about .... obviously the mall is the central
theme for downtown in order to have the retail downtown to keep it
alive, bring people down there, but we also anticipate, with the
mall and perhaps the hotel, that the process of revitalizing downtown
would include a number of other developments downtown, a number of
office buildings, office buildings that would be, perhaps, even in
connection with some housing, any number of things that we anticipate
for downtown. It seems to me that it is .... would be shortsighted
to at least on that .... on perhaps the City's part, City staff or
the Agency staff, not to have some general ideas of development over
the next five or ten years and the estimated tax increment that would
be generated from any number of projects. Recognize that's not as .....
that would not be as specific as you have done or anywhere even close
to the excellent job you've done, but it seems to me it's very critical
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 28
in discussing, if in fact one of the selling points that we're
buying into this mall, if it would happen to pass, is what else
would happen in the downtown area. It seems to me ...... I would
like some kind of a projection of what's going to happen in the
next five years, in ten years, because I would like somebody to
bet their expertise on it.
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor, an approach to that, Council-
man Means, would be for the staff to, based upon the zoning,
based upon what they feel the goals of the Agency are and perhaps,
with some input from Mr. Botti perhaps, getting some idea of what
might occur, if you will, based on what first .... what you allow
for your zoning, what your interests are, what the Redevelopment
Plan allows, and then some offhand estimate as to what kind of
development potential there is over a five, say a five to ten year
period, and then generate an increment projection based upon that.
That certainly can be done and I think it's the proper thing to
do to give the Agency some idea of what potentials there are. We
have tried very hard not to do that in this instance so that ....
so that we weren't clouding the issue and we like to approach
these things in, what if this is all that happens, what position
is the Agency and City in. But I think those other types of pro-
jections for planning purposes can be helpful.
MAYOR SHELL: Did he answer it? Are you finished?
COUNCILMAN MEANS: No, I believe
MAYOR SHELL: Yeah, Mr. Kelmar ....
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: I might add something to that, for
Councilman Means' information. You know the .... there are a number
of projects that are presently being, you know, additional projects
that are presently being considered in the downtown area. For
example,
Streets.
National
home office.
the project over the City's parking lot at 18th and "K"
There been, apparently, some discussion about American
Bank constructing a very large office building for their
The proposed G.E.T. facility, if it materializes.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 29
Probably will have with it a office complex. So there are some
things, I think some tangible things, that we can talk about. We
know that that church property is being .... in the process of being
completed .... that will add increment. The offices of Chain-Younger
are being expanded. The old Bank of America Building, on Chester
Avenue, is being remodeled. So there are a number of things, you
know, that are being discussed that will add to the increment. I
think it would be possible to come up with some half way, you know,
some projections that might be meaningful in that regard.
MAYOR SHELL: Chairman Casper wanted to ....
CHAIRMAN CASPER:
COUNCILMAN MEANS:
MAYOR SHELL: Oh,
COUNCILMAN MEANS:
Mayor, I've got ....
Madam Mayor, I wasn't
you're not finished.
No ....
finished.
MAYOR SHELL: I'm sorry ....
CHAIRMAN CASPER: Oh, I'm not on, okay, thank you.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Just one more quick question and that
was the .... don't you also have some ideas of projections for those
areas that .... those specific areas within the downtown area where
there isn't currently a request or discussion around a proposal for
what you would like to see happen down in that area, and I would
like those kinds of projections to be included in that plan and
estimated increments.
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: If I might add to that. Part of,
you know, this, I don't know what you want to call it, specific
plan or whatever, you know, the City has been pursuing. We are in
the process, now, with the citizen participation program where we
hope to become involved in commercial, some type of commercial
rehabilitation, you know, involved with existing properties in the
downtown area. We do have, you know, some Community Development
Funds that have been, you know, earmarked for that purpose and
for any other type of bond issues that we might, you know, be able
to become involved with, involving, you know, rehab for commercial
properties that would also add .... sure, we could include that, too.
164
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 30
COUNCILMAN MEANS:
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: We could have that
you prior .... at least over the next few weeks. At
any consideration of this agreement.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Thank you. Thank you,
When might we get that?
information for
least prior to
Mr. Casper.
that has been made.
available to all the
it?
CHAIRMAN CASPER: I just want to make a comment on some-
thing that hasn't been mentioned tonight and it doesn't have any-
thing to do with the agreement that we're discussing, but it does
have to do with the revenue the City Council is interested in. I
think that if this shopping center goes forward the estimated sales
for the first twelve months is 86,000,000 and that would return to
the City for its own use $860,000.00 in sales tax. It's true that
it wouldn't all be new because Penney's is in business now, but
all the rest of the businesses are new so the majority of it would
be new revenue to the City. You're talking about $860,000 each year
from the beginning, should they make their estimated sales. Am
I right, Dan, in the estimate?
DAN DONAtIUE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN CASPER: For the first year. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN CHRISTENSEN: I would like to know if we would
be given a copy of the transcript tonight. The legal transcript
To all the Councilmen. Would that be made
Councilmen, so we could reread it and analyze
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: Certainly, Councilman Christensen.
MAYOR SHELL: Councilman Christensen asked for a copy
of the transcript of tonight's proceedings. Councilman Means.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes, that reminds me of just a small
question I had. Why are we having a Legal Secretary .... I mean a
Court Reporter taking notes?
UNKNOWN: I don't know, why?
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Pardon me!
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 31
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK ANDERSON: She is the new Secretary
to the Redevelopment Agency and she is training tonight.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I'm sorry, say that again.
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK ANDERSON: She is the new Secretary
to the Redevelopment Agency and she is training tonight.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I didn't know the Redevelopment Agency
had any staff ....
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: No, I .... for the Redevelopment staJ!f
the Community Development Department assists .... a Secretary employed
by the City in the area of Community Development and apparently
doesn't take shorthand.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: But is a Court Reporter? No .... that .....
MAYOR SHELL: Speedwriter ....
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Thank you.
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: Is it paid out of tax increments?
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SHELL: Are there any other questions by the members
of the Redevelopment Agency?
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: I have a question. Yes, I .... my
question has to do with the deeding of the property or handing the
parcel to the department store owners. Doesn't that put the Agency
or the City in somewhat of an awkward position in the event of
default if that should happen? Would property owners being the
department store owners?
MURRAY KANE: Murray Kane again.
it's our position that that puts the Agency
because that gives us a direct contractural relationship with each
department store. Part of the Grant Deed .... the Grant Deed does not
merely convey title to each department store, but it will also impose
the covenants and obligations on each department store in terms of
use and all of the obligations that are going into the Receiprocal
Easement Agreement. We are much better off having a direct contract-
ural relationship to enforce against each department store rather
To the contrary, we ....
in an advantageous posit4~,
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 32
than relying on our only remedy being to proceed against the
developer and relying on him proceeding against each department
store.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: But isn't that also a part of this
agreement? Someplace I read, I thought I read, that there will
be no recourse against.
MURRAY KANE:
that indicates that in the event of .... a portion of the site is to
be conveyed to the developer. Other portions of the site will
probably be conveyed to each individual department store. The pro-
vision that you're referring to indicates that, if a particular
department store is accomplishing all of their obligations, and
they are not in default, then we do not have the right to take
title back or proceed against that department store, because of a
default of the developer may have or another department store may
have on their particular parcel. The language ....
MAYOR SHELL OR AGENCY ME~ER FOTH?: I'm looking for the
page and I .... toward the end of the agreement.
MURRAY KANE: But that .... that is the basis of that
language and that's going to be included, also, in the Reciprocal
Easement Agreement.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: The other concern I have that I
mentioned, I believe, to you earlier, Murray, was the fact that the
City in a few years can, or the department store can, negotiate
with the City to buy their portion o£ the parking. What happens
in that case? Is that going to be spelled out?
MURRAY KANE: Yes, that particular provision is in
Attachment 2 and provides that after the lease revenue bonds are
fully paid, which we anticipate to be 20, approximately 27 years
after their issuance. The developer may purchase from the Agency
their proportionate portion of the public parking site and each
department store may purchase, at fair market value, their propor-
tionate portion o£ the public parking site. There would have to be
No, no, there is a provision, to be speci£ic,
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 33
appraisals made and a method of establishing what is the then
fair market value of that property and those funds would be paid to
the Agency. That is spelled out in Attachment 2 and will be £urther
set forth in detail in the Reciprocal Easement Agreement.
I have a question. There will be no direct
between the Agency and the department stores.
MAYOR SHELL:
contractural agreement
Is that correct?
MURRAY KANE:
Not in the Amended Joint Development Agreement,
but each Department store will be a party to the Reciprocal Easement
Agreement and that would be the basis of a direct contractural
agreement between the Agency and each department store.
MAYOR SHELL: Is there some .... do we have some assurance
that the .... that agreement will be with the parent corporation,
instead of a holding company?
MURRAY KANE: Well that .... that is .... that would be the
only acceptable .... we haveiindicated in this Amended Joint Development
Agreement that it is with the department stores. We have not specified,
but we have not permitted an agreement merely with a shell company and
we would not permit it in the negotiation of the Reciprocal Easement
Agreement. This is an issue that has come up in other Reciprocal
Easement Agreements on these kinds of transactions and we would insist
on the department store proper being a party to that agreement.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: We've been discussing the communications
from Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates and Keyser Marston, when is it
time to discuss the actual agreement or is this the time?
MAYOR SHELL: This is the time, isn't it, Mr. Kelmar?
Mr. Donahue is here.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: With the possibility of keeping us
longer I hoped we'd be here I do have several questions I would like
to direct to the staff, to our consultants and possibly Mr. Donahue.
Some may be trite and some I consider extremely important. I'm going
to be thumbing through, because I have notes on the margin of the
agreement to indicate that I have a question.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 34
On page 12, on top of the page I have a question since
this is a Redevelopment Project, having to do with the Redevelop-
ment Agency, do all the requirements of the Building Department, the
Planning Department, Planning Commission, as would be required of
any other developer, do those prevail in this particular, in this
particular project?
MURRAY KANE: Yes, the developer is required to meet all
City requirements the same as any other person or entity developing
in the City of Bakersfield. In addition to that, as spelled out in
the agreement before you, the Redevelopment Agency has additional
architectural review and control of the plans, which would be in
addition to the normal City requirements.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Then skipping down to the last para-
graph of Item 4, there is an indication that there's a 10-day period
for determining whether a proposed change is in conformity or some--
thing. Might I ask first who determines if the proposed changes con-
form to the requirements of Section 304 in the scope of development
and then I question, is 10 days sufficient time for the Agency or
the governmental body to approve or object. The reason I say that,
is that, if they don't object,
within 10 days and I'm curious
the ....
I gather, it indicates approval
whether l0 days is sufficient for
MURRAY KANE: To answer the first question, the Redevelop-
ment Agency and its staff, based upon staff recommendation but
independent review, would have to agree to each proposed change.
So, if this is not .... this decision on whether or not the change
conforms to the requirements here is not something that the developer
can unilaterally demonstrate. It must be agreed to by the Agency.
The second issue as to the 10 days, to put this in perspective,
these are changes in final working drawings, which would really
follow some .... the best part of one year in terms of the developer
and the Agency going through, starting with conceptual plans and
going to preliminary plans, going into working plans and so on.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 35
So it's not anticipated after all that time that is spent on these
that anything of any major substance would come up at that point.
Occasionally a lender would have a particular requirement and so
on, but we have not had a problem with the l0 day provision in the
past. I should ask Mr. Kelmar whether or not he thinks that l0 days
is sufficient time for his staff to review changes in the working
drawings.
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: Maybe Mr. Needham who is responsible
for the Building Department could answer that.
DIRECTOR OF FIRE & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NEEDHAM: Dennis
Needham. In most cases perspective changes or proposed changes in
projects such as this probably could be reviewed and determinations
made by staff unless, of course, they were very extensive. Some-
thing on a extensive basis that maybe would change the structural
content or whatever, the main structure, may take more time. But I
would say, in general or probably,
might make that aren't significant,
period of time.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: So you feel we are adequately pro-
tected in the 10 day period?
DIRECTOR OF FIRE & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES NEEDHAM: Yes,
like I say, unless it is tremendously significant change then it may
take a little longer, but I would think that would not happen in
this instance.
MURRAY KANE: No, and if it did, I should point out and
add to what I said previously, these refer to merely to changes in
the final working drawings. If the change is a significant or sub-
stantial enough changes to be a change to the architectural plans
and the plans that have been previously approved by the Agency they
would not cover the .... come under this particular provision. This is
just changes to the final working drawings.
proposed changes that the developer
l0 days would be a appropriate
170
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 36
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Now then go to the first paragraph
of page 14 and I should say that some of these would be trite and
this is trite. You require that the developer's person accompany
the staff's person in an inspection and I would just ask that the
accompaniment should not be unreasonably denied. I don't think
that anybody's going to argue that.
MURRAY KANE: That's fine.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF; Then in the first paragraph of page
15, we're talking about easements and I don't know whether the para-
graph specifically is talking about easements, but since they ....
since the developer does not have title to the parking structure
parcel, are we protected against any easements being placed on that
property voluntarily or involuntarily?
MURRAY KANE: Yes, we are. First the fee title to the
public parking facility will be held by the Agency and it is not
possible under California law for a public entity to be made subject
to a Prescriptive Easement. Even if it were, in this particular
case the use of that facility by the developer and the major
department stores and the people parking, is solely pursuant to
the Reciprocal Easement Agreement and the rights contained in that
agreement. And so, yes, we do feel we are protected.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: My next question is in Attachment
Number 2 - the parking sublease payment on page 2 of Attachment 2,
paragraph b. It states developer shall guarantee to pay the Agency
and parking sublease payment the sum of 700,000 per year in quarterly
installments in advance for each year of the sublease term, commenc-
ing upon the date established in the Schedule of Performance for the
opening of the retail center. Now, when is that specifically ....
I personally believe the rent should begin when the property is made
available to the developer. Now, am I correct or is it at some such
other time?
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 37
171
MURRAY KANE: No, it's important that an absolute date for
the commencement of developer payments be included in the agreement,
because we would be selling the lease revenue bonds and the
lease revenue bonds would have approximately 2 years funded interest.
But after those 2 years funded interest we would need the developer's
rental to make the next .... a portion of the 3rd years debt service.
So we can't make a contingent liability on
It must be an absolute liability on a date
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: And what is
the part of the developer.
certain.
that date, sir?
MURRAY KANE: That date would be the date set forth in
the Schedule of Performance of the opening of the shopping center,
which would be Attachment No. 3, Item 25, on Page 3, two years
after the date scheduled for commencement of construction.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: So, therefore, he has use of the prop-
erty for 2 years without a rental payment? Is that the way I under-
stand that?
MURRAY KANE: Well no, the use during those 2 years would
be solely for construction of a garage for which there would be no
revenue or any use in a real sense, other than just to build a garage
at their expense or their financing.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Then I'll continue in that paragraph ....
and let's see .... and the payment shall continue so long as there's
outstanding indebtedness of the Agency associated with this develop-
ment, thereafter the annual sublease payment shall be 350, which I
gather has been changed to 300, where the fair rental value of the
public parking facility parcel at such time, whichever is less.
My question is, how can we in all good conscience accept less than
fair market value?
MURRAY KANE: No,
there is that it should be
is less.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF:
what I'm saying.
that's .... we can't. What is intended
$300,000 or the fair rental, whichever
Whichever is less, that's exactly
172
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 38
MURRAY KANE: Actually what you're saying is there's a
chance that the 300,000 may be less than the fair market value.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Yeah. See my personal opinion is
the $700,000 is fair value, based on what I've read right now, and
it seems to me that after 25 years, if we have inflation, fair
market value may be quite in excess of the ~700,000.
MURRAY KANE: Right. I think that focusing just on this
particular sentence, that's absolutely true. In the context of
the entire package of payments and debts and expenses and risks,
that the developer is obligated to .... and I'd like to refer this
to Mr. Botti, the Economic Analyst. We feel that, taken as a whole,
the developer is paying a fair value for this economic opportunity,
with this provision. Mr. Botti
DICK BOTTI: This issue that's before us now is the .... was
the last issue raised by the developer in negotiations late last
week. I don't mean to speak for Mr. Donahue, but let me see if I
can explain their position with respect to the reduction of that
lease payment.
They are saying that they're paying more than the estab-
lished minimum fair compensation for this transaction in order to
put the package together. They are guaranteeing to buy the fourth
department store pad, prior to their knowledge that they can secure
a fourth department store, because the Agency needs the additional
million dollars to close the transaction. They've agreed to loan to
the Agency $350,000, if the Agency needs the money. They have agreed
to give the Agency, on an annual basis, up to $200,000 if the tax
increment projections are insufficient to cover the debt service, to
be repaid back at some point in time with no interest on that $200,000.
Their position is that since they're doing all of this above what
we've established as a minimum compensation, they are, in fact,
prepaying that lease in the future, and they would like the right
that when the lease .... there's no more obligations to pay that
$700,000 to be reduced to some number. That's a philosophical point
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 39
'173
of view. The number of $300,000 was arrived by our firm on the
basis of what that value of that land would be today if were just
for regional shopping center valued at between $4.00 & $5 00 a
square foot and that payment would have been between $280 000 and
$330,000 per year and the number came back at $300,000.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Could I ask for a computation o£
that given to us, along with other computations that you're going
to make so that we can a ....
DICK BOTTI: Sure, I will do that.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Okay ....
DICK BOTTI: And there are a number of ways we could have
handled that .... we could have addressed all the compensation that
they would have made over time in addition to the $200,000 or
$330,000, carry that forward with interest and, you know, the book-
keeping becomes horrendous. That's their position and we tried
to try to recognize the fact that they pay our having some contin-
gent liabilities on their part in order to close the financial gaps
and that's our recommendation.
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor and Councilman Rockoff, in
addition draw your attention to the language there that says that
that lease payment is reduced after the indebtedness to the Agency,
for this development, is paid. And that's different than when the
bonds are paid. As an example, if, by the point in time that the
bonds are paid the Agency has not paid the City for its property,
that is an indebtedness incurred to finance this development. The
amount, this $700,000 payment, would continue until the City had
been reimbursed for the cost of this property. So if we .... it was
specifically written so that no reduction would take place until
this development .... the books on this development, if you were, were
cleared as far as the Agency's debts were concerned.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Are you telling me that if we don't
ever pay the City the $635,000, we, therefore, can continue to
collect the $700,000 a year?
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 40
CAL HOLLIS: Well, the $700,000 would be applied to the
Agency's debt, so that if .... let's say by the year .... let's say that
the debt for this property cannot be repaid, the $635,000, plus
whatever interest the Agency and Council had agreed upon, were not
paid by that point in time .... the increment had not risen to
that point or for whatever reason .... this payment at this level
would continue applying that lease payment to the debt owed to the
City. We wanted to be sure that this development paid for all of
its debts before there was any
agreement now provides for.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF:
rent reduction and that's what this
Okay, I don't think we'll belabor it,
but we will get the computations so that we can determine whether or
not the rationale is fair.
The next paragraph deals with the option of the developer
or the department stores to purchase the proximate parking facility
and I question how practical it is where you give an option to either
the developer or the .... any department store to purchase a part
of the parking facility, where the City or the Redevelopment
Agency is still operating the other part. It just seems very
impractical to me and I can see potential problems and it just
seems that somewhere along line it has to be either/or.
MURRAY KANE: We should clarify that the Agency does
not own the parking structure and that the developer will be oper-
ating the entire parking structure. All we are talking about in
this particular case is the land, the ownership of the land under-
lying the parking structure. So I don't think there would be any
practical impact in terms of the ownership of that land. It would
still be subject to the Reciprocal Easement Agreement and still be
maintained and operated and paid for and supported along the ....
exactly the same .... do it as before. It would just be---it would
basically be a title transaction on the underlying land.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 41
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Okay, now I'd like to skip down to
Paragraph C. It .... I guess is based, if, somehow Prop. 13 would
be rescinded and property taxes were increased on the piece of
property. That the developer and/or the department stores, whoever
owned the physical property, could deduct from the amount that they
pay as lease payment the additional property taxes that they would
be assessed under a new property tax law. I have a problem with
that in all honesty, because it gives them an advantage, I feel,
over anybody else who going to be subjected to higher property taxes,
whether it be somebody who is in the Redevelopment Agency and doesn't
have that in his agreement or somebody who is not in the Redevelop-
ment Agency and just has to take the new State law as it comes.
find that I have a little problem with that type of rationale.
MURRAY KANE: Madam Mayor and Councilman Rockoff, the
Paragraph C on page 2 does indeed commit the developer to receive a
credit in the event tax rates are increased and the Agency receives
the additional tax increment thereby. However, at the top of the
next page, Paragraph D, likewise gives the developer an additional
obligation, above the $700,000 lease payment, in the event there are
tax rate changes and changes in the tax law which diminish the
Agency's tax increments. Clearly the agreement could be written one
of two ways. Clearly the Agency could take back from the developer
the right to receive the windfall of the new tax increment in the
event tax rates were .... taxes .... tax rates were increased. However,
if we did that we would also lose the protection of Paragraph B on
the next page, in the event the tax rates were reduced. It seems to
us that our primary purpose here is to present a fiscal package to
the Agency, which contains maximum assurances that we're going to
have the funds to pay off the debt that is established to bring
about this project and finance this project. Therefore, we have
considered it an advantage to the Agency to give up the windfall in
return for the insurance policy, if you will, 0f additional lease
payments in the event of reduction in tax increments, so that we
176
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 42
can be assured that we would not suffer and would not be in default
on our obligations in the event o£ these events. Clearly the agree-
ment could be written either way and this is still an issue that is
certainly appropriate for the Council and the Agency to consider.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: You know, I can only give my personal
opinions since basically it's a gamble. I would certainly gamble
on property taxes going up rather than down at this point. So
that's only my personal opinion.
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor and Councilman Rockoff. The
history behind this provision is Proposition 13. There are a
number of Redevelopment Agencies that sold tax increment bonds,
based upon agreements that did not have this provision, and those
increment bonds are now suf£ering some difficulty. We didn't want
to guess what was going to happen, say, 15 years from now, where
we might have a whole new tax system. Crazier things have happened.
So that that's why this is being suggested to you. We are looking
at the long-term, not being able to forecast what's going to happen
with the tax system and so we wanted to make sure that the credit
rating of the Agency was protected here over the long-term. That's
why this is being recommended to you and I personally am recommend-
ing this provision.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: So since it could go either way
the Council could make a decision as to which way we wanted to
gamble.
In paragraph F of page 3, I think they're dealing with
the Daon Corporation's guarantee of the $700,000 lease payment and
my question is should the center be sold before the three year
period, does that guarantee still continue or does that then
disappear?
CAL HOLLIS:
MURRAY KANE:
It would disappear.
It would continue only so
developer owns the center.
long as the
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 43
177
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: And the developer has the right to
sell the center at any time, I assume.
MURRAY KANE: Only upon the completion of the entire
facility as agreed upon.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF:
MURRAY KANE: Yeah,
Page 4.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF:
Do all
Does that mean ....
once it's finished.
Okay. Going to the next page,
of the provisions of Paragraph H continue with a
new Owner, in other words participation in the cash flow and
subsequent sales.
MURRAY KANE: In the event of a sale, on Page 5, there
is a provision for the formula to stop, however, only upon payment,
by the developer, of 20% of the net profits realized in that sale.
So that the participation formula, in the event of a sale, would
not continue. However, the Agency would receive a one time payment
equal to 20% of the net profits realized by the developer on resale.
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: Just one other comment. I think
what's important here is if the .... you know, we have to look at as
well, as if the center is sold, that it would be sold at a substan-
tially higher price, which would also, then, increase the tax incre-
ment that would be coming to the Agency, because of the, you know,
new market value.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: Believe it or not, I'm through, and
I thank you very much. You've been very informative.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I think the discussion has been good
in terms of the City getting a good deal on the specific agreement,
but I think a number of things have been overlooked that haven't
been talked about yet that I think present some problems, that I
don't know if we can overcome. One of them, not to pre-empt your
show, has to do with our ability to sell bonds, and I would like
some discussion, from Mr. Rafferty, about our attempts to try and
sell bonds in the near future, short-term bonds, and then what are
we going to do and what are our chances of doing that.
17P,
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 44
JAMES RAFFERTY: My name is James Rafferty and my firm
is Rafferty, Guerin and Company. We've had the privilege of work-
ing for the City of Bakersfield on bond issues over a period of
many years and we're under contract at the present time to work
on the proposed issue here as a representative of the Redevelopment
Agency.
As recently as January this year, and possibly as
recently as March of this year, the Redevelopment Agency, in my
opinion, could have sold 10% bonds, which was a maximum rate of
interest most of them could bear. Since that time there's been a
serious deterioration in the bond market. Now there had been some
adjustments. The Legislature has recently passed a bill permit-
ting interest rates as high as 12% to be used. I don't know whether
that bill has been signed by the Governor or not. But I don't
know how germane that is to the present situation, inasmuch as the
financing plan, that Mr. Hollis has discussed with you, in my under-
standing is geared to a 10% rate and it also contemplates bonds
being issued with a maximum maturity of something like 27 or 28
years. The interest rates have gone up dramatically between
approximately July 1 and September l; high grade tax exempt bonds,
the interest rate went up from 11½ to 14%. Now, obviously, this
is a long ways from the 10% rate based on .... which this deal might
hopefully be done. Within the last few weeks that shrunk to about
13½, but we're still a long way away. But the interest rates pattern
is only part of the story. In effect there has been no market for
long-term bonds. Investors are so afraid of the ultimate purchas-
ing power of the dollar, that comes back to them in principal at
maturity, that they are reluctant to lend. And I think that's
matched in the real estate field by the reluctance of people to make
long-term mortgages. As a result we have a problem of trying to
find a way to do this at a rate of interest below the current market.
Now this deal is a complicated deal, but in the years I've been in
the business I've seen lots of complicated deals and most of them,
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 45
179
if there's a genuine need for the project, somehow get financed,
and I think the way this deal has proceeded, that is likely to
happen. The problems may be solved. Frankly, I didn't want to
be in the position where everybody else there solved his share of
the problem and then I was working to write a prospectus and offer
the bonds for sale, there were no bidders for those bonds. And so
I was the one that initiated the conversations with the Bank of
America. Why did I do that? They are virtually the only bank, in
the State, which is in the municipal consulting business. Many of
the other banks are dealers in tax exempt bonds, they buy and sell
them, some go into their own investment account, but they deal and
sell others to insurance companies and other banks around the
Country. The Bank of America, in my opinion, is the only one which
you might call as a Financial Consultant, who is at one and the same
time an investor or a consumer. There are large investment firms
that are in the consulting business, and if they were to buy bonds
they, of course, would try to resell them, but they wouldn't bid
for the bonds unless they were reasonably certain that those orders
were going to be there to provide the money. So, after some dis-
cussion with your City Manager I decided that even though I have a
contract to represent you that I would much rather be in a situa-
tion where every means was exhausted to make this thing financially
feasible and I wanted to talk to the Bank of America to see whether
they would joint venture with us in the capacity as Financing Consul-
tants.
I have had preliminary discussions with them. They are
interested in the situation, but I cannot represent to you, at the
moment, that they are going to do this. The inhibiting problem is
that they have recently taken on the job of becoming Financial
Consultants to both New York City and the State of New York, and
the Senior Vice-President of this department has just moved back
to New York with the view of living there for a year to get this
thing off the ground. The Manager of the department, another
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 46
Vice-President with whom I've been talking, is in New York at the
present time. He has a date to visit with us, Mr. Hollis has
alluded to this and Mr. Kelmar too. We're trying to meet in Los
Angeles sometime next week. The purpose of that would be to give
them a better understanding of this type of financing or these
three types of financing, which are contemplated here. They are
well aware of the general credit position of the City of Bakersfield
and the Redevelopment Agency. They are well aware too, I think,
through their Branch Manager here, the need for this project.
But, .they want to go into it in some detail so that they can generate
a type of Municipal Bond issue in which they would be willing to be
an investor. They have a policy to bid on every ~unicipal Bond' issue,
which they legally can bid on in the State of California. About
the only ones they can't legally, bid on, I think, are, in some
instances special assessments, but more specifically Revenue Bonds.
Hopefully, then we would have a situation where they will meet with
us and they will tell us that they not only will joint venture on
the consulting end of this business, but that they will, on that
issue in all probability, provide a buying bid. The bonds we
contemplate would still be sold at competitive bidding. Somebody
might bid a lower interest rate than they did. But, this business
of short-term notes is a relatively recent development, because
projects can only get off the ground in this way. As I said there
is practically no long-term money. There was an issue that sold
about two weeks ago with a Triple A rating in the State of Washington.
It was $500,000,000.00, so it took all the underwriting capacity in
the nation. Those bonds, with a Triple A rating, sold at a 15%
interest rate, which for a bank in the, roughly, 50% bracket is
the equivalent of a 30% yield. And that's the only basis on which
long-term money was available. The Bank of America tell me that
they have recently done a short-term note deal, on a one-year
maturity. Now I don't know that one year maturity might be what
they're talking about here or something longer than that, but the
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 47
interest rate was in the neighborhood 8%. If a note is used the
object is to continue to refinance it at maturity, until such a t~me
as the market accepts the paper at something like the 10% rate,
based on which Mr. Hollis's feasibility study is done. I cannot
tell you that the Bank of America is going to join me in this. It
is possible that as they get deeper into the investigation they may
find problems, but, frankly, it was the only recourse that I could
see. I didn't want to be in a position where we offered the bonds
for sale and no bid was received. I've been trying, with consider-
able encouragement from your City Manager, to do everything we could
to develop, what I call, a consumer-investor proposal. I hope that
can be done.
MAYOR SHELL: Thank you, Mr. Rafferty. Are there
questions? Councilman Rockoff.
COUNCILMAN ROCKOFF: In the case of the short-term
financing, if for some reason we can't get a refinance at the end
of a year, where are we?
JAMES RAFFERTY: I think that the .... again I hesitate to
even discuss this aspect since I don't want to put any words in the
mouth of the representative of the Bank of America. But, I think
in general the implication is that they would, again, invest and
roll the bonds over, if necessary, to keep the project solvent.
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: I would just like to comment on my
personal feelings. I'm not sure that even a one year note would be
acceptable as far as I was concerned. I think it would have to be of,
you know, enough duration that we know we could at least get the
project completed.
MAYOR SHELL: Yes, Councilman Christensen you've wanted
to be recognized. Did you want to speak on this?
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: Well, I want to know whether
all the rest of us were going through all our questions, and if we
were, I would like to take about a 10 minute recess.
Bakers£ield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 48
MAYOR SHELL: All right,
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN:
that we adjourn.
MAYOR SHELL: Oh,
question here.
just one ....
If not I would like to move
just a moment, Councilman Means has a
Yes.
We'll recess for l0 minutes.
10:00 P.M. and reconvened at
MAYOR SHELL:
l0 minute recess.
me that Councilman
correct?
It is l0 minutes after 10. We have had a
Would you please take your seats. It seems to
Christensen .... you had some questions, is that
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: No, I'm ....
MAYOR SHELL: You're finished .... Councilman Means, you
had questions?
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes, I have several different areas.
Just to finish up with Mr. Rafferty. It seems that .... a major
concern that I have is that, yes, we have reduced the City's
liability, if you will, say maybe down to the $9,000,000.00 bonds,
but with the extreme problems that we're having with bond market
right now and any sort of deal we can put together with .... and
working together with Bank of America .... in fact makes it more
risky than ever before, is ....
JAMES RAFFERTY: I wouldn't concur in that
although I may be taking an optimistic view. I just
interest
particularly,
assume when
rates are twice what they've ever been before that someday
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN:
MAYOR SHELL: l0 minutes.
(The Joint Meeting was recessed at
10:10 P.M.)
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I still have a number of questions.
I want to know, is Mr. Christensen asking for a recess?
MAYOR SHELL: All right, all right .... You'd like a
recess?
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: Yes.
MAYOR SHELL: l0 minutes?
Bakers£ield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 49
we might get back to a more normal position. If the project can be
financed on a short-term basis and can be rolled over until such a
time as a lower interest rate than is now available can be obtained,
I think that the~pr~ject could very easily be more ~cceptable than
it was a year ago, when we talking of a 10% rate.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: But, what do you estimate the number of
times we are going to have to roll those over?
JAMES RAFFERTY: Pure conjecture. That again depends on
what the maturity is. But, I gather that most people expect the
interest rates might go higher before this year is over, but most
people I talk to do expect lower interest rates before 1982 is
past. How much lower I don't know. I've been in this business 48
years. I thought I'd seen everything up until about 1970 and they've
rewritten the book.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: But, wouldn't you say that .... at least
it appears to me, and I'm purely an amateur compared to your
experience, probably anyone's experience, but it seems to me that
because of having to deal with this short-term bond issue and any
potential number of times we have to roll those over, that that
increases the complexity of the deal and just by nature would then
have to increase the riskiness.
JAMES RAFFERTY: There's some favorable aspects to this
type of financing. For example, the one deal the Bank of America
has done, and I don't even know for sure what City, but I understand
the rate was around the 8% rate. So that was to .... in this case it
would be to provide the money to get the project under way,
essentially to acquire the land. But that money would not all be
paid out at one time and once the money is received, on bond delivery,
until it's expended to acquire these parcels it's invested and you
can invest it in government bonds for up to, I think, a three year
period of time without running into some arbitrage restrictions and
at the present time you could be making 6 to 7% on that money; it'd
be a very sizable amount of money.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 50
COUNCILMAN MEANS: If there are some advantages, there
must be some disadvantages, otherwise, previously, we wouldn't have
been considering the long-term bonds.
JAMES RAFFERTY: Well, the disadvantages are, the Municipal
Bond business has always been structured to finance something for
a long period of time, so that the costs were known. For example,
a great number of bonds are revenue bonds. They're sold with a
contract with a bond holder that whatever utility rates are nec-
essary to service those bonds will be charged the people. Now,
if the interest rates are going up, it means you have a building
situation where sometime along the line the Council has to bite
the bullet and raise the utility rates. Under those circumstances
it's much better if you have a lon~-term rate and you know in
advance what the money costs is going to be for the life, useful
life, of the improvement you're contemplating financing. So, it
is possible, certainly it would be possible that you could finance
this on a short-term basis and you might roll it over, I don't
know, and find that we were in a period of perpetually high rates.
Never been that way, but, as I say, we've got a brand new book.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: So what are the risks?
JAMES RAFFERTY: Well, I don't know all the risks. I
haven't thought about the risks.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: What are some ....
JAMES RAFFERTY: But I think that, if for example, the
rates went to 20% and hung there, you'd be in a position where you
still, by rolling the bonds over, would almost certainly get lower
interest rates for short maturities than for long maturities. As
I've discussed with you, there is really no market for 25 to 30
year bonds. But there's still people that want to buy tax exempt
bonds, but they want to buy short maturities. So, there is a strong
market for short maturities at the present time and presumably
there would continue to be a strong market for short maturities,
until people felt that the uncertainties had been resolved and they
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 51
could afford to buy long maturities with reasonable expecta-
tion that the dollars they receive back at maturity would still
have good purchasing power. The problem is, at the present
time, they don't know the degree of inflation and so they don't
want to buy bonds, in many cases at 10% let's say, which is
historically an enormous rate of return, because nobody knows
what the inflation rate is and they suspect it would be quite
high and that they would be a loser buying long-term bonds, even
at a generous 10%. I don't profess to be an expert in the trend
of money rates. That's another facility that the Bank of America,
if they will join with us, will provide. They are loaded with
economists, whose job it is to advise the bank on the trend of
interest rates, so, they, in turn, can make their judgments when
they're lending. As to the period for which they want to lend,
in anticipation that the money would be coming back and conceivably
be lent at a higher rate, where they might make longer loans, if
they anticipated rates were going to go down, because they would
like to freeze the present high pattern of interest rates for a
long period in the future.
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor, Councilman Means,the question
of risk, when you look at these bond issues, I think you have to
look at what these bond issues are, what the structure of them
is and what the security for each of the issues are. Let's say
that an issue was sold, say a four year note was issued and take
the tax increment note, what would happen in the event that you
couldn't refund. You sell a four year note. The time comes to
refund. You've pledged, when you sold the note, that you would
use your best efforts to refund at the time that the bonds were
then due. You have increments sufficient to pay the current inter-
est on the notes, say at 10%, and you go to refund and'its at ~0%
and you don't have enough increment to cover 14%. Ultimately,
bottom line, the worst case position to the Agency is the Agency
goes to the current holders of the bonds and say we cannot refund.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 52
It's impossible. We don't have enough revenue. Can the bond
holders look to the City to make those payments? No. Can the
bond holders foreclose against Agency owned property? No. All you
are pledging is property tax revenue that comes to the Agency.
That's all you have to pledge and that's all that you're guarantee-
ing that the bond holders that you will give them. So, then
the bond holder is in the position .... the bond holder took the
risk at the time he purchased the bonds. You will fully disclose
everything to the bond holder, believe me, at the time when you
go to issue whatever financing you go to issue. The bond holder
will then weight that risk and he will decide, for himself as an
investor, yes I'm willing to take the risk that the money will be
there and no I'm not willing to take the risk. He takes the risk
and the Agency issues the bonds to him. The time comes to refund
the note. You go back to the bond holder and say, we can't refund
the note, but we're perfectly happy to continue our obligation to
you under this .... under these bonds. We will roll those bonds
over, continue paying you the interest that we can afford to pay
you and we will give you another covenant that we will refund
this bond issue at such time as we are able to. Again, it's a
bond holder's risk. That's why the bond holder is being paid
interest, because he's taking a certain amount of risk and you're
relying upon a bond holder with proper knowledge to determine
what risks he's willing to take.
To look at the lease revenue bonds, you're in primarily ....
practically the same position. You have pledged lease revenue.
The City has obligated itself to a specific amount of lease paymenu,
and that lease payment is equal to the debt service on the notes
that were sold. The City is not saying at the point in time when
these notes are to be refunded we will pay whatever we need to pay
to allow the Agency to refund. That's not what you're promising
to do. You're promising to make a specific payment, which is a
debt service on the notes. Time comes to refund those notes, if
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 53
187
the City .... if the Agency, again these are Agency bonds, is unable
to refund those notes they go back to the bond holder again and say
we can't refund these notes. We will be happy to roll them over,
continue to pay what we have in the past and promise to use our best
efforts to refund in the future. Again, those are risks that the
bond holder takes, just as you as a private investor looks to various
alternatives you have to invest your funds and you decide what risks
you are willing to take.
The third bond issue, the assessment issued bond, again,
the City has absolutely no risk. Under those bonds you are not
obligating the City to pay one dime on those bonds. The property
owner, in that case, is at risk. The property owner has pledged a
security for those bonds, his property. So, that a decision that's
.... one point where the property owner, in this case the retail
center, is at risk. Again, you as an Agency have no funds committed
to those bond holders. You, as a City, have no funds committed to
those bond holders. So, when you say, what are the risks, there are
risks that the Agency would default on those bond issues and that's
a risk that you're asking the bond market to take and that's their
prerogative. Your decision is, do you want to allow them to take
that risk or will you prefer not to allow them to take that risk,
if it comes to issuing short-term notes.
JAMES RAFFERTY: There's another aspect to this, which
would be considered. There are insurance companies insure prin-
cipal and interest on Municipal Bonds. If the default occurs the
bond holder gets paid. He turns over his defaulted coupons or his
defaulted bond at maturity and the insurance company takes the
risk. The premium for this insurance is relatively moderate, assum-
ing that they think that the bond is a sound security and many of
the largest insurance companies have grown .... have come together in
two particular groups and this type of insurance is offered. It
will be, at least, discussed here when a decision is made as to
what the security instrument will be, because it does indemnify the
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 54
actual purchaser against not getting punctually paid. But, some-
body bears the risk, but it will be an insurance company who is
attuned to the risk pattern.
COUNCILMAN ~EANS: Is there a risk that .... say we get a
short-term note, for whatever length of time .... say 8%, is there
not a risk at the end of that 2, 3, or 4 year period that it would
be difficult to get a .... to sell a bond issue for under 10%,
assuming the interest rates continue to rise?
JAMES RAFFERTY: Well, I think that will always be a prob-
lem, if interest rates continue to rise, as to what degree you would
get accepted. But, by and large, short maturities, with rare
exceptions, always sell at substantially longer yields than long
maturities. As I illustrated in the "K" Street .... which the Bank
of America has recently done .... the rate is 8% and I don't think
that long maturities could be sold below, let's say, 13%, just to
pick a number out of the air.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: But again, it is conceivable, if
interest rates in general continue to rise, that we could be in
a position, assuming a 3 year note where short-term interest ....
our interest for short-term bonds, could be above 10%.
JAMES RAFFERTY:
COUNCILMAN MEANS:
JAMES RAFFERTY:
I think that is possibly true, yes.
And our deal is based on ....
There is no .... I don't think anybody
can give you assurances that the market will not be in such
catastrophic condition that there won't be problems in the future.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: My point is, Mayor, that that's one
of the risks and one of the disadvantages of the short-term bond
issue rather than a long-term bond issue.
JAMES RAFFERTY: I think if the Bank of America gets
interested in this project and coincides with the security that's
to be issued that they, in effect, can be depended on to bid for
the bonds. Now, they are not going to normally pay an interest
rate below the market rate. So, the future pattern of interest
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 55
rates is something that nobody can be protected against. That's
why so many bond issues have been withdrawn and projects are not
going forward, because there is no long-term availability of money,
and the idea of possibly talking to a short-term loan here is to
fund a project, if the City and the Redevelopment Agency and your
citizens think it's essential, it is a way to get the project done.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Thank you. I have another question
on the land acquisition. What are our most recent .... I might say
you .... I think it was Mr. Hollis had mentioned .... somebody mentioned
the discussions of the land acquisition costs as broken down here and
those were based on an appraisal that was done .... when? .... now at
this point.
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor, Councilman Means, those appraisals
were completed, I believe, in July and we escalated those an additional
three months. So, they are as current as they could possibly be at
this point in time. Those are based on appraisals by appraisers
commissioned by the Agency as recently as, I believe, July of this
year.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: And then you .... excuse me then you
extrapolated, did you perhaps ....
CAL HOLLIS: Yes, yes we did. We escalated them based on
the escalation in property .... the escalation rate in property in
Downtown Bakersfield in the last six months as provided by the
appraisers.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: So, what you did is you took from
January to July and then ....
CAL HOLLIS: No, we took,
firm, took the appraisals that were
excuse me, we, meaning our
done in July, which were .... which
gave us July values, escalated those at the rate the property increased
from January through July.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Correct.
CAL HOLLIS: Those represent what we think to be current
values, if you will.
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 56
COUNCILMAN MEANS: But, isn't it true that there's at
least a pretty decent chance that as .... after the UDAG Grant was
turned down and then the Council went ahead and proceeded when it
looked like we were putting together a deal that didn't require
public financing or the UDAG Grant. and at least in the public's
mind as it became more apparent that, in fact, the deal might go
through, that the land costs would escalate much much faster than
they had prior to that time. So, in fact, the land values have
continued to go up more as it gets closer to us putting together a
deal?
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor, Councilman Means,
appraisal hasn't been done, as of today, I can't give
answer on that. I have been told that there's property offered in
the downtown area which is somewhat less than what fhe appraisers
were estimating. That's all I can tell you. I couldn't tell you
how fast they escalated since July, because we don't have any data
that supports that.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: You .... I would
appraisal values of the property. It seems
potential area that we're looking at in acquiring the land and
squabbles over what the land is worth, and certainly a lot of our
confidence that the whole process is going to go through is based
on how close those appraisals are to actually being able to settle.
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor, staff has received appraisal
reports by the appraisers that were selected by the Agency. All
these appraisers were local appraising companies that the City has
.... as I understand the City has relied upon in the past in its
acquisition. So, those reports are available, I assume, with the
City staff or Agency staff.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I would like that information avail-
able to us, so that we have a pretty good idea of, in fact, that
process and what's going on.
because an
you a definitive
like information on the
like that is another
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 57
1'91
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: Exactly what are you talking
Councilman Means?
apprised
through,
about ,
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I'm talking about, I want to be
of .... during that process, assuming that this would go
of the negotiations that goes on with the City, how much
the City is going to pay for that land down there on each particular
property owner. Each particular property is going to be trying to
get as much money for their property as they can. Isn't that
correct?
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: You're saying, if this goes through?
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes. If we decide to proceed with this,
with the agreement, then we begin to acquiring the .... acquire the
land we're going to have to deal with each particular .... individual
property owner, correct?
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: That's correct ....
COUNCILMAN MEANS: and we're going to have to arrive at
some mutual agreed amount of money that that property is worth ....
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: That's correct ....
COUNCILMAN MEANS:
then what happens?
MURRAY KANE: In
and if we don't arrive at some agreement,
the event that we
cannot acquire the
a public
to acquire
done by a
property through negotiation, the Agency would then conduct
hearing and consider the filing of an Eminent Domain action
the property at its fair market value and this would be
trial through either a Judge or a Jury.
UNKNOWN: All right, that's correct.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: That's as I understand it. And if, in
fact, our appraisals were off some considerable amount, for whatever
particular reason, of course we assume that they are not and that's
why we have had .... hired the three appraisers that we did, and we
were off substantially with a number of property owners; in fact, we
could be tied up for quite sometime in acquiring that property, isn't
that correct?
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 58
MURRAY KANE: No, in terms of the time it would take, the
Agency would deposit the amount of its appraisal into court and obtain
an Order of Immediate Possession. The amended Joint Development
Agreement provides for the transfer, by the Agency, of that pretrial
Order of Immediate Possession to the developer and that is financeable
and the title insurance companies will insure it and they can begin
construction, allow the Eminent Domain action to proceed.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Right, thank you for correcting
that. But, in fact. the risk has to do with the amount of money
that we ....
MURRAY KANE: The dollar risk is there ....
COUNCILMAN MEANS: That the risk is that we could incur
higher payments for those properties than
MURRAY KANE: Yes.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: And, in fact,
in cur.
we have
appraised.
that's the risk that we
MURRAY KANE: That's correct.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Thank you.
MAYOR SHELL: Do you have any more questions, Councilman
Means? I have a couple of questions. On this provision, Mr.
Kane, on Attachment 2, page 2, on the credits against lease revenue
payments in the event that the taxes will .... increments would be
substantially higher, et cetera, et cetera, couldn't any property
owner .... isn't that unequal treatment, tax treatment, which ....
wouldn't there be a constitutional question there, of unequal tax
treatment?
MURRAY KANE: No, in our opinion there would not.
Basically, we are trying to put together an economic transaction
and the different treatment of this developer as opposed to other
developers revolves around the different risks and obligations that
this developer is assuming and obligating himself to in order to
carry out the development. And basically, many of the provisions
in this agreement have been negotiated solely to give the Agency the
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 59
financial basis it needs to pay off its debts. In the event we
don't need, you know, certain funds to pay off our debts, it's
within our purview to forego receipt of those funds. So here, we're
not just talking about the payment of property taxes under the prop-
erty tax system. We're talking about the allocation of risks and
the allocation of cost between the Agency and developer, which is
permissible under the Redevelopment law.
MAYOR SHELL: I don't know who could answer this. It's
about relocation of people who are .... their businesses are in this
area. Say they have a property that is clear or they have a property
on which their loan is like 8% or a low percentage and in the process
of relocating these people, if they, in an equal, I presume and equal
building of equal size, etc., comparing costs today, construction
costs, etc., if .... does the Agency pay them for extra interest that
they might incur, interest rates?
MURRAY KANE: In this particular development the answer is
yes. There are .... at the time the last amendment to the Redevelop-
ment Plan was brought before the Agency and the City Council, in
the Agency's report to Council there were a number of provisions that
were added regarding the relocation of businesses that went beyond
the minimal requirements in the State law.
specifically address itself to that problem,
a real problem faced by people displaced by
The State law does not
but it is, nevertheless,
the project, as is the
question of extra property taxes, because if they stayed in place
you know, they would be limited to a 2% per year increase. But, if
they're displaced they would be, you know, they would be paying the
full fair value, based on the fair value of the new facility. Both
of those, which are real concerns to displacees, have been addressed
and we have provided funds and budgeted funds and put provisions in
this particular development to pay those particular extra costs,
which might be incurred by displacees.
MAYOR SHELL: That's included in the relocation figures?
194
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 60
MURRAY KANE: Yes, that's in
presented to the Council by the Agency
Plan.
the relocation plan that was
in the last amendments to the
that additional increase in property taxes. I assume there's some
sort of a settlement that's made on some sort of an assessment
that's made of the additional property
incurred for the life of the building
of a settlement on that estimate?
tax that are going to be
and then you make some sort
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor, Councilman ~eans, yes, typically
you agree with the property owner on a capitalized an~ upfront pay~ent,
which settles that obligation. The Agency has made the use of
the firm Port & Flor, who provide .... who they .... relocation
experts do a great deal of redevelopment relocation work and
other public agency relocation work throughout the State. They were
the ones that have prepared the relocation budget that are includ-
ed in our analysis. They had originally .... the original budget,
they budgeted a certain amount originally, prior to the time that
the amendment took place and those extra relocation provisions
were added. We then showed them the extra relocation provisions
that the Council added to the plan and they substantially increased
the relocation budget to select that. I can't into the specifics
of how they made their calculations, but they did take those
additional requirements that the Council adopted into account in
preparing this relocation budget.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes, I would like to know how that
calculation was made as to the differential on the property tax.
I mean his increase in property taxes are going to go on for the
entire life of the building and ....
MURRAY KANE: Councilman Means, if I may, as I recall
there is a formula in that plan, which had a cutoff after a partic-
ular period of years, which I think was either 10 or 15 years, but
MAYOR SHELL: I see. Thank you. Councilman ~eans.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: I had a question on how you estimate
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 61
let us get that information to you and refresh our memory on the
exact formula.
MAYOR SHELL: Any more questions from members of the
Council, members of the Agency ....
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: I have ....
MAYOR SHELL: Yes, Mrs. Foth ....
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: Yes, my question is to Mr. Donahue.
What is the amount that the other department stores are paying to
you the developer for their pad sites?
DAN DONAHUE: Well, each one of them is different. First
of all the negotiations with the Penney Company .... first of all in
no case are the negotiations completed. We have letters of under-
standing with them, but the Penney Company would be a build-to-suit,
where we will build for them. May Company will be building its own
building on land that it buys from us, and Gottschalk's currently
is doing the same thing. Now Gottschalk's has asked to take a look,
in the future, at us building the building for them. It depends on
the market rate of interest at the time that we actually go into
construction.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: What amQunts are they paying for this
property?
DAN DONAHUE: Excuse me, I couldn't hear you.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: What is the dollar amount that they're
paying for this property?
DAN DONAHUE: I can't recall specifically. I believe it
is in the City's breakdown of costs.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: I see. It wasn't in any of the infor-
mation that I have, that I saw at least. Does someone have that?
UNKNOWN: Do we have that price ....
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: In other words that is where some of
from, from the stores for their pad
your upfront money is coming
site.
DAN DONAHUE: Yes,
yes.
1.96
Bakers£ield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 62
know
and I
about
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH:
who this question would be directed to, but,
think probably Cal Hollis could answer this.
the developer being generous and paying more,
What is the amount .... and I don't
Madam Mayor,
We've talked
I only notice ....
I thought it was only 500,000, which isn't an only a number, of
course, but nonetheless more than what was deemed to be the value
of the property. Yeah, I'm thinking in terms of this amount that
we said that the reason we're going .... falling back from 700,000
to 300,000 at the expiration of the bond issue, when it's paid off.
We're saying well they've paid all this money and they've paid
extra at the front-end of the project. How much extra at the front-
end?
MURRAY KANE:
of .... we should include
While they are checking into those specifics
in that figure of the extra $350,000 for the
developer has made available to the Agency at our sole discretion to
use as a loan. The extra obligation of the $200,000 a year assess-
ment district and the big one is the assumption by the developer of
the complete financing of the parking structure, which is a big
difference from the previous agreement. All these, of course,
have to be added, you know, taken into account.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: Is it possible that we could come
up with some kind of a figure that would be, may be, more in the
realm of realism for that number? A percentage of the fair market
value rather than to say $300,000 or the fair market value, which-
ever is less.
CAL HOLLIS:
MAYOR SHELL:
CAL HOLLIS:
Madam Mayor ....
Yes Mr. Hollis.
If this .... this
is acceptable because it is
a rather complicated answer. How much more are they paying than
what we feel is the minimum they should be paying. What we would
like to do is to provide you with the detail of calculations and
come down with the bottom .... a bottom line number. We can make
that available to you at the same time in which we make available
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 63
the other information that's been asked by the Council and Agency
members, i£ that's acceptable.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: Sure, that's £ine.
MAYOR SHELL: Do you have another?
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH: I have one last question and this
was, like Art said a while ago, this may be one of the little small
things, but I felt was important and I did ask about it earlier. I
felt that the Certificate of Insurance, required by the Agency, of
the developer is really inadequate. I think it's a million dollars
and I thought---I've been involved in projects that have been
$400,000 projects for road work and have had to have more than that,
so far as insurance coverage is concerned.
MURRAY KANE: Yes, we would be happy, that's a good point
which is well taken, and we would be happy to look into the feasi-
bility of extracting a higher amount of insurance. This is insurance
while the builder is building the developer's buildings. Just in
case anyone would name the Agency and the City as codefendants in
such a lawsuit, even though we're not constructing and it's not an
Agency construction contract But we would .... we are going to look
into increasing that amount.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH The Certificate of Insurance would
be important to have.
MURRAY KANE: Yes.
AGENCY MEMBER FOTH I have no further questions.
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Yes, I had a question of Mr. Donahue.
I've heard that the City got such a good deal on negotiations that
you're going to make little or no money, is that correct?
DAN DONAHUE: Let's rephrase the question, Mr. Means, or
rephrase the statement. A lot of the fun's gone. To say that
we're going to make little or no money, I don't think that we're
a charitable organization. I have not worked eight years to not
make a profit and I think we're entitled to make a profit. I think
that that profit will be made, though, upon the ultimate sale of the
shopping center and will not be made out of the cash flow of the
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 64
center, but I think that's the difference. Whereas, in the past
other opportunities in other communities would result in much
larger annual cash flows of .... predicated upon the financing
market as it exists today,
diminished.
COUNCILMAN MEANS:
DAN DONAHUE: In
COUNCILMAN MEANS:
the annual cash flow is considerably
Thank you, I ....
other words it's a lot less.
I like the way you got right to
the
heart of the matter of
going to make some money out of the deal is by
ing .... ultimately selling the center. I think
point out, because I think that .... points out,
that .... it seems that the best way you're
selling the .... sell-
that's important to
at least where some
of my concerns
ment Agency not only come out ahead of
mall that we're proud of and continues
purchasers of the bonds are assured of
the City is not stuck with something.
are, in that the City not only .... and the Redevelop-
the deal, but also have a
to make money so that the
getting their investment and
DAN DONAHUE: I think there's two ways to look at it,
if I might take just a few more minutes. The financing markets,
as has been alluded to in the bonds, are in chaos; whether their
financing market is for a single family home or whether they're
for a shopping center or whether they're for bonds for General
Motors. We are obviously going to have to use new techniques,
techniques that have heretofore, maybe, never been used in this
Country. Daon has been successful in Canada in public syndication.
There is now on the street public syndication issues here in this
Country. When I say that I mean that the large underwriters sell
shares to individuals like yourself and like myself who may have
5, 10 or $15,000 to invest and in return for that they get .... they
own a percentage of the shopping center, if you will. That is one
viable opportunity. Certainly the rumors, the gross, the sugges-
tions that the pension funds are going to be the savior of develop--
ment in the United States is another opportunity. The ability to
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 65
199
attract offshore funds might yet be the third opportunity. It's
going to be .... maybe a combination of those three that is going to
ultimately provide the total debt. As we see it right now, none
of us has a crystal ball.
1966, making residential
a lady one time and tell
6% and that st~ loan was,
I recall starting in this business in
loans and the rate was 5½% I had to call
her that the rate had bumped from 5½ to
therefore, going to go up and she claimed
that it would going to create all kinds of economic chaos in her
family. Her family survived, her home escalated and she ultimately
bought that loan from the company that I was representing. We have
all found a way to survive in unusual economic times. I can assure
you that there's going to be new techniques and the ways of getting
insurance company monies, in the past, are long gone and that we're
going to have to change our ways and we are taking that into account
in this transaction.
CAL HOLLIS: Madam Mayor ....
COUNCILMAN MEANS: Only in rebut would I like to point
out that also this year, I believe, we have the highest bankruptcy
rate among small businesses then we've had in quite some time. In
addition people are unable to buy homes like never before, because
of high interest rates. I'm sure that the immediate period in
front of us offers us a unlimited opportunity. I think, in fact,
it warrants a certain amount of common sense in making investments.
MURRAY KANE: Absolutely, I would concur 100%.
MAYOR SHELL: Mr. Botti, do you have some ....
DICK BOTTI: Yes, I would like to just make a couple
comments that I think are appropriate. I think that we have to be
very careful when we talk about the connotation of a sale and that
many people think that if developer, in this case, sells the center
there's something wrong with the center. What we're really seeing
in the money market is a two-tiered system, by which, if he as an
owner goes out and tries to secure some sort of long-term debt today,
he will be faced with the long-term of 13 or 14%. There are, however,
2OO
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 66
a whole series of buyers out there, which will buy the project, based
upon a 9½ or 10% rate of money and these are offshore funds, pension
funds. There are legitimate buyers who will buy the property on a
long-term basis, but will simply accept a lower rate of return than
the traditional lenders, because they have property appreciation.
There's certainly nothing wrong with these buyers. The discussions
I had with Mr. Donahue and other developers in Southern California
is that given the current money market conditions and given that
you are not willing to accept a 9½% rate of return, which no
developer should, you effectively will have to become merchant
builders that sell your product upon completion or nothing will
get built. So, I think some of the implications that Mr. Rafferty
talked which will affect the financing of the municipals is also
affecting the financing of real estate. It is a different market,
but the need to sell the project is just a potential need if he
cannot find long-term debt in the l0 to 12% range is something that
I think all development is going to take sooner or later.
MAYOR SHELL: I'd just like to say that we ask a lot
of questions, but I think that the .... I can't speak for anyone
else, I can only speak for myself, but I'm very concerned that
the City and the Agency can meet its financial obligations with-
out going to the taxpayer. We have to have confidence in our own
economic growth in this area and I think that people here do have
confidence, but we have to be pretty well sure that we're going to
be able to meet those obligations on the annual basis and that's
why we're asking a lot of questions.
the advisors to the City to look in
in a conservative manner, because I
We're relying, very much, on
that direction and to advise us
don't think anyone on this
Council would like to be in the position of having to go to the
taxpayers of the City of Bakersfield saying "we can't meet this
and so we're going to have to somehow get it from you," so that's
why .... one of the reasons we're asking a lot of guestions. I have
just one more. If, in the event we could not sell the bonds, how
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 67
many months would the developer wait? Say .... is there a time
there .... how long would you wait for the City to sell those bonds
or the Agency, I beg your pardon?
DAN DONAHUE: I don't know what's called for in the
contract off the top of my head.
MAYOR SHELL: It's in there, I guess.
DAN DONAHUE: Yes, it is.
MAYOR SHELL: Yeah, okay.
DAN DONAHUE: If you cannot .... but I think that we would
have to take a look at where we are .... if the markets were moving
downward and it were a matter of 30 to 60 to 90 days, I think all
of us would be well advised to extend the contract. In other words,
if I have the right, at that point in time, to extend it, we would
probably do that. If, for example, the markets were moving the other
way though, it might be in our best interests to say "it doesn't
appear at in the foreseeable future that the markets are going to be
any better and there is, in fact, no way to finance it." So it's
really a question that we're going to have to answer when, in fact,
that day happens and I really can't give you a specific 90, 30, 60
day period of time. I really think it depends on where the markets
are going when we're faced with that decision.
MURRAY KANE: Yes, I just wanted to mention that the
schedule of performance calls for a 90 day period for the Agency
to sell the bonds, so there'd be no way for the developer to term-
inate prior to that period.
CITY MANAGER KELMAR: Well, I'd just like to comment that
from my perspective I would have some, you know, serious concerns
if this time period went for, you know,----I can't say offhand how
long, but I think we would need to take a serious look at re-evalua-
ting the appraisals and the relocation costs and all of our costs
to see, you know, if it went over any extended period of time,
because, you know, there is speculation going on and everyone is
aware of it. It could affect, you know, the economics of ~he project
202
Bakersfield, California, September 30, 1981 - Page 68
and I think any period of time that would be significant I think
we need to take a real hard look at, you know, the economics of it.
MAYOR SHELL: Anymore? I will entertain a motion to
adjourn the Council and then Chairman Casper would entertain a
motion to adjourn the ....
COUNCILMAN CHRISTENSEN: I so move.
AGENCY MEMBER UNKNOWN: I so move.
MAYOR SHELL: Councilman Christensen has moved that the
Council adjourn, all those in favor please say Aye. (All the
Council stated Aye). Opposed (no response). So ordered.
AGENCY CHAIRMAN CASPER: The Redevelopment Agency stands
adjourned. We don't need a motion.
ADJOURN~ENT
The Special Joint Meeting of the Council and the Bakers-
field Redevelopment Agency adjourned at 10:55 P.M.
MAYOR o~Ci~f Bak~ Calif.
ATTEST:
~CLER~ ffic~
CITY Ex of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
ma/cw