HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPR - JUNE 1973Bakersfield, California, April 2, 1973
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, California, held in the
Council Chambers of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M.,
April 2, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and
Heisey.
Present:
ABsent:
Invocation by Councilman Walter
Minutes of the regular meeting of March 26,
approved as presented.
John R.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Hart. Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker,
Thomas, Whirremote
Councilman Bleecker
1973 were
Correspondence.
A communication was received by the City Clerk from
Dory, Tax Collector, advising that the Board of Super-
visors had approved a resolution giving notice that it is the
intention of the Tax and License Collector to sell at sealed bid
sale 800 parcels of mineral rights only under property located in
the County of Kern.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rucker called the Council's attention to
the gambling problem existing in areas such as Lakeview Avenue
and the California Avenue Park in his Ward, and stated that the
City County Cooperation Committee held a meeting and are recom-
mending that the City adopt an amendment to the Municipal Code
prohibiting any type of gambling on any sidewalk, walkway, street,
alley, vacant lot or park. Councilman Thomas, Chairman of the
City County Cooperation Committee, stated that a report will be
made next week and it is hoped that the Council will approve the
Committee's recommendations regarding gambling in the City of
Bakersfield.
Councilman Medders asked Councilman Rees if he wished
to bring the Council up to date on what has been done regarding
the problem of stray dogs running loose on and adjacent to the
Colonel Nichols School grounds.
Bakersfield, California, April 2, 1973 - Page 2
Councilman Rees stated he had called the principal of
Colonel Nichols School today and was advised that actually there
were no new incidents; it is a continuing condition which is
brought up at every PTA meeting. He has talked to the City
Attorney's office, the Police Department and Judge Condley at
the Municipal Court and it would appear that with only three
animal wardens in the City, everything that can be done has been
done. He explained the procedure when a stray dog with a tag
is picked up by the Animal Warden. The owner is required to pay
a fee at the pound when he claims the animal and is issued a
citation to appear in Municipal Court. If it is a first offense
it probably will be dismissed; repeat offenders are fined.
Councilman Rees commented that he feels the City is doing all
that it can; however, the parents are just as concerned as they
ever were for the children's safety, and the problem is a con-
tinuing one.
Councilman Heisey asked if a citizen can arrest a
stray dog and notify the animal warden to pick it up. Mr.
Hoagland stated it is legal for a citizen to make an arrest;
however, he takes his chances with vicious dogs.
Councilman Medders commented that if the dogs are
loose around his school grounds, they do hold them and call
the animal warden to pick them up.
Reports.
Councilman Whittemore, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, read the following report
on the subject of the City Clerk.
As the Council is aware, Mrs. Marian Irvin
has expressed her desire to retire from her
position as City Clerk as soon as practical.
Therefore, the City advertised locally and
statewide in an attempt to find someone who
is experienced in performing the duties of
a City Clerk.
As a result, twenty-seven applications were
received for this position - three were
qualified; two took the examinations; and
one was certified by the Miscellaneous Civil
Service Board. The certified candidate was
Mrs. Donna Marshall from the City of Piedmont.
The Board, along with Mrs. Irvin, feels that
Mrs. Marshall is an extremely well-qualified
Bakersfield,
California,
April 2,
1973 - Page 3
and capable person~ Before being hired, Mrs.
Marshall was invited to meet with the members
of the City Council. Afterwards, she was
offered employment with the City to begin
April 23) 1973.
In order to insure a smooth and orderly trans-
fer of responsibility, Mrs. Irvin has agreed
to stay with the City until she is satisfied
that the City Clerk's office can continue pro-
viding the same high level of service for the
City Council and the Community. Therefore,
this Committee recommends as follows: First,
that Mrs. Marshall be assigned to work under
Mrs. Irvin for the interim time as an Adminis-
trative Assistant in order to familiarize her-
self with the operation of the City Clerk's
office. Her salary for this position at step
one will be $1,039 per month.
Second, that Mrs. Irvin be authorized a five
percent salary increase for the time after
April 23, 1973 that she remains with the City.
This increase is not out of line with what
other city clerks of her experience are pres-
ently being paid. Further, this Committee
recommends that this be considered first
reading of the ordinance to accomplish the
salary increase.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was
adopted and the ordinance was considered given first reading.
City Manager Bergen reported on an investigation made
by the Police Department regarding a lost poodle from the City
Dog Pound. The Police investigation revealed that the dog was
properly logged and placed in a pen (all pens are unlocked.)
The report indicated that the dog escaped or was lost due to lack
of locks on the pen and that there does not appear to have been
any misconduct on the part of any employee of the City. Locks
have been furnished to avoid a recurrence. A citizen found the
poodle and reported it to the City's Animal Warden who picked it
up and the dog was reclaimed by the owner on Saturday.
Consent Calendar.
The following items are listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3301 to 3348,
inclusive, in amount of $21,075.33
(b)
Claim for damages from Wilma Gustarson,
1013 New Stine Road, Kern City (Refer to
the City Attorney)
(c) Notice of Completion of all Improvements
in Tract No. 3525
(d) Notice of Completion of Improvements in
Tract No. 3609
4
Bakersfiel~ California, April 2, 1973 - Page 4
(e) Request from Tenneco West for annexation
to the City of Bakersfield of uninhabited
territory lying within portions of Sections
31, 32 and 33, 29/27, and portions of Sec-
tions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, 30/27 (Refer to
the Planning Commission)
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a), (b),
(c), (d) and (e) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Adoption of Resolution No. 23-73 estab-
lishing by regulation, objectives, criteria
and procedures for the evaluation of projects
and the preparation of Environmental Impact
Reports under the Environmental Quality Act
of 1970 and Guidelines adopted by the Secre-
tary of the Resources Agency.
Councilman Whittemore commented that most of the Coun-
cilmen have read this proposed Resolution and understand that
there is no alternative but to accept the criteria and proce-
dures set up by the Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Assis-
tant City Attorney Leach explained the guidelines and regula-
tions governing the evaluation of projects and the preparation
of environmental impact reports (E.I.R.) in the City of Bakers-
field, answering questions of the Council as he outlined the
provisions of the proposed Resolution.
Councilman Heisey asked what fees were required under
this Resolution. Mr. Leach stated there was no fee required for
a preliminary environmental assessment; the fee for an environ-
mental assessment of a project sponsored entirely by a person
other than the City would be $20 and should be paid prior to
the environmental assessment. The fee for the preparation of
an environmental impact report for a project sponsored entirely
by a person other than the City was set at a minimum of $150
and is to be paid at the time the preliminary draft E.I.R. is
presented to the City by the sponsor.
Councilman Heisey stated he is concerned about the
fee for presenting a challenge to the negative declaration, as
Bakersfield, California, April 2, 1973 - Page 5
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders,
Whirremote
otherwise there is no responsibility for anyone to come in and
challenge a project. To his knowledge, Santa Barbara requires
the payment of a $50 fee to challenge, and that discourages
nuisance protests on every project that is filed.
Mr. Leach stated the resolution could be modified to
include any wording the Council desires. The minimum fee of
$150 set out in the resolution for the preparation of an environ-
mental impact report can be increased, depending on the amount
of time required by the staff to prepare an E.I.R.
Councilman Whittemore supported Mr. Heisey's sugges-
tion to include a challenge fee in the resolution, as the people
who protest these projects should be held liable in a court of
law for any damages incurred by holding up the project.
After additional discussion, it was moved by Council-
man Heisey to adopt Resolution No. 23-73 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield establishing by regulation, objectives,
criteria and procedures for the evaluation of projects and the
preparation of Environmental Impact Reports under the Environ-
mental Quality Act of 1970 and Guidelines adopted by the Secre-
tary of the Resources Agency, with the addition of Subsection (c)
under Section XV - FEES, to read - Challenge of Negative Declara-
tion. The fee for making and presenting the challenge to the
negative declaration shall be $50. This motion carried by the
following roll call vote:
Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
None
Councilman Bleecker
Application for Permission to File
Late Claim and Claim against the City
of Bakersfield by Renard Ralston,
Douglas Palladino and Jill Ann Ralston.
An application for Permission to File Late Claim and
Claim against the City of Bakersfield by Renard Ralston, Douglas
Palladino and Jill Ann Ralston was filed with the City Clerk.
The City Attorney advised that no action is to be taken by the
Council as it will be denied by Operational Law, as the Statute
6
Bakersfield, California, April 2, 1973~- Page 6
of Limitations has been exceeded for the filing of the claim.
The attorneys will then make application to the Superior Court
for permission to file a lawsuit.
Encroachment Permit granted Norman R.
Gann, 2813 Echo Avenue, with condition
waived that sidewalks be constructed
along the street frontage.
Nr. Norman R. Gann, 2813 Echo Avenue, applied for an
Encroachment Permit to construct a four-foot chain link fence
five feet back of the curb bordering the property at the south-
east corner of Castro Lane and Echo Avenue. The f~ce would en-
croach seven feet into the public right-of-way. The City Engi-
neer recommended approval with the condition that sidewalks be
constructed along the street frontage.
Mr. Gann addressed the Council requesting that consid-
eration be given to waiving the construction of sidewalks. His
property is located on a corner, there are no other sidewalks in
the area and he is financially unable at this time to fulfill the
condition.
Councilman Thomas moved that the Encroachment Permit
be granted, and that the condition to construct sidewalks be
waived. Councilman Nedders concurred with this motion, stating
that when he visited the site there were no sidewalks in the area
and he feels waiving this condition is justified. Vote taken on
the motion carried unanimously.
Date of April 23, 1973 set for hearing
before the Council on appeal by Jerry
Lee Storts to decision of the Board of
Zoning Adjustment denying this applica-
tion requesting a modification of an R-1
(One Family Dwelling) Zone to allow the
elimination of the required off-street
parking spaces in conjunction with garage
conversion to living area on that certain
property commonly known as 2521 Lum Avenue.
A communication was received from Jerry Lee Storts
requesting Council review of denial by the Board of Zoning Adjust-
ment of his application requesting a modification of an R-1 (One
Family Dwelling) Zone to allow the elimination of the required
off-street parking spaces in conjunction with garage conversion
to living area on that certain property commonly known as 2521
Bakersfield, California, April 2, 1973 - Page 7
Lum Avenue. This application was heard by the Board of Zoning
Adjustment on February 13, 1973. Last day to file appeal in
writing was February 28, 1973.
Mr. Hoagland stated that inasmuch as this appeal was
not filed within the statutory period, the Council could waive
the time limit for filing an appeal, but hearing must be held
and notices sent to adjacent property owners, aS prescribed by
ordinance.
Mr. Storts addressed the Council stating that his garage
had been converted to a living room some time ago without first
securing a building permit. Planning Director Sceales explained
that Mr. Storts is asking for building approval on the garage
conversion in order to sell his house,. but Building Director
Olsson cannot give the approval because he is without any off-
street parking. Mr. Storts is asking for permission to modify
the off-street parking from two spaces to zero, and then secure
a City building permit on the garage in order to obtain FHA fi-
nancing to sell his house. FHA requires that the garage conver-
sion be approved by the City Building Department.
Councilman Thomas moved that the Council waive the time
limit for appealing the decision of the Board of Zoning Adjustment
and that date of April 23, 1973 be fixed for hearing on the matter
before the Council. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey referred to three items on water in-
cluded in the Council's packet. One was a progress report for
March on the Cross-Valley Canal. The second was a letter to the
Kern County Water Agency from the Kern County Canal and Water Com-
pany. The third was an agreement with the Buena Vista Water Stor-
age District which was adopted by the Kern County Water Agency
last week subject to review by the Urban Water Advisory Committee.
That Committee met today and proposed that certain changes be
made in the agreement; primarily, that the exchange be for this
year only as far as urban water is concerned. The previous agree-
ment tied up the water commitment for three years. The agreement
also restated the principle that no pump tax would be levied
Bakersfield, California, April 2, 1973 - Page 8
until such time as water is actually delivered to the urban area
from the west side canal. When the minutes of the Urban Water
Advisory Committee are typed, he will see that each member of
the Council receives a copy in order to keep up-to-date on
what is transpiring.
Hearings.
This is the time set for continued hearing before the
Council on the vacation of a portion of Stine Road between Wilson
Road and New Stine Road in the City of Bakersfield.
The public portion of this hearing has been closed at
meeting of March 12, 1973. There were no comments or objections
during the public hearing. Final action was deferred at the
request of the Public Works Department to facilitate construction
scheduling for New Stine Road.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 24-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield ordering the vacation
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Bleecker
Councilman Whirremote asked if the dangerous intersec-
tion of Stine Road and Wilson Road can be corrected at the time
of this vacation. This intersection is extremely wide on the
north end and is only one lane on the south end.
Director of Public Works Bidwell stated they can make
some realignment for a more perpendicular intersection at that
location. By closing this portion of Stine Road and opening New
Stine Road, it is hoped that the traffic flow on Stine Road will
be reduced and carried on New Stine Road which is a major street.
Bakersfield, California, April 2, 1973 - Page 9
9
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore the meeting
was adjourned at 8:45 P. N.
~ Ci~ty of Bakersfield
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK and Ex-Off'icio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
10
Bakersfield, California, April 9, 1973
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., April 9, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend
of the Riverview Church of Christ.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
followed by
Jerry Rogers
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 2, 1973'were
approved as presented.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, communication signed by
Mr. Tom Folsom, executive secretary of the Kern County Taxpayers
Association, advizing that it was the unanimous opinion of the Board of
Directors that the letter presented during the Council meeting of
March 26, 1973, regarding matters relating to the provision of
supplemental water for the Urban Bakersfield area properly reflects
the attitude of the Kern County Taxpayers Association, was received
and ordered placed on file.
Mayor Hart referred to a communication from Mr. Richard
C. Bailey, general chairman Museum Heritage Days Committee, requesting
that the Bakersfield City Council issue a proclamation in recogniti.on
of the Sixth Annual Museum Heritage Days celebration to be held on
April 28 and 29th. Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the Mayor
was authorized to issue a proclamation declaring April 28 and 29, 1973,
as HERITAGE DAYS.
Council Statements.
Councilman Heisey stated that he had received a letter from
Mrs. M. G. Pipkin of 2701 Fordham Street, who first expressed her
thanks for the green paint which improved the appearance of the median
island of Columbus Street, and then pointed out that there are no
left-turn signals at Haley and Columbus Streets for the north and
south traffic movement. Councilman Heisey asked the City Manager
to take this matter up with the Traffic Authority for a report back
to the Council.
Bakersfield, California, April 9, 1973 - Page 2
Councilman Rees commented that Mrs. Opal L. Loveless of
2605 Harmony Drive, who worked as an election Officer in Ward 3 for
the Nominating Municipal Election for Councilman held on February 27,
1973, had returned check in amount of $24.00 to the City Clerk's
office which was paid her for her services, stating that she doesn't
need the money, has plenty of time to spare, and wishes to donate
her time to the City. She asked that the money be returned to the
City treasury. Councilman Rees stated that he feels this is a
commendable gesture, a~ he moved that the Council publicly commend
Mrs. Loveless. This motion carried unanimously.
Reports.
Councilman Don Thomas, Chairman of the City-County Cooperation
Committee, read a report on the subject of adoption of proposed
ordinance prohibiting gambling, stating that some time ago a proposed
ordinance prohibiting gambling, particularly where dice is involved,
on sidewalks, streets, alleys, walkways and vacant lots, was referred
to this Committee for study and recommendation.
The ordinance has been reviewed, and with the addition of
public parks to the list of places where gambling is prohibited,
the ordinance has been approved by the Committee with the recommendation
for adoption by the City Council.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, the report was adopted
and the ordinance was considered given first reading.
Councilman Medders, members of the Legislative Committee,
commented on AB 594 which would require that by January 1, 1975
malt beverages and carbonated drinks be sold in returnable bottles
with a minimum deposit of 5~, as opposed to throw-away bottles.
It would also ban the use of any metal container which does not
require the can opening, meaning that the flip top can would
no longer be used. The purpose of this legislation is an effort to
prevent the continued littering of the State of California. Upon a
motion by Councilman Rees, proposed AB549 was referred to the
Legislative Committee for study and report.
Bakersfield, California, April 9, 1973 - Page 3
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3349 to 3416,
inclusive, in amount of $128,347.11
(b)
Plans and Specifications for Resurfacing
California Avenue between Oak Street and
"C" Street
(c)
Resolution No. 25-73 of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield making finding that
Tentative Tract No. 3532 Unit "B" Revised,
together with provisions for its design and
improvement is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans
(d) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Mary Lee Morgan, 2115 - 20th Street
(e) Quitclaim Deed from County of Kern to City
of Bakersfield
(f) Notice of Completion of all Improvements
in Tract No. 3532-A
(g) Notice of Completion of all Improvements in
Tract No. 3540
(h) Notice of Completion of all Improvements in
Tract No. 3569
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Itens (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by
the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of Paul F. Foth
for construction of New Stine Road from Wilson Road to Planz Road
was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized
to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, low bid of T.C.H.
Corporation for construction of Automatic Sprinkler System at
Patriots Park was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, April 9, 1973 - Page 4
13
Upon a motion by Counoilman Thomas, low bid of Del Mar
Electric of Delano for installation of Security Lighting at Patriots
Park was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2086 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield establishing salary
of the incumbent City Clerk.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2086
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield establishing
salary of the incumbent City Clerk was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
repealing Section 16.12.040 of
Chapter 16.12, and adding New Chapter
16.14 to Title 16 (Subdivision
Regulations) of the Municipal Code
establishing procedures for processing
parcel maps and otherwise regulating
division of land other than Subdivisions.
First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing Section 16.12.040 of
Chapter 16.12, and adding New Chapter 16.14 to Title 16
(Subdivision Regulations) of the Municipal Code, establishing
procedures for processing parcel maps and otherwise regulating
Division of Land other than Subdivisions.
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.14.787 (a) and (b)
(Speed Limit on Ming Avenue) of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield.
First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 11.14.787 (a) and (b)
(Speed Limit on Ming Avenue) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield.
City Attorney Hoagland explained that there are two parts
to this ordinance. It sets the speed limit of 35 miles per hour on
Ming Road between the easterly boundaries and Stine Road, and sets
the speed limit of 45 miles per hour on Ming Avenue from the easter].y
curbline of Stine Road to the westerly City limits.
14
Bakersfield, California, April 9, 1973 - Page 5
Request from Charles W. Duncan for
annexation to the City of Bakersfield of
Lots 22,23 and 24 of Block 34 of the
Drury Addition, referred to the Planning
Commission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, request from Charles W.
Duncan for annexation to the City of Bakersfield of that certain
property described as Lots 22, 23 and 24 of Block 34 of the Drury
Addition and that C-1 Zone be granted with subject annexation, was
referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Annexation boundaries designated as
Stockdale No. 8 Annexation approved
and referred to City Engineer and City
Attorney for referral to LAFC.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, annexation boundaries
of uninhabited territory designated as Stockdale No. 8 annexation were
approved and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for
referral to LAFC.
Extension of time granted Illig Painting
Company for painting Claraetors at Sewage
Treatment Plant No. 2, work accepted, and
Mayor authorized to execute the Notice of
Completion.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, extension of time until
April 4, 1973 was granted Illig Painting Company for painting Claraetors
at Sewage Treatment Plant No. 2, the Work was accepted, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the Notice of Completion.
Approval of Plans and Specifications for
Grissom Street Park Development and
Pacheco Greem Belt Development.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, plans and specifications
for Grissom Street Park Development and Pacheco Green Belt Development
were approved.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the meetin~wa~ourned at 8:23 P.M.
M R of the City of Bakersfield, Cal.
ATTEST:
CITY%CLERK and Ex-Off-lco Clerk of ~rhe Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P. M., April 16, 1972.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Clyde
B. Skidmore of the First Southern Baptist Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees,
Rucker, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 9, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Presentation of Keys to the City
Councilman Raymond E. Rees and
Councilman Samuel Del Rucker.
to
Mayor Hart stated that as this will be the final meeting
for Councilman Raymond E. Rees and Councilman Samuel Del Rucker,
he wished to present each Councilman with a plaque in fhe form of
a Key to the City of Bakersfield, reading as follows:
To Raymond E. Rees. In gratitude and with
appreciation for your service to the City
of Bakersfield as Councilman. 1967 to 1973
To Samuel Del Rucker. In gratitude and with
appreciation for your service to the City of
Bakersfield as Councilman. 1962 to 1973
Councilman Bleecker commented that although he and
Councilman Rees have been on opposite sides on a number of issues,
particularly on the Council floor, he feels that their disagreements
were honorable ones, in that they were true differences of opinion.
He thanked Councilman Rees for the assistance he gave him while
serving on the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee and
wished him well in his future undertakings.
Councilman Bleecker went on to say that Councilman Rucker
may not have been as articulate as some of the other Council
members, but he was in there trying all the time for what he
believed was right. He has represented not only the people in his
ward, but to a large degree, the whole City and all of its people.
Hopefully, the Councilman who replaces Mr. Rucker will do the same.
i6
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 2
Councilman Whittemore remarked that he has served with
Del Rucker for almost ten years and with Ray Rees for six years
and although they have disagreed at various times, it has been a
fine relationship throughout the years, and they are leaving large
political shoes to be filled. In Councilman Rees' Ward a big
battle was waged for years to phase out Crest Water and have the
area served by the California Water Service Company. Ray Rees
fought that battle single-handedly and won the fight, although the
other six Councilmen were opposed to it because it would also
raise water rates in their wards.
Councilman Rucker overcame great odds to bring the
California Avenue Park Multi-Purpose Building to the people in the
southeast area so that recreation and training programs could be
offered to this segment of the community. As a result~ this
building is under construction at the present time.
Councilman Heisey commented that anything he could say
would be somewhat repetitious, but he did want to tell Councilman
Rees and Councilman Rucker that he has enjoyed serving with them
on the Council.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Ruth Gelman, stating she is representing herself,
is a subscriber to Cable TV and lives in the unincorporated area
of the City of Bakersfield, read the following statement to the
Council:
Regarding Cypress Cable TV of Kern County, Inc.
"Application for Certification" for the addition
of Channel 26, KMPH, Tulare, California, on its
existing cable television system serving that
part of Bakersfield, California, annexed sub-
sequent to August 31, 1965, I respectfully
request that you record your opposition and
send a resolution to this effect to:
Ben F. Waple, Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D. C. 20554
Re: File #CAC-2218
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1972 - Page 3
This "Application for Certification" dated March 15,
1973, and submitted to the Federal Communications
Commission March 27, 1973, if approved, will affect all
city areas annexed since August 31, 1965, and any
future areas which may be annexed to the City of
Bakersfield.
Any protest of this formal action now pending before
the FCC should be considered as a part of a previous
"Application for Certification" dated February 18, 1973
and already approved. Reference should be made to
File #CAC-1729.
Protest now is a first step because the city cable
system is in a holding pattern and has yet to petition
the FCC on this very same matter. Your action now will
open the whole matter to public scrutiny and, hopefully,
teevaluation by the Commission.
Commission rules require simultaneous public notice be
served on every party entitled to service under #76.13
(b) (6) and (7). However, this City never received
formal notification of the earlier action. And, I under-
stand the City Clerk did not receive notice of the
current action, either.
Yet, formal protests by you and other interested parties
must be received by the Federal Communications Commission
by April 26, 1973.
I have received a great many telephone calls as a result
of the article in the newspaper, which I did not solicit.
I urge protest along the following lines:
Cable subscribers will lose KABC-TV, Channel 7, an ABC
affiliate in Los Angeles, which will disturb existing
regular viewing patterns. KMPH-TV, Channel 26, an
independent station in Tulare, is a poor substitution.
Anyway, both cable subscribers and non-subscribers, can
obtain Channel 26/Tulare with a simple antennae, should
they want it. And, cable subscribers bought Channel 7
and not Channel 26, and in addition, as interested
parties were not notified,either.
Local broadcasters (KERO-TV, Channel 23; KBAK-TV, Channel
29, and KJTV, Channel 17) would be adversely affected
which would in turn, damage local programming by these
local broadcasters. Firstly, Channel 26/Tulare sales-
men are already in town soliciting local advertisers.
The three local broadcasters lose money and cannot tolerate
further inroads into the local advertising dollar.
Further, revenue losses just has to affect local broad-
casters' abilities to provide local programming, news
and public services. Secondly, our community has good
access to the local broadcasters. We do not have similar
access to Channel 26/Tulare to get it to respond to
community needs with community programming. Thirdly,
local radio stations' advertising revenues will be
affected adversely.
18
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 4
This community has closer ties with Los Angeles, its
news, events and activities. However, FCC considers
this area closer to Tulare, based on its mileage ~ule
of thumb' rather than community of interest.
When we lose KABC-TV, Channel 7, we lose some network
ABC shows because Channel 26/Tulare will be showing
some syndicated NBC network programs. Further, KERO-TV
will not get protection regarding these NBC network
shows shown on Channel 26/Tulare and this will further
adversely affect advertising revenues and local pro-
gramming.
These are matters for immediate concern and we urge
immediate protest to FCC.
In the long run there are other adverse effects as
follows:
Cable Channels 2, 4 and 7 offer additional opportunities
for local programming, when they show clock-time. Losing
KABC-TV and substituting KMPH-TV reduces this community
input by one-third.
Cypress Cable will have new equipment in 60-90 days
which will facilitate additional local programming.
More and more channels on our community cable systems
for instructional programs, children's programs, govern-
ment programs and public access.
I think it's not too early to put local cable systems
on notice that this community plans to have input re-
garding local needs and local uses for cable television
when the local cable systems must renegotiate their
franchises with this city and county prior to March 31,
1977.
FCC goals are to strengthen local programming, to promote
what it calls 'localism', and to provide for community
voices on our television sets.
Accordingly, we urge you to establish in the future an
on going citizen's advisory group to study and determine
local needs and uses for cable television systems, for
the long run.
The urgency is in terms of going on record with the FCC
if the Council sees it as I do, and you may see additional
reasons for going on record as opposing this "Application
for Certification" by Cypress Cable to substitute Tulare
Channel 26 for the Los Angeles station Channel 7. Pro-
tests must be received by the FCC by April 26, 1973.
It is my understanding that the City Schools, the County
Schools and the City have not received a notice. There
is a lot of interest which it takes time to generate and
I would request that the Council perhaps request that
the time be extended for public notification another 30
days and ~hat it ask for a public hearing in Bakersfield
for community response.
19
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 5
Councilman Whittemore congratulated Mrs. Gelman on her
excellent presentation. He pointed out that the Board of Supervisors
granted the franchise to Cypress Cable TV to operate in the
unincorporated areas; however, through annexation, approximately
2,000 residents in the City are now served by Cypress Cable TV. He
then moved that the matter be referred to the City-County Cooperation
Committee with the suggestion that it be discussed with the Board of
Supervisors and also, on behalf of the City, to request a 30 day
extension of time be granted to hold public hearings in order to
develop the position to be taken jointly by the City and County.
Councilman Heisey expressed his agreement with the motion
to refer the matter to the City-County Cooperation Committee; however,
he is not certain he would favor requesting an extension of time
for further consideration. He stated he would like to hear from
Mr. Harry Pappas, vice-president and general manager of KMPH-TV,
Channel 26, before he voted on the motion.
Councilman Bleecker was not opposed to referring the
matter to the Committee for a report back to the Council. He asked
Mrs. Gelman if it was her understanding that all three local
television stations were losing money, as stated in her letter.
Mrs. Gelman remarked that she had contacted all three stations and
was informed that together they were losing a large amount of money.
They are not operating together but the losses of the three stations
are a substantial amount over the last three years.
In response to Councilman Bleecker's question as to why she
feels that Channel 26 would be a poor substitute for Channel 7, she
stated that it is an independent station, and she can see in looking at
their television log, that they show old movies, they have no local pro-
gramming, they buy from syndicated shows; however, she is not in a position
at this time to evaluate all of it. If a public hearing is requested to
be held in Bakersfield, there will be people present who will respond
and give all the information, but at the present time she can only speak
2O
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 6
for herself.
is a need to ask for an extension of
hearing to balance the equities, as,
gramming especially is in jeopardy.
She doesn't like things done hastily, she feels there
time and request a public
in her opinion, local pro-
Councilman Bleecker asked Mrs. Gelman for justification
of her statement that "losing KABC-TV and substituting KMPH-TV
reduces the community input by one-third."
Mrs. Gelman replied that Channels 2, 4 and 7 show clock
time and she feels that long range planning should be considered
so that more local programming will be forthcoming, that there should
be local control, local input and citizen involvement.
Councilman Rees commented that he would hope if the motion
passes, that the Committee would get together with the County promptly
in order to comply with any deadline.
Councilman Thomas, Chairman of the City-County Cooperation
Committee, asked the City Manager to arrange a meeting of the
Committee after five o'clock Wednesday, if the motion passes.
Mr. Harry Pappas, vice-president and general manager
of KMPH-TV, with studios in Visalia and licensed to Tulare, thanked
the Council for permitting him to speak before taking any position
on the issue or having voted on a motion based on only one side of
an issue. He submitted the following statement to the Council:
Only this afternoon was I informed that this matter
would be on the Council agenda tonight. Our station
went on the air a year and a half ago, and the story
of our trying to be in an equitable position in the
market place is a rather long one, and ordinarily,
we broadcast in terms of equal time. I think since
the Council has other matters on the agenda which
requires its attention, I won't ask for equal time
tonight, I will just keep my remarks very short.
First, I would like to address myself to comments
made by Mrs. Gelman, I compliment her on being
unusually well-informed on the subject of cable
television, on the financial affairs of the three
television stations in this area, and admire her
proficiency in getting information and I also compliment
her on how she presented it. However, there are some
things that have been presented to you gentlemen tonight
that are factually incorrect, the substance of which has
a material bearing on your decision, so I am compelled
to submit the truth to you.
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 7
I have here a copy of the Affidavit of Service, signed
by Roger E. Zylstra of the law firm representing Cypress
TV of Kern County, a franchise holder in this area,
wherein he certifies that copies of the "Application
for Certification" were mailed, postage prepaid, on the
15th day of March, 1973, to the following, and lists
The Superintendent of Schools of the City of Bakersfield,
the City Council of the City of Bakersfield, Department
of General Services, Sacramento, and counsel for KBAK,
KERO, KJTV, KMPH, AND KEYT in Santa Barbara.
I want to address myself directly to the question of
whether K~PH would be a poor substitute for Channel 7.
Instead, let us consider the very basic question involved
and that is should a television station that you are
able to get with an antenna, be on your cable system.
It is all really that simple.
What the FCC set out to do years ago, the first thing
they made up their minds about when they decided to
regulate television, was that if a television station
can be received by the folks in an area off the air,
that cable system's got to carry it. This makes common
sense, because obviously, if the cable system didn't
carry the stations that were available off the air and
brought in, let's say in the case of Bakersfield and even
half of the homes in the county have television, quite
obviously, these local stations would be hurt.
The law as it was years ago, and as it was when we began
planning Channel 26, was that if there were stations
available off the air, the cable system should carry it.
Operating under that law, in June, 1971, well before
we went on the air, we notified the cable systems here in
Bakersfield of our intention to go on the air and we
requested that they carry us. Believe it or not, it was
supposed to be an automatic thing. There was supposed to
be no doubt, no question of the fact, that we would be
carried on the local cable systems in view of the fact
that our station is the most powerful in the San Joaquin
Valley and the second most powerful west of the
Mississippi, and any reasonable engineer could have
concluded that the substantial population of Kern County
was going to get a clear signal from Channel 26.
Yet, and for reasons which we aren't going to try to
assume on behalf of the cable companies, the company
which at that time was majority controlled by the three
television stations here in Bakersfield, Kern Cable,
objected to the FCC and began the usual paper work processes
to try to prevent the automatic provision that we be
carried.
Within a year and a half, and after about 7,000 dollars
in legal fees, the Federal Government ordered in
February, Kern County Cable TV to carry Channel 26,
because of common sense reasons, we were here.
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 8
The application referred to by Mrs. Gelman is simply
covering the fact that Cypress Cable is taking care
of a little paper work problem that they didn't take care
of the first time when they first filed in November of
last year, when they first finally agreed, after threats
of a rather horrendous lawsuit by us, because frankly,
our patience ran out. The application covers that small
part of what is now the City of Bakersfield and which
is a part of their franchise territory.
As I have already described to you, the City had been
given notice of this matter. Before I get to the critical
question of really does the City Council belong in this
matter, the proponent of the motion to interfere in the
proceedings of the FCC, to intervene I should say, mentions
that KABC would be a loss to the people of this area, and
that local channel origination should not be lost to the
community of Bakersfield, and that somehow we are going to
unduly affect the operating profitability of the local
television stations.
In the first case, KABC-TV is not really seen all the
time here in Bakersfield even on Cable TV, because under
the law, Channel 17 is protected by its carriage of network
programs and most of the time, about 80% of the time
that KABC is on the air, they are blacked out, and as was
pointed out, clock and weather time is on, on Channel 7.
I would like to think that Channel 26, despite the fact
that we are an independent, Mrs. Gelman, is a little
better program than clock and weather.
As to what might be gained by the citizens of Bakersfield,
I am very happy to announce that our station is carrying
this season, not only the San Francisco Giants, but also
the Oakland Athletics. I think that kind of sports program
would be of interest to the people of Bakersfield, a little
more interest than a clock.
I submit also that what might be lost in the very fine
programming that KABC carries, that is shown here on
Cable TV, would be more than offset by these added
entertainment programmings available off Channel 26.
Programming we have now speaks for itself, I think,
the fact that among the homes here in Bakersfield that
are not cable connected, we have already begun to get
rather substantial ratings, is an indication of the fact
that we have rather worthwhile programming that people
chose to watch.
I am not here to engage in a popularity contest, but I
am here simply to stress the facts in the future, not only
are we going to be carrying increased sports programming,
but we renewed our contract today with the San Francisco
Warriors and there are other sporting events which we are
negotiating for which, because of competitive pressures,
I cannot disclose at this time. But we have also got
movies, which I submit for years will not be bought by
local television stations, first run movies like "Cleopatra,"
etc., and this kind of programming would be worthwhile
for the citizens of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 9
As for the local program origination, right now Channel
2 is the channel used locally for the local programming
origination, and even that is not used one-tenth of the
time it is available. In fact, it was for that reason
that the cable company preferred to put Channel 26 on
Channel 7, because they figure that way they would not have
any effect on the local program channels.
As to the contention that Kern County will lose one-third
of its local program origination, that is another factual
error which I unfortunately have to uncover. The law
requires that by 1977 cable systems that do not already
comply, must by then have a certain number of local
origination channels and what it will take in the case
of the stations here in Bakersfield which were built in
the mid - 60's, is some different amplifiers and some
different type of equipment for the cable systems here.
But you will have the number of channels to which you are
entitled regardless of whether Channel 26 is put on or not.
That has nothing to do with it.
If Channel 26 is such a poorly programmed television
station, the effect that we would have on economic operations
of the local television stations should be rather minimal.
Let's assume the worst, let's assume that we do have an
audience. In any event, I am sure that the citizens and
the merchants of Bakersfield will continue to support the
local stations, and if they feel that they should do
business with a television station located 65 miles away,
then perhaps they will.
I don't think at any time any City Council in the State of
California has ever said that we are not going to allow
another business in town because we want to protect the guys
that are already here. That is not to the extent of actually
encouraging anti-trust or actually encouraging diminishing
of competition. Even the FCC has never taken that position.
As a point of fact, our company does not intend to make any
substantial attempt to make inroads into the Bakersfield
television market, and that's a fact. It is unfortunate
though, that when we have told that to the local broadcasters,
they didn't believe us. It is true that our salesmen have
been here to call on advertising agencies who have regional
budgets and regional clients whose interests are that they
might be able to reach into the Tulare County area to attract
and to turn the traffic flow towards Kern County. These
merchants have recognized the fact that it is just a matter
of reality that there are some people up there in Tulare
County who don't watch Bakersfield TV stations, and the
merchants here, seeking to improve their sales, and I
suppose therefore, the retail sales position of the City of
Bakersfield, have sought to make inroads you might say,
into the Tulare County merchants' business.
If our getting that kind of business, that kind of advertising
from merchants who want to sell more goods to Tulare
Countyires, down here in Bakersfield and to bring them
t~ Bakersfield, is bad for the citizens and contrary to
the interests of the citizens of Bakersfield, I just can't
understand it.
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 10
To summarize, if Channel 26, as Mrs. Gelman admits, is
available off the air, then it should be only equitable
and only a matter of basic fairness, that it should also
be available in the cable system. This is what the FCC
said, too. So if that is the law, let the cable companies
finally go through the formalities of doing what they
should have done a year and a half ago, and get on with it.
As to the loss of KABC-TV, I think we have described it
enough, and I really don't think that you will be losing,
I really believe that you are going to be gaining an
additional program choice of a San Joaquin Valley
television station that just may be able to do something
more for you, for example, in the way of sports
programming then has been done in the past.
As to competitive influence, I am sure you take me at my
word, that we don't intend to make substantial inroads
down here, and frankly, it is in the cards.
As to the local program originations, there's no way you
can get hurt there.
What I would like the City of Bakersfield to do is that
it simply be benign and neutral. Let the FCC, KMPH-TV,
Cypress Cable and interested members of the public which
have every right to and are encouraged to make comments,
hash it out, but as for the City of Bakersfield taking
a position on this kind of matter that is really just a
matter of fundamental equity, I would submit is not
appropriate.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you
tonight and I beg your consideration.
Councilman Whittemore told Mr. Pappas that he receives
excellent reception from Channel 26 and he enjoys the old movies. He
feels that the Council is reluctant to enter into areas which perhaps
are not within its jurisdiction, and he would therefore change his
motion to merely refer the matter to the City-County Cooperation
Committee for joint discussion with the Board of Supervisors and report
back to the Council next Monday night.
Councilman Heisey stated he would like to have copies of
the minutes containing the testimony given by both parties made
available for study to the members of the committee as soon as
possible before meeting with the Board of Supervisors.
Councilman Bleecker commented that after what he has
heard here tonight, the report will have to be substantiated with
facts and figures before he can support Council opposition to the
FCC on this issue.
Vote taken on the motion carried unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 11
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication from
the Downtown Business Association requesting that the parking time
in the downtown parking mall area be changed from two hours to
ninety minutes, was referred to the Business Development and
Parking Committee, with a recommendation to be made by the Traffic
Authority.
Council Statements.
Councilman Rucker announced that he wished to appoint
Mrs. Alberta W. Dillard, 137 "U" Street, as a member of the Citizens
Advisory Committee for the Kern County Council of Governments.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3417 to 3492,
inclusive, in amount of $55,543.48
(b) Notice of Completion of the Construction of
Automatic Irrigation Systems for Median
Island Planters in New Stine Road between
Ming Avenue and Wilson Road and in
Ming Avenue between New Stine Road and
Ashe Road
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Items (a) and (b)
of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2087
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 11.04.787 (a) and (b) (Speed Limit on Ming Avenue) of the
Municipal Code of fhe City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
26
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 12
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rucker, Ordinance No. 2088
New Series of the Council of,the City of Bakersfield adding Chapter
10.58 to Title 10 of the Municipal Code, relating to Gambling,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders~ Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No. 2089
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield repealing
Section 16.12.040 of Chapter 16.12, and adding New Chapter 16.14 to
Title 16 (Subdivision Regulations) of the Municipal Code establishing
procedures for processing parcel maps and otherwise regulating
division of land other than Subdivisions, was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Whittemore
None
None
Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
authorizing amendment to the Contract
between the City Council and the
Board of Administration of the California
Public Employees' Retirement System.
First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the Council
of
the City Council
Public Employees'
the City of Bakersfield authorizing amendment to the Contract between
and the Board of Administration of the California
Retirement System.
Request from The Mobilhome Corporation
for annexation of uninhabited territory
located at the NE Corner of
University Avenue and Camden Street
to the City of Bakersfield referred to
the Planning Commission for study and
recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rees, request from The Mobilhome
Corporation for annexation of uninhabited territory located at the NE
Corner of University Avenue and Camden Street to the City of Bakersfield
was referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 13
Reception of City Clerk's Certificate
to the result of the canvass of the
returns of votes cast at General
Municipal Election held in the First
Ward on April 10, 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the City Clerk's
Certificate to the result of the canvass of the returns of votes
cast at General Municipal Election held in the First Ward on
April 10, 1973, was received and ordered placed on file and
ordered spread in full on the minutes.
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 Page 14
STATEMENT
GENERAL
OF ALL
AT THE
MUNICIPAL
HELD
VOTES CAST
ELECTION
April 10, 1973
In The
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973
Page 15
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION
APRIL 10, 1973
WARD NO. 1
CONS.
NO.
CONSISTING OF
PRECINCTS
1 501
2 502
3 508
4 509
5 510
6 201,
7 512
8 524
9 532
511 & 514-A
Total
Absentee Ballots
GRAND TOTAL
REGISTERED VOTES
VOTERS CAST RUCKER
STRONG
382 126 55 71
405 94 49 45
455 193 74 119
407 227 110 117
371 204 124 80
333 209 146 63
356 209 98 111
343 189 72 117
347 206 72 134
1,657 800 857
23 14 9
1,680 814 866
3,399
PERCENT 49.45%
3O
Bakersfield, California, April 16~ 1973 - Page 16
CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK
TO RESULT OF THE CANVASS
OF ELECTION RETURNS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
)
COUNTY OF KERN)
I, MARIAN S. IRVIN, City Clerk of said City, do hereby
certify that, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 22932.5
of the Elections Code and of the resolution of the governing
body of said City, heretofore adopted and entered upon the minutes
of said governing body, I did canvass the returns of the vote cast
in said City, at the General Municipal Election held on April 10,
1973, for the office of Councilman of the First Ward, and that
the Statement of the Vote Cast, to which this certificate is
attached, shows the whole number of votes cast in said City and
in each of the respective precincts therein, and that the totals
of the respective columns and the totals as shown for each candidate
are full, true and correct.
CITY C~ERK
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 17
31
Adoption of Resolution No. 26-73
declaring the result of canvass of
returns of General Municipal Election
in the First Ward in the City of
Bakersfield.
Whereas, a general municipal election in the City of
Bakersfield for the purpose of electing a Councilman in the First
Ward in the City of Bakersfield, was duly held on the 10th day of
April, 1973; and
Whereas, after notice duly given as required by law, said
election was duly held and conducted on the aforesaid date, and the
returns of said election have been canvassed by the City Clerk pursuant
to Resolution No. 11-67,
Now, Therefore, in compliance with Section 22932 of the
Elections Code of the State of California, this Council does hereby
resolve, determine and declare the results of said general municipal
election to be as follows:
WARD NO. 1
Samuel Del Rucker 814
Vernon D. Strong 866
Be it further resolved, that the following person is
hereby declared to be elected to the office of City Councilman for
the First Ward for a full term of four years:
VERNON D. STRONG
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 26-73
declaring result of canvass of returns of the General Municipal Election
in the First Ward in the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Medders, Rees, Rucker, Thomas,
32
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 18
Approval of Electric Service Agreements
between City of Bakersfield and Pacific
Gas and Electric Company for new traffic
signal installation at the intersection
of Ming Avenue and Real Road and for
the intersection of Ming Avenue and
Freeway 99 Off-Ramp.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Electric Service
Agreements with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for new traffic
signal installation at the intersection of Ming Avenue and Real Road
and for the intersection of Ming Avenue and Freeway 99 Off-Ramp, were
approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on application of J. O. Barber to amend the zoning boundaries from
an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone to an R-2-P (Limited
Multiple Family Dwelling - Parking) or more restrictive, Zone,
of that certain property known as 3115 Parkway.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and no
protests or objections have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
Subject property is a twenty-five foot strip of land adjacent to,
and east of, a new and used car sales lot which fronts Oak Street.
A six foot masonry wall separates subject parcel from adjacent
residential properties to the east. The applicant proposed to use
area of off-street parking in conjunction with the auto sales
the
lot.
At its regular meeting held March 21, 1973, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the R-2-P (Parking Overlay) as
requested.
Mayor Hart opened the hearing for public participation.
No protests were received and there was no one present to speak in
favor of granting the re-zoning. Pursuant to its policy to continue
hearing when applicant or representative is not present to answer any
questions posed by the Council, it was moved by Councilman Heisey
that the hearing be continued for one week. After some discussion,
vote taken on the motion, carried unanimously.
Bakersfield, California, April 16, 1973 - Page 19
33
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the meeting was adjourned
at 9:10 P.M.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
34
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., April 23, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Donald
Swain of the Westminster Presbyterian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Thomas,
Whittemore
Absent: Councilmen Rees, Rucker
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 16, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before this
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the Council
adjourned.
Newly Elected Council Members
Sworn in by City Clerk.
City Clerk Irvin administered the Oath of Office to
the following newly elected Councilmen:
Vernon D. Strong
Donald A. Rogers
T. Keith Bleecker
Robert N. Whittemore
Councilman First Ward
Councilman Third Ward
Councilman Fourth Ward
Councilman Seventh Ward
Mayor Hart commented that in the process of being sworn
in, it is appropriate for the new members of the Council to make
statements to their constituency, if they so desire.
Councilman Donald Rogers stated as follows:
It goes without saying that I look forward to working
with the other members on the Council, and the staff,
for the next few years. One thing that surprised me
right after my election was that Mrs. Irvin, City Clerk,
announced her retirement. I am still trying to
evaluate that.
Seriously, I do look forward to it, and I am a little
overwhelmed, as when I walked into the Council Chambers
I found a very nice cake on my desk which says "Thank
you, Don, your friends." And there is a note with it
saying "Hope you enjoy the cake. Wish you all success
in your new venture as Councilman." I just hope that
after I have been on the Council a few years, you will
still feel like bringing me cake instead of throwing
it at me.
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 2
35
To all my many friends here, you do me a great honor
by coming tonight, and I appreciate it very much.
Councilman Vernon Strong stated as follows:
I, too, must say I am very gratified at the privilege
of being seated as Councilman. I see in the audience
some people who are responsible for it. Possibly the
spark plug of that whole group is my wife and my two
children and if it is appropriate, I would like to
introduce them to the Council at this time. Council-
man Strong then introduced his wife, Nancy, and his
two children.
I have to say that they, along with a lot of other
people, provided the enthusiasm and the spark that
causes me to be sitting here tonight and I am
certainly appreciative of that.
I am here in a spirit of complete cooperation,
contrary to what you may have heard, and I pledge
and dedicate myself to the principles and practices
of good government. I hope in the next four years
that I can find within me the things that will make
people have confidence in me, and I can satisfy the
faith and trust that you have had in the past.
Thank you.
Councilman Keith Bleecker stated as follows:
I think after four years it is time that a Councilman
learns something and I think perhaps I have. As I
have said before, no matter who is elected, or who
is defeated, some way or other, the City of Bakersfield
keeps on operating.
I want to take this opportunity to thank those who
supported me during the election and to thank those
two people who ran against me for the type of
campaign they ran, in that it was down the line honest
in every respect. It was a good campaign on all sides.
The results, I think, were favorable, because I was
re-elected.
If there are any pledges to be made, it would be that
for the next four years, I will continue to represent
not only the people of the Fourth Ward, but the entire
City, in the same manner that I have during those first
four years.
Councilman Robert N. Whittemore stated as follows:
I have never been able to sit by and let Keith outdo me,
so I will exercise the option on the limited amount of
time. In all sincerity I would like to thank the people
who helped to return me to the Seventh Ward Council seat.
As most of you know, I am close to completing ten years.
The reason for the odd number of years is that Ken Croes
resigned in the middle of his term and I won the election
for his seat.
Being elected is a vote of confidence in the work that
has been done the last ten years. My pledge also
would be to continue in that vein, to work for the
betterment of the City.
36
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 3
As we sit here with seven Council members, we all
know that there are seven different political
philosophies represented on the Council floor.
But when the votes are cast, I know that each man
casts his vote for what he feels is for the advance-
ment of the City of Bakersfield.
I noticed when Don came in, he had a cake at his
place and when I came in, Keith Bleecker was trying
out the Vice-Mayor's chair.
Seriously, however, I want to thank you very much
for re-electing me. As Vernon introduced his family,
if you will permit me, I would like to present my
wife, Betty, and my three daughters, Becky, Peggy
and Rhonda, who are in the audience this evening.
Councilman Rogers then introduced his wife,
Marilyn, and his three children.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Bleeeker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Mayor Hart announced that the chair would declare a
brief recess to go into executive session to consider a personnel
matter.
After the recess, the Council reconvened and Mayor Hart
stated that since the Council was unable to reach a conclusion
for the election of Vice-Mayor, Councilman Whirremote would
continue to act in that capacity and the chair would entertain
a motion for the carry-over of that particular office. Council-
man Bleecker made a motion to that effect, which carried
unanimously.
Mr. Bob Griffith, reporter for the News-Bulletin, asked
Mayor Hart for an explanation on the executive session of the
Council. Mayor Hart stated Mr. Griffith had been given the
explanation, on the executive session of the Council, the
recess to chambers was a personnel session for the purpose of
determining the Vice-Mayor.
Appointment of Council Standing
Committees.
Councilman Heisey proposed the appointment of the
following Council Standing Committees:
37
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 4
VOUCHER APPROVAL
Vernon G. Strong, Chairman
Keith Bleecker
Don L. Thomas
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING
Robert N. Whittemore, Chairman
Keith Bleecker
Clarence E. Medders
WATER AND CITY GROWTH
Walter F. Heisey, Chairman
Donald A. Rogers
Robert N. Whittemore
CITY-COUNCY COOPERATION
Don L. Thomas, Chairman
Vernon D. Strong
Walter F. Heisey
GOVERNMENTAL EFFICIENCY & PERSONNEL
Keith Bleecker, Chairman
Robert N. Whirremote
Donald A. Rogers
AUDITORIUM-RECREATION
Donald A. Rogers, Chairman
Clarence E. Medders
Vernon G. Strong
BUDGET REVIEW AND FINANCE
Clarence E. Medders,
Walter F. Heisey
Don L. Thomas
Chairman
Councilman Heisey then moved that the Council
Committees as proposed, be approved.
Councilman Strong commented that he feels the
Standing
incoming
Councilmen are at a very distinct disadvantage with respect to
appointment to the standing committees of the Council. He was
totally unfamiliar with the procedure for selecting the committees
and no one saw fit to discuss the matter with him at length and
in detail. One of his reasons for entering the race for Councilman
was that he was very disgruntled with the manner in which the
chairmanship of the Auditorium-Recreation Committee was being
handled. He has worked in recreation for a long time and he
feels that he would be the best qualified person to chair that
committee. He would be willing to approve the committees as
proposed by Councilman Heisey if he, instead of Councilman Rogers,
were appointed as chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation Committee.
Councilman Heisey explained that there are seven
Committees and each Councilman customarily serves as the Chair-
man of one and as a member of three Committees. It isn't easy
to select the committees to each Councilman's satisfaction,
and as it was understood that Mr. Strong had a strong desire to
serve on the Auditorium-Recreation Committee, a point was made
to make him a member. If changes are made, it sets off a chain
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page
reaction which requires that all other committees must be juggled
around. Being chairman doesn't make that much difference, serving
on a committee will result in a voice on any matters considered
by the Committee.
Councilman Strong responded that if it doesn't make any
difference who should be made chairman, that if Mr. Heisey would
be willing to substitute him as
he will accept the entire slate
Councilman Whittemore
chairman rather than Mr. Rogers,
as proposed.
commented that he feels Mr.
Strong can do an outstanding job as chairman of the Auditorium-
Recreation Committee. As he does not particularly care which
committee he serves on and he has been designated as the Chair-
man of the Business Development and Parking Committee, he pro-
posed that Councilman Rogers switch to the chairman of this
committee, he in turn will take the chairmanship of the Voucher
Approval Committee, which would leave Councilman Strong free to
serve as Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation Committee.
Councilman Medders then moved the original question.
Councilman Heisey stated he feels it is important that
these committees be approved tonight so that they can start on a
back-log of work which has piled up over the past several weeks.
If any Councilman is not satisfied with the committees as pro-
posed, adjustments and exchanges can be worked out between now
and next week, as he does not feel there is anyone who is so
steadfast to be on a certain committee that he will not be
willing to change with anouther Councilman.
Vote taken on the motion to approve the proposed
Committees carried by the following roll call:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers,
Noes: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
39
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 6
Action on Appointment of Council's Legislative
Representative deferred for one week.
Councilman Thomas commented that Councilman Medders
has done an excellent job as the Council's Legislative Representa-
tive, and moved that he be appointed to serve on this Committee.
Councilman Medders declined to serve, and after discussion,
agreed to consider the appointment if a second member familiar
with State Legislative bills is appointed to serve on this
committee. Councilman Thomas then withdrew his motion, and the
matter was deferred for one week.
Appointment of Councilman Robert
Whittemore as Council's representative
on the Planning Commission.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Councilman Robert
Whirremote was appointed as the Council's representative on the
Councilman Whirremote voted in the negative
Planning Commission.
on this motion.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. A. C. Gabriel, Mid-California State Chairman of the
Municipal Finance Officers Association of the United States and
Canada, addressed the Council stating the purpose of his visit is
to present the City Finance
in reporting. This is only
in the State of California.
Department with an award for excellence
the 33rd award which has been given
The Finance Officers Association has
reviewed over ~00 Finance Reports, and only five have been awarded
to States, thirty-seven to Counties, twenty-nine to special districts,
twenty to Canadian municipalities and 220 in the entire United
States. Each report must pass a special review committee to
insure its compliance with the standards as established by the
Finance Officers Association and the National Committee of
Governmental Accounting. This indicates that these certificates
are not easily earned. Mr. Haynes, the City's Finance Director,
and his staff should be commended for their efforts, as
Bakersfield's report has passed this test. As State Chairman
for the Finance Officer's association, he takes great pleasure in
presenting this Certificate of Performance, which reporesents a
very notable achievement for a City and its Finance Director.
4O
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page ?
Mayor Hart expressed the thanks of the Council and
requested Finance Director Haynes to participate with him in
accepting the Award on behalf of the City.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
the Dedication Ceremonies Committee for the Completion of the
California State Water Project, inviting the Mayor and City
Council to attend the events of the dedication ceremonies
marking completion of California's Great State Water Project to
be held in Riverside and at Perris Dam on May 17 and 18, 1973,
was received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Mayor Hart stated that in regard to the recess of the
Council from the Council Chambers for the purpose of determining
a Vice-Mayor, he relied on advice from City Attorney Hoagland on
how to proceed in such matters. He would like help from other
people but if any fault is found with this particular circum-
stance, it should be discussed with Mr. Hoagland and not publicly
declared a violation of the Brown Act. It was considered a
personnel matter and that was the reason the recess was called
for an executive session to select a Vice Mayor.
Reports.
Councilman Don Thomas, chairman of the City-Council
Cooperation Committee, stated that last week he had asked the
City Manager to arrange for a meeting between the City-County
Cooperation Committee and representatives of the County of Kern
to discuss application of Cypress Cable TV to the FCC for
certification to add Channel 26, KMPH, Tulare to its cable tv.
Due to the fact that other members of the Committee were not
available for consultation, he is giving an oral report as
chairman.
The Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, April 17, 1973,
heard Mrs. Ruth Gelman's presentation objecting to the Cypress
Cable TV of Kern County, application to the Federal Communications
Commission for certification to add Channel 26, KMPH, Tulare
on its cable television system serving a portion of Greater
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 8
41
Bakersfield in place of Channel 7 KAVC-TV, Los Angeles, and
instructed the County Counsel to write a letter to the FCC
requesting that a public hearing be held in Bakersfield on said
matter prior to taking any action. Since time is of the essence,
Councilman Thomas moved that the Mayor be instructed to send a
telegram requesting on behalf of the City, that the FCC hold a
public hearing before any action is taken on this issue. Vote
taken on this motion carried, with Councilmen Bleecker and
Heisey voting in the negative on the motion.
Councilman Thomas remarked that Mr. Harry Pappas,
vice-president and general manager of KMPH-TV, Channel 26, had
signalled him to be heard. Mayor Hart commented that this
gentleman was given an opportunity to be heard at last week's
meeting, a motion has just been made to request that a public
hearing on the issue be held in Bakersfield before any action is
taken; however, if Mr. Pappas has something to add to his state-
ments of last week, it is the Councilman's prerogative to hear him.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he concurred with
the idea that Mr. Pappas should be heard, and he would move that
the previous action of the Council to direct the Mayor to send a
telegram to the FCC, be rescinded.
Councilman Thomas stated that he made this recommendation
to the Council for one reason, he does not normally like to tell
the federal government how to conduct its business, but he feels
that asking the FCC to hold a public hearing in Bakersfield is
necessary; therefore, he would oppose Mr. Bleecker's motion.
Mr. Bergen stated the Board of Supervisors did request
the County Counsel to write a letter to the FCC requesting that a
hearing on this application in Bakersfield prior to any action
being taken, with no position taken on the application.
Councilman Whirremote commented that since the Board
granted the Franchise to Cypress Cable TV, the Council should not
take any opposite action from that taken by the Board.
42
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 9
Councilman Bleecker stated that if the previous motion
was amended to include the words "that this Council takes no
position one way or the other", he can support it.
Councilman Thomas pointed out that he did not ask the
Council to take a position, all he asked was that the Mayor be
directed to send a telegram asking the FCC to hold a hearing in
Bakersfield.
Councilman Bleecker then withdrew his motion to rescind
the previous action, and offered a second motion that the wording
be added that "this Council expressly takes no position in this
matter." Councilman Thomas seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously.
Mr. Harry Pappas, vice-president and general manager
of KMPH Channel 26 in Tulare, California, thanked the City Council
for the action taken tonight. They appreciate the fact that the
Council has not attempted to sit in judgment on a very complex
question involving federal regulation and the rights of television
stations to be carried by cable tv.
Mrs. Ruth Gelman thanked the Council for taking its
position not to judge the merits of the issue, but supporting
the FCC staff coming to Bakersfield to hear what the people have
to say on this matter.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent
Calendar:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Allowance of Claims Nos. 3493 to 3650,
inclusive,(with exception of No. 3618)
in amount of $60,850.11
Upon
and (c) of the
AYES:
Plans and Specifications for Construction
of Restroom-Storage Building at Patriots
Park
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Request from Watson Realty Co. for vacation
of a small portion of the W 1/w of the
extension of Union Avenue lying adjacent to
Tract 3538 (Refer to the Planning Commission)
a motion by Councilman Medders, Items Nos. (a),(b)
Consent Calendar were adopted by the following vote:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page l0
43
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Ordinance No.
2090 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
authorizing amendment to the Contract between the City Council
and the Board of Administration of the California Public
Employees' Retirement System, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
No. 890 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield declaring its intention to
order the abandonment of a Drainage
Easement in the NE~ of Section 10,
T. 30 S., R. 27 E., in the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution of
Intention No. 890 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield
declaring its intention to order the abandonment of a Drainage
Easement in the NE¼ of Section 10, T. 30 S., R. 27 E., in the
City of Bakersfield, and setting date of May 14, 1973 for hearing
on the matter before the Council, was adopted by the following
vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
adding Section 11.04.798 to the
Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Height
Street from a point 400 feet east of the
Center Line of Haley Street to Mr. Vernon
Avenue.)
First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield adding Section 11.04.798 to the
Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Height Street from a point 400 feet
east of the Center Line of Haley Street to Mr. Vernon Avenue.)
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 11
Property declared Surplus and Mayor authorized
to execute Quit Claim Deeds to Egan Gost, et al.,
and Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company for
strip of land adjacent to the south side of
Auburn Street east of Columbus Street.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, strip of land
adjacent to the south side of Auburn Street east of Columbus
Street was declared surplus, and the Mayor was authorized to
execute Quit Claim Deeds to Eagan Goat, et al., and Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Company for this property upon payment
of sum of $325.00.
Approval of Amendment to Lease No. 87-72
with County of Kern for Operation of the
Dog Pound.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Amendment to
Lease No. 87-72 with County of Kern which would allow the County
to operate the Dog Pound and extend the Lease to June 30, 1974,
was approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, letter from
County Administrative Officer McNamee to the City Manager
advising that the Board of Supervisors authorized him on
April 17, 1973 to transmit the County's intention to terminate
Agreement No. 86-72 and Lease No. 87-72 for operation of the Dog
Pound as of June l, 1973, and to lease the entire premises from
1973 through June 30, 1974, was received and ordered placed
June 1,
on file.
Hearings:
This was the time set for continue public hearing before
the Council on application of J. O. Barber to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone
to an R-2-P (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Parking) or more
restrictive,
3115 Parkway,
applicant or
zone, or that certain property commonly known as
which was continued from last week's meeting due
authorized representative not being present.
to
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
No protests or objections were received, and Mr. Barber
representative was not present. Upon a motion by Council-
patton.
or his
man Bleecker, the hearing was continued for one week and the staff
was instructed to notify Mr. Barber that the Council has a policy
that the applicant or his representative is required to be present
at the hearing before the Council can consider his application for
rezoning.
45
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 12
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on an appeal by Jerry Lee Storts to the decision of the Board of
Zoning Adjustment granting his application requesting a modification
of an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to allow the elimination of tile
required off-street parking spaces in conjunction with garage con-
version to living area on that certain property commonly known as
2521 Lum Avenue. This hearing has been duly advertised and posted
and notices sent as required by ordinance. One letter of protest
was received in the City Clerk's office from Mr. Jarad L. Michael,
owner of the property at 2517 Lum Avenue.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections were received to the granting
of the modification. Mr. Timothy Lawhead of 2601 Lum Avenue,
stated the garage conversion was a definite improvement to the
subject property and he has no objection to the granting of
Mr. Storts' request.
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Storts if the Building Depart-
ment had given him final approval of the property. Mr. Storts stated
that the Building Department advised they would approve the building
subject to the addition of support beams, which had been done, and
they are now waiting for final inspection by the Building Department.
Mayor Hart declared the public hearing closed for Council
action and deliberation. Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Zoning
Resolution No. 242 granting modification of the Land Use Zoning
Ordinance of the City of Bakersfield to permit the elimination of
the required off-street parking spaces in conjunction with the
conversion of a grage to living area on that certain property commonly
known as 2521 Lum Avenue, with the condition that final approval be
made
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
by the Building Department, was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Rogers, Strong, Thomas,
Whittemore
None
None
Councilman Medders
46
Bakersfield, California, April 23, 1973 - Page 13
Adjournment
There being no further business to come before the Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore,
at 9:10 P.M.
the meeting was adjourned
MA~~C t~~kersfield, Calif.
ATTEST:
CITY~Lh~ and 'Ex-O~-Icio C~erk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973
47
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., April 30, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Councilman Walter
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Rogers, Stone, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 23, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Election of Vice-Mayor.
Councilman Thomas moved that the selection of Vice-Mayor
be conducted publicly in the Council Chambers and that balloting
for the candidates be done by secret ballot. This motion carried
unanimously.
Councilman Thomas nominated incumbent Councilman Whittemore,
Councilman Rogers nominated Councilman Bleecker, and Councilman
Medders nominated Councilman Heisey for the office of Vice-Mayor.
Secret ballots were cast and tallied by the City Manager
and the City Clerk, and Mayor Hart announced the following results
and ruled that no majority vote for the office was cast:
Councilman Bob Whittemore 3 votes
Councilman Keith Bleecker 2 votes
Councilman Walter Heisey 2 votes
Councilman Thomas re-nominated Councilman Whirremote,
Councilman Rogers re-nominated Councilman Bleecker, and Council-
man Medders re-nominated Councilman Heisey for Vice-Mayor.
Tally of the ballots was made with the following results:
Counsilman Bob Whirremote received three votes, Council-
man Keith Bleecker received two votes and Councilman Walter Heisey
received two votes, without a majority being received by any
candidate.
Councilman Heisey moved that the Council proceed with
its regular business, which motion carried unanimously.
Heisey.
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 2
Legislative matters to be referred
to the Council as a Committee of the
Whole.
This was the time set for consideration of appointment of
the Council's legislative representatives. Councilman Bleecker
remarked that it has been brought to the attention of the Council
by the City Attorney that quite often important legislative
matters are submitted to the Council for its consideration.
He has found that some legislative bills proposed for support
by the League of California Cities do not benefit the City of
Bakersfield. The Legislative Committee is not one that can
function only occasionally, it should be one of the more important
committees of the Council. He stated he would like to throw it
open for discussion by the full Council whether or not the Legis-
lative Committee should be discontinued, or if there are Council-
men who are willing to serve on this Committee, willing to
spend the time to read and digest the many bills which could
be important to the welfare of the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Heisey agreed with Councilman Bleecker that
it is an important committee, but it hasn't really functioned,
one or two Councilmen have acted as the committee and the
balance of the Council has more or less taken it for granted
that something is being done. If the entire Council acted as
a Committee and reviewed the bills and if a Councilman sees an
item which he considers should have Council action, he can
bring it to the Council, it can be discussed and acted on the
next week, if there is sufficient time to do so. If a bill is
to be effectively supported in Sacramento, it would be well to
have the Council study it in advance.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he thinks the
Legislative Committee is extremely important. He serves as a member
of the Board of Directors of the South San Joaquin Division of the
League of California Cities and various legislative matters are
discussed at the annual conference and also at the division
meetings. He feels that one member of the Council should attend
these meetings and act as a liaison with the League of California
Cities. He, therefore, does not feel that this Committee should
be taken lightly. A legislative representative appointed here
can attend the meetings of the South San Joaquin Division and
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 3
49
become more active in it, which is about the only way the City
can keep itself informed of proposed legislative matters.
Councilman Bleecker then moved that the Council act as
a Committee: of the whole to consider legislation to be proposed
or acted upon by the City of Bakersfield. This motion carried
unanimously..
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, communication
from Mr. and Mrs. F. L. Forester regarding smoking at the Civic
Auditorium was received and ordered placed on file.
It was moved by Councilman Whirremote that communication
from the Bakersfield Observor regarding revenue sharing be
received and placed on file. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Rogers pointed out that a reply was requested
and after some discussion, moved that an appropriate person be
directed to answer this letter. Councilman Bleecker offered a
substitute motion that the communication be referred to the
Auditorium-Recreation ~ommittee for study and recommendation.
This motion carried unanimously.
Council Statements.
Councilman Whittemore stated that last week when the
Standing Council Committee appointments were proposed, it was
generally agreed that these were not necessarily the final
assignments to these committees, and he would like therefore to
submit a proposal to the Council regarding certain changes in the
Committees.
Councilman Strong has indicated that he is willing to serve
as chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation Committee. It should be
noted that Councilman Rogers has been appointed to serve on the
three strongest and most active committees of the Council, serving
as Chairman of the Auditorium-Recreation.Committee. Councilman
Whirremote than made the following recommendation in the form of
a motion:
That in place of Councilman Rogers serving as Chairman of the
Auditorium-Recreation Co~nmittee, he take Councilman Whittemore's
chairmanship of the Business Development and Parking Committee.
Councilman Whirremote would then move to the Auditorium-Recreation
5O
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 4
Committee as a member, which would allow Councilman Strong to assume
the chairmanship of the Auditorium-Recreation Committee, leaving
Councilman Whittemore without a chairmanship of any Council Committee.
Councilman Strong has devoted many years of his life to
the youth movement of the City working against crime and for
recreation; he has served four years as a chairman of the Citizens
Advisory Committee for the California Avenue Park Multi-purpose
Building, and Councilman Whittemore stated he can see no harm
in making these changes in the Council Standing Committees.
Councilman Heisey stated he would have to vote against
Councilman Whittemore's motion, as he feels the Council should have
a little time to discuss this amongst themselves and make sure it
will be equitable, as the way it is proposed one Councilman will[
be without a chairmanship and another one will wind up with two.
Councilman Bleecker commented that when he first came
on the Council he was Chairman of the Voucher Committee and
served on it for quite some time, in fact he is still serving on it.
This affords new councilmen the opportunity to peruse and approve
every dollar the City spends. The Chairmanship of this committee
is a good place to start,
committee of the Council.
this time is warranted.
as it is an extremely important
He doesn't think that any change at
Councilman Thomas stated he agreed with Councilman
Bleecker to some extent, the Voucher Approval Committee is a
very important committee expecially for new Council members,
as it gives them a chance to familiarize themselves with the
financial situation of the City. He feels that it would be very
beneficial for Councilman Rogers to serve on this Committee.
Councilman Strong commented that he wished to take no
issue with what the Council has done with regard to chairmanships
of the Standing Committees and he is not questioning the qualifi-
cations of Mr. Rogers to serve on the Auditorium-Recreation
Committee. It is just that the people of Bakersfield should
know that the multi-purpose building for which the City of
Bakersfield has contributed funds, is in Ward one. The Civic
Auditorium is in Ward Four. It has been verified that he
has served as Chairman of the Citizens Advisory Committee for the
5i
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 5
multi-purpose
the last four
qualified for
building and has worked closely with that project for
years. It would seem to him that he would be more
that particular chairmanship than another Councilman
who has no more experience on the Council than he has. It is
because of this kind of logic that he takes issue with Mr. Rogers'
appointment.
Councilman Rogers stated he was not really prepared to
comment one way or the other, he hasn't given it too much thought.
It is true he is on three rather important committees, but everyone
has to be somewhere, and he will abide by whatever the Council
decides.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out that the Auditorium-
Recreation Committee is involved with a great many issues besides
the multi-purpose building. It concerns itself with the operation
of the Civic Auditorium, activities that are held there, with the
operation of the public parks for, summer recreation programs for
citizens and young people, and as a member of that Committee,
Councilman Strong can certainly function properly. If any changes
are to be made, he would say it should be done at a later date,
without resulting in one Councilman being chairman of two Committees.
He then asked for the question.
Vote taken Councilman Whittemore's motion to make certain
changes in membership of the Council Standing Committees failed
to carry by the following roll call:
Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whitteemore
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker,
None
Councilman Medders
Heisey, Medders, Rogers
asked the Director of Public Works to
check on the feasibility of abandoning a portion of "N" Street
between 9th and 10th Street, as it is extremely hazardous for the
children attending Rarer Johnson School to cross the street at
that intersection.
Councilman Medders also requested that
of the Councilmanic Wards be made up. Since the
the boundaries of the seven wards of the City, many people are
confused and not aware that they have been transferred from one ward
to another. He has had many calls from people who are no longer
in his ward, and he believes the maps should be made available to
the public.
new, up-to-date maps
latest alteration of
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 6
Mr. Bergen stated maps could be prepared for the Council
with each Ward colored separately. Me suggested that a single
line m~p showing only boundary streets, but not all the individual
streets of the City be made up by Public Works and possibly printed
in the newspapers for the benefit of the public.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Councilman Strong asked that Mrs. Nancy Berrigan be
recognized at this time, as she had requested to address the
Council. Mrs. Berrigan commented on the Council's executive
session of April 23, 1973, stating she concurred with the City
Attorney's ruling that it was not a violation of the Brown Act;
however, she was opposed to the Council conducting its meetings
based on a' ruling of the Attorney General. A well-informed
public is more helpful than one that is kept in the dark on
certain activities of the Council..
Reports.
City Manager Bergen reported that he had been notified by
the State Finance Department that the City's population has
increased from 74,700 to 76,800.
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent
Calendar:
Noes:
Absent:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Upon
Allowance of Claims Nos. 3651 to 3727,
inclusive, in amount of $34,733.28.
Claim for Personal Injuries from Vivienne
D. Freese (Refer to the City Attorney)
Street Right of Way Deed from Ming Center
Investment Company
Street Right of Way Deed from Elwood M.
Ingledue
a motion by Councilman Strong, Item~ (a), (b),
(c) and (d) of
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whirremote
None
None
the Consent Calendar, were adopted by the
Rogers,
Strong,
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 7
53
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Ordinance No. 2091
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adding
Section 11.04.798 to the Municipal Code (Speed Limit on Height
Street from a point 400 feet east of the center line of Haley
Street to Mr. Vernone Avenue) was adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Approval of Lease of the Municipal
Transit System Property at 3101 16th
Street to the Greater Bakersfield
Metropolitan Transit District.
Councilman Heisey commented that leasing this property
to the Transit District is good for the economy of the City of
Bakersfield and he moved that the Lease be approved and the Mayor
authorized to execute it.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the lease was looked at by
a committee. of the Council. Mr. Bergen replied that it was
discussed informally with a committee and it was decided that
the staff should get an appraisal of the property, however, no
report was made. Councilman Bleecker asked what Committee this
was, and Mr. Bergen replied the Water and City Growth Committee.
Councilman Bleecker asked what the apprised value of the
property was, and City Attorney Hoagland replied that $120,000 was
considered the market value, and the yearly rental based on 10% of the
appraisal, would be $12,000 a year, or $1,000 a month. The five-year
lease with a 5-year option was requested by the Transit District.
He added that the District would consider buying this property
during the term of the lease, but this could be considered at a
later date.
Councilman Bleecker
motion.
Councilman Rogers
set out in the lease and Mr.
modified at any
remarked that he could support the
asked if there was an option to purchase
Hoagland replied that the lease may' be
time to include that on whatever conditions recommended
54
Bakersfield, California, April
by the Council, but at the present time there
purchase contained in the lease.
30, 1973 - Page 8
is no option to
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motioncarried unanimously.
Approval of boundaries of proposed
annexation designated as Beale No. 3.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, boundaries of
proposed annexation designated as ~eale No. 3 were approved
and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney for
referral to LAFC.
Approval of Cooperative Agreement
between the City of Bakersfield and the
County of Kern for Improvement of Ming
Avenue.
Councilman Thomas asked the Director of Public Works :if
i~ would be necessary to condemn property on the south side of
Ming Avenue for the improvement of Ming Avenue, and Mr. Bidwell
answered fhat it would not be necessary to acquire any additional
property on the south side of Ming Avenue. Councilman Thomas then
moved to approve the Cooperative Agreement between the City of
Bakersfield and the County of Kern for Improvement of Ming
Avenue and authorize the Mayor to execute same. This motion
carried unanimously.
Acceptance of Street Right of Way
Deed from Charles E. Manley for the
widening of a portion of Golden State
Avenue frontage road west of"F"
Street. Public Works Department
authorized to proceed with the work.
Councilman Whittemore inquired if the widening of a
portion of Golden State Avenue west of "F" Street would be
done for the convenience of the commercial properties along
that strip.
Director of Public Works Bidwell stated that it will do
more to help the residential area. Mr. Manley is dedicating the
right of way for this widening, but he did not request that the
work be done. However, it will eliminate the parking in front
of his property and the City will provide parallel parking on the
street to replace it and will pay for the widening and improve-
ment after acquisition of the right of way from Mr. Manley.
Councilman Whittemore asked if normally it wouldn't be
the responsibility of the adjacent property owner to pay for the
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 9
widening and improvement of a street. Mr. Bidwell stated
that there is no responsibility for the property owner to do so
in this case as the City doesn't have the right of way. Mr. Manley
is dedicating the land for the widening; however, there is no
ordinance or requirement which can be imposed upon Mr. Manley to
either dedicate the right of way or pay for the improvement.
Councilman Thomas asked what the estimated cost of the
improvement would be, and Mr. Bidw911 replied that it was
approximately $1,200.00 to provide adequate parking and travel lanes.
Councilman Bleecker inquired if this action was initiated
by Mr. Manley, the Traffic Authority, or by some other property
owner. Mr. Bidwell stated that discussions had been held with the
Traffic Authority and at the time the development to the west was
up for review during the planning stages the staff took the
necessary steps to acquire land to widen the street. The City
actually initiated the request.
After additional Countil discussion with Mr. Bidwell,
upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the Street Right of Way Deed
from Mr. Charles E. Manley was accepted, and the Public Works
Department was directed to proceed with the widening of a portion
of the Golden State Avenue frontage road west of "F" Street.
Adoption of Resolution No. 27-73
authorizing execution of a Grant
Agreement between the City and the
United States of America, Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development,
for construction of a Storm Sewer
System in the Mayflower area.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Resolution No. 27-73
authorizing execution of a grant agreement between the City and the
United States of America, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development,
providing for grant in amount of $75,076 for Construction of a Storm
Sewer System in the Mayflower Area, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker,
Noes; None
Absent: None
Heisey, Strong, Thomas,
Whittemore
Abstaining: Councilman Rogers
56
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 10
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on application of HilltopDevelopers, Inc. to amend the
zoning boun-daries from an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) Zone to an
R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more restrictive, Zone,
of that certain property commonly known as 2701 South Real Road.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted
and notices sent as required by ordinance. No protests or
objections have been filed in the City Clerk's office.
Subject property is a 1.29 acre parcel of land on
the west side of Real Road, approximately 600 feet south of
Wilson Road. The applicant plans the construction of .apartments
for rental to middle income families, if the zoning is granted.
At its regular meeting held April 2; 1973, the
Planning Commission approved the request to amend the zoning
boundaries to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) or more
restrictive, Zone, with the application of the "D" Overlay to
protect the R-3 property to the north and the R-1 property to
the south.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public
participation. Mrs. Nancy Berrigan addressed the Council
stating she was neither for or against the rezoning, but asked
if the Environmental Impact Reports on both of the rezonings
set for hearing tonight have been prepared and available to the
public. Mr. Bob Thomas, Assistant Planning Director, tated the
EIR assessments were made on these projects and posted on a
bulletin board outside the Planning Department for ten days
and also filed with the County Clerk's office. No one speaking
for or against the rezoning, Mayor Hart closed the public hearing
for Council deliberation and action.
Councilman Thomas questioned no one being present to speak
in favor of the rezoning; however, a representative of the Hilltop
Developers, Inc. indicated that he was present in the audience.
Councilman Medders pointed out that recently a request
for rezoning in this general area was denied as it was felt there
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 11
57
was no need for additional apartments, due to an alleged 25%
vacancy factor. He asked if it were ~o longer necessary for the
Council to place a limitation on building in this area.
Councilman Rogers commented he wondered if it were within
the scope of the City Council to instruct a businessman how to use
his property or to worry about his risk. A businessman has a right
to succeed, he also has a right to fail.
Councilman Heisey agreed, saying he does not feel it is
the Council's prerogative to decide whether more apratments should
be built, or whether the zoning is equitable.
Councilman Whittemore stated the responsibility lies within
the Master Plan, any property owner is entitled to the highest and
best use of his property; however, the highest use is not always
the best use, and is not always the means for deciding whether a
zone change should be granted.
Councilman Thomas reminded the Council that he was
elected to his office to protect the neighboring areas, and he
feels it is the responsibility of the Council to regulate zoning
and building in the southwest area.
In reply to a question by Mrs. Nancy Berrigan regarding
the Environmental Impact Report Assessments made on the rezoning,
City Attorney Hoagland stated that these properties were given a
negative assessment for environmental impact reports which was
posted in accordance with the regulations set forth in the
resolution recently adopted by the Council, there is no environmental
impact report as such, as it was given a negative assessment on the
environment and was not challenged.
Councilman Thomas asked the authorized representative
for the Hilltop Developers, Inc. if they would be using the
maximum R-2 Zone, and he stated they would not. City Attorney
Hoagland pointed out that the applicant had requested R-2, but
the Planning Commission did recommend R-2-D.
Bakersfield, California, April 30, 1973 - Page 12
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Ordinance No. 2092,
New Series, amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing
the Land Use Zoning of that certain property commonly known as
2701 South Real Road, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes': Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
This is the time set for continued public hearing before
the Council on application of J. O. Barber to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) Zone
to an R-2-P (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Parking), or
more restrictive, Zone, of that certain property commonly known
as 3115 Parkway. This hearing was deferred from meetings of
April 16 and 23, 1973, as applicant or authorized representative
was not present.
Mayor Hart had closed the public portion o~ the hearing
at meeting of April 16, 1973. Mr. Barber was present at this
hearing. No protests or objections being received, upon a motion
by Councilman Medders, Ordinance No. 2093, New Series, amending
Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of
that certain property commonly known as 3115 Parkway, was adopted
by the following vote:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Ayes:
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the Council
adjourned at 9:10 P.M~ ///.
M Bakersfield, California
ATTEST:
K a x erk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the
City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., May 7, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Thomas Tiemens of
Teen Challenge.
The City Clerk called the roll as
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker,
Thomas, Strong, Whittemore.
Absent: None
follows:
Heisey, Medders, Rogers,
Minutes of the regular meeting of April 30, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Mayor Hart acknowledged the presence of Boy Scout Troop 133,
accompanied by Scout Master Bradford and Assistant Scout Master Reed,
who are attending the Council meeting tonight to receive credit for
citizenship merit badges.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Nancy Berrigan of 2204 E Street, addressed the Council
and requested the following item be placed on future Council agendas
for the information of the public whenever a rezoning is being con-
sidered: Notice of Determination. This is a notice of the decision
of the Agency approving or disapproving the project, and determining
whether the said project will have a significant effect on the
environment and whether an EIR has been prepared pursuant to the
provisions of the CEQA.
Correspondence.
Councilman Rogers pointed out that last week the Council
received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. F. L. Forester regarding smoking
in the auditorium and a letter has been submitted to the Council
tonight from Mr. and Mrs. Joe Monaco regarding both smoking and
drinking at the Auditorium. He then moved that the communications
be referred to the Citizens Auditorium-Recreation Committee of the
Council. This motion carried unanimously.
6O
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 2
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from Kern
County Water Agency requesting review by the City Council of pro-
posed alignment of the Agency's Cross Valley Canal Project was
referred to the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, communication from
Elmer Fox and Company submitting proposal for the audit of the
City's records for the year ended June 30, 1973 was referred to
the Budget Review and Finance Committee for recommendation.
A communication was received from the Safety Committee
of the Parents-Teachers Association of the Colonel Nichols School,
stating that hazards affecting the safety of the children still
exist and there is a need to continue to improve these unsafe
conditions. They asked the Police Chief and the Public Works
Director, or one of their staff members, to join a standing safety
committee including the safety chairman, president of the PTA, anti
the school principal, to investigate conditions by which safety
may be improved. The first meeting has been set for Tuesday,
May 15, 1973, at 10:30 a.m.
Councilman Rogers suggested that members of the City
staff attend this meeting and report back to the Council.
Mr. Bergen stated the letter requests that a representa--
tire from the Traffic Authority or the Public Works Department
attend this meeting and serve as members of the committee. Staff
members will attend the first meeting and report to the Council,
but do not believe it is necessary to join in a standing safety
committee.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the communication waLs
received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Councilman Bleecker moved that for this evening roll call
vote of the Council be taken as usual in alphabetical order, but
beginning next Monday, roll call votes be taken in rotation at
each subsequent regular meeting of the Council. This motion
carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 3
61
Councilman Rogers made the following statement:
Mr. Mayor. I have a statement regarding the 5% Utility
User's Tax that was placed on the people in the City approximately
two and a half years ago. With the recent increase in assessed
value of City property and corresponding increased revenue to the
City, plus the increased revenue the City would receive from sales
tax for increased sales within the City if this money were left
in the pocket of the taxpayers to spend for whatever they wish,
and rightfully so, the five percent Utility Tax can be removed at
this time without reducing service to the people. Therefore, I
move that the Utility User's Tax be rescinded effective July 1,
1973, and the 1973-74 City Budget be adjusted accordingly.
Councilman Thomas stated as follows:
This is a very commendable motion, certainly all members
of the Council are in favor of reducing taxes, but I feel this is
the wrong time to do it, during the budget sessions is the proper
time to consider this type of action. Also, the Budget Review
and Finance Committee should have the privilege of looking into
this in depth and make a report to the Council. I therefore
make a substitute motion that this matter be referred to the Budget
Review and Finance Committee for study and recommendation.
Councilman Bleecker stated as follows:
The figures involved here represent some six-tenths of 1% of
the entire budget if the Utility Tax were repealed this evening.
Everyone on the Council, except perhaps Councilman Strong and
Councilman Rogers, has had an opportunity for no less than two years
and up to many years to review City Budgets and to ascertain in
their own minds that a small percentage like this can be found
elsewhere in the budget and that this savings could certainly be made.
I think the people deserve to have their faxes reduced. It think it
would be a milestone in government in this State if the City Council
chose to eliminate a tax such as the Utility Tax altogether. There
has been some talk about reducing the ad valorem tax a few points
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 4
here and there. But when you find that the funds are available
and the way they got there is that people paid them and put them
into the City coffers; when you realize, and I have made this
statement a number of times, that the City has a tendency to spend
every penny it receives every year, and when you realize also that
if business or government or people don't have the funds they can't
spend them, and if this tax were repealed, it would represent an
extremely small percentage of the City budget for this year,
I think the time to do it is now. I would therefore support
the motion made by Councilman Rogers.
Councilman Medders stated as follows:
I don't think there is anyone who would not like to
have his taxes reduced. However, I feel that any tax reduction
we can give should reflect in property tax relief for a number
of reasons:
1.
The upward assessments during the past year
have increased property taxes enormously.
With the advent of SB-90, select groups have
been chosen to pay the property tax - this
group covers only those of us who have
property with a selling price of over
$7,000.
The Utility User's Tax is the only tax many
properties pay. Included are: churches,
schools, federal properties, county properties,
and among others, the Christian Towers and
some of the government housing.
Property taxes are punitive in nature. The
more you improve your property through effort
and expenditure, the higher the penalty for
those efforts.
The Utility User Tax on the other hand, is
comparable to the Sales Tax, both of which
I feel are more equitable than property tax.
Deletion of the Utility User's Tax as opposed
to reduction of the property tax is, in my
opinion, nothing less than another local
welfare program, where we take from those who
try and give to those who in too many cases,
don't.
Councilman Heisey stated:
This certainly is the year for tax relief, and I am
satisfied that the City is in a strong enough fiscal position
that we can have tax relief. Two points of view have been stated,
whether this relief comes in the form or reduction of property
tax rates, or in the form of reduction or elimination of the
Utility Tax. The amount of revenue raised by the Utility Tax
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 5
63
was slightly over a million dollars last year. If we threw all
that out, it would be the equivalent of about sixty-four cents
on the property tax rate.
That is a substantial sum of money and rather than vote
on this tonight, I am in favor of the substitute motion, as I
think we need to give it careful consideration in the Budget
Review and Finance Committee. Also, I would invite the studied
opinion of the Kern County Taxpayers Association, I see their
director, Mr. Tom Folsom, is in the audience. It is the kind of
issue that they are peculiarly set up to give a valid opinion on
and I would certainly respect that opinion. I think we should
also have recommendations from our own staff. I support the
substitute motion.
Councilman Whittemore stated:
I believe that all of us are interested in reducing taxes,
that has been the goal of most of us through the years. With the
enactment of SB-90, we have known since last summer that there is
going to be a strong possibility of reducing at least one of our
taxes. Whether it will be the Utility Tax or the ad valorem tax,
we will only know when all the figures are in from the staff, from
our Budget Review and Finance Committee, and the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee at budget time. A little over
a month from now we will go into our budget sessions, we have the
final figures, we don't have to set our tax rate until August,
and I think the motion at this particular time is premature. I
may be able tO support Councilman Rogers' motion by June, but at
this particular time I will have to support the substitute motion.
Councilman Rogers stated:
First of all I would like to make a comment on Mr. Medders'
statement, that the Utility Tax extracts taxes from schools, churches
and public buildings, which would be missed otherwise. We have to
remember that only people pay taxes, the same people that pay the
Utility Tax in their homes and businesses are also the ones who
are paying the taxes on the schools, churches and public buildings.
The only meaningful relief is to take the tax off altogether.
64
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 6
In reference to something that Councilman Heisey said - the
big reason I would like to see the tax removed is this: it has been
traditional in the United States to not place a tax on basic
requirements and needs of people. If someone wants to go out and
buy a luxury item and is charged a sales tax, he has a choice as to
whether or not he wishes to buy the item.
choice as to whether or not we have water,
our homes, these things are required. So,
a tax on
But we do not have a
gas or elee!ricity in
it is like placing
food when you place a tax on utilities. For these
I would like to see the tax removed, and removed. tonight.
Councilman Bleecker stated:
I think sometimes some of us forget what we have stood
for in the past a few miles down the road. In June, 1970, when
this Utility Tax was imposed on the public, I was the only
Councilman that opposed it at that time. I recall the reasons for
passing it quickly:, and that was the tone of the meeting that night.
"Let's pass it quickly," was because it was feared that the State
of California would preempt the field of utility taxation and that
the City of Bakersfield would not be allowed under State law to
impose a tax of this type. Let me say that I think it can be
taken off just as quickly as it was put on. The reserve funds
of the City of Bakersfield through a lot of hard work by the whole
Council in the past year and before that, have been brought back
up to what they should be, some of them were nearly depleted.
I have here a brochure that Councilman Thomas cir-
culated during his election two years ago in which it states
"Don Thomas is concerned about the unfair and regressive Utility
Tax on your water, gas, light and phone bills." And, I would
assume that if that tax was unfair and regressive two years ago,
it is just as unfair and regressive now.
Councilman Heisey stated:
Just a couple of points. In regards to Mr. Rogers'
comments that the Utility Tax was imposed on basic necessities,
I would like to point out that the property tax on your home
is certainly a basic necessity, we are entitled to shelter.
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 7
So far, I am not satisfied that sufficient funds have
been made available to eliminate the entire tax. If such is the
case, that will develop, I am sure, in Committee. Nothing has
been said here tonight that would demonstrate that sufficienf
funds are available, in fact, I am led to believe quite the con-
trary, that we probably cannot eliminate the entire tax without
injuring the fiscal strength of our City. I certainly have an open
mind on this and I know that the people of Bakersfield are entitled
to some tax relief, whether it is in the sum of a million dollars
or six or eight..'hundred thousand dollars, I don't know just what
it is. But I want to have time to find out, no~ make a snap
judgment here tonight.
Councilman Strong stated:
I would just like to say that the Utility Tax was not a
campaign issue in my case. However, I would have to observe that
any tax which does not take into consideration the taxpayers
financial ability to pay, is extremely regressive and for that
reason I will have to support Mr. Rogers' position one hundred
percent.
Councilman Thomas stated:
In response to Councilman Bleecker's attack. Yes, Mr.
Bleecker, I did have that on my brochure and I am going to live up
to it if I can possibly do it. The thing is that I am not one to
be irresponsible enough to put this City in financial jeopardy to
make political hay. And, I am not going to be led down the prim-
rose path by a bunch of misguided financial Whiz Kids on a local
radio program.
Councilman Rogers stated:
As Mr. Bleecker pointed out in his earlier statement, it
appears that the Utility Tax can be rescinded with the increased
revenue that the City will have, and that the budget can be
balanced. I have every faith in the world that Mr. Bergen and his
staff and the department heads can trim less than 1% of expenditure
from the coming budget.
Councilman Bleecker:
As far as making political hay is concerned,
Councilman Thomas that I have been opposed to this tax
I would remind
for three years,
66
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 8
I opposed it when it was presented to the Council for many of the
reasons that have been brought out tonight, I continued to oppose
if, I oppose it now; in other words, it is my intention to stand
hitched to my original conception that this tax is unfair.
Councilman Whittemore and Councilman Rogers engaged in a
discussion relative to the amount derived from the Utility Tax and
the anticipated assessed valuation and amount of revenue required
to replace it in the budget.
After additional discussion, Councilman Heisey called
for the question. Councilman Rogers asked for a vote on his
original motion. Mayor Hart pointed out that a substitute motion
had been made by Councilman Thomas. City Attorney Hoagland
stated that the substitute motion takes precedent over the main
motion, if it is defeated, then a vote is taken on the main motion;
if it passes, it wipes out the main motion.
Councilman Bleecker then offered a substitute motion to
the substitute motion, that this measure be referred to the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee of the Council.
Roll Call vote taken on this motion failed to carry as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Rogers, Strong.
Noes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Councilman Thomas restated his substitute motion that tile
matter of the Utility User's Tax be referred to the Budget Review
and Finance Committee.
Councilman Rogers' proposed a substitute motion that the
five percent Utility Tax be removed at this time.
Councilman Whittemore raised a point of order and asked
for the City Attorney's opinion, who stated that a substitute to
the substitute motion was not proper in the first place. This
matter had been resolved previously at the Council level. Vote
should be taken on the substitute motion and then on the main
motion, or only on one substitute motion. Since this precedent
has been set tonight, he feels the Council should continue it
tonight, but generally speaking, there is no substitute motion to
a substitute motion; there is only one substitute to the main
motion, and if that is defeated, another substitute motion can
be offered to the main motion.
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 9
Councilman Bleecker questioned the City Attorney's
interpretation of Mason's Rules in that there cannot be a substitute
motion to a substitute motion. Mr. Hoagland stated he was not
implying that, he is only saying that at an earlier meeting the
Council in its deliberations had set the precedent of making only
one substitute motion.
Councilman Rogers observed he would just like to have a vote
taken on his motion. Roll Call Vote on his motion failed to carry
as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Rogers, Strong
Noes: Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Thomas, Whittemore
Absent: None
Councilman Thomas stated he was just forced to go on record
not
as/~-~pporting the repealing of a tax, he doesn't like the idea, and
that was not the intent of his substitute motion. He again restated
his motion to refer the matter to the Budget Review and Finance
Committee for evaluation and report to the Council on or before
the budget hearings.
Roll Call Vote taken on the motion carried as follows:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Reisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Councilman Bleecker moved that the Council adopt a
Minute Order that any report of the Budget Review and Finance
Committee on the five percent Utility Tax be made available in
writing to each member of the Council no less than one week before
consideration of the budget. This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Thomas appointed Mrs. Johnie Mae Parker to
serve on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Kern County Council
of Governments.
Reports.
Councilman Rogers, chairman, reported on a meeting held by
the Auditorium-Recreation Committee on the subject of the Teen Center
Summer Recreation Program as follows:
The Council's Committee reviewed the recommendations by
the Citizens Auditorium-Recreation Committee that Teen Membership
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 10
card charge of $1.00 be dropped and the charge for Friday night
dances be set at $2.00. If attendance at these dances is equal to
last summer's attendance, revenue to the City will increase by
$1,221.00. The Citiznes Committee also suggested as part of its
recommendation, that a complete evaluation be made at the end of
the summer to determine the effect of this change. The Auditorium-
Recreation Committee recommends that the Council approve this
suggestion. Councilman Rogers then moved adoption of the report
which carried unanimously.
Councilman Rogers, chairman, reported on a meeting
held by the Auditorium-Recreation Committee on the subject of
the California Avenue Park Swimming Pool, as follows:
The Council's Committee reviewed the recommendation by
the Citizens Committee that a temporary fence be erected around
the California Avenue Park Swimming Pool area so this pool can be
opened for use at the beginning of the summer. A group of citizens
from the area attended the Committee meeting and are in complete
agreement that a temporary fence is the best solution. Cost to
the City is estimated at $900.00 to $1,000.00. The Auditorium-
Recreation Committee recommends approval of this request and
transfer of the required funds from the Council's Contingency
Fund. Councilman Rogers then moved that this report be adopted,
which carried unanimously.
Councilman Rogers, Chairma% reported on a meeting held
by the Auditorium-Recreation Committee, on the subject of Naming
of Park at White Lane and Grissom Street as follows:
Several months ago three names were submitted to the
Council for consideration of the naming of the park at White Lane
and Grissom Street, with no decision reached but instructions
were given to submit additional names.
The Auditorium-Recreation Committee feels that many of
the City's parks are named according to their location to City
streets, which makes it easier for the public to find the park.
Therefore, the Committee recommends the following three names:
Stine Park; White Lane Park; or Grissom Park.
Councilman Thomas stated that this park is located in
his ward and moved that the Council accpet the name of '!Grissom
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 11
Park." This motion carried unanimously.
Councilman Rogers, Chairman, reported on a meeting of the
Auditorium-Recreation Committee, to consider a request by the
Bakersfield Swim Club to use Jefferson Park Pool on July 7th and
8th, and the Bakersfield College Swimming Pool on July 14th and
15th, for their annual swimming and diving championship contests,
free of charge. The Citizens Committee carefully evaluated the
request by the Bakersfield Swim Club and has recommended this
organization be allowed the use of the pool on the week ends requested.
However, the Committee recommended that the Swim Club reimburse the
City for the loss of revenue which is estimated to be $130.00, since
the pools would be closed to public swimming for the events. The
loss of revenue is not the primary consideration, however, as the
City could be setting a precedent whereby any youth organization
could request and expect equal treatment. The Auditorium-
Recreation Committee agrees with the Citizens Committee's recom-
mendation. Councilman Rogers then moved adoption of the report
which carried unanimously.
Councilman Rogers, Chairman, reported that the City Council's
Auditorium-Recreation Committee recently met and reviewed the pro-
posed Recreation Division's budget for the fiscal year 1973-1974.
This budget is submitted annually prior to the regular budget
hearings so plans and preparations may proceed for the City's summer
recreational program.
Attached to this report is the proposed budget for the
Council's inspection and consideration. Councilman Rogers stated
that it appears this proposed budget is $20,661 over last year's
budget. However, in order to give the City a more realistic picture
of the actual costs of its recreational program, a portion of the
Auditorium-Recreation Manager's salary and the Senior Office Clerk's
time spent on recreation activities which amounts to $12,000, will[
now be budgeted to Recreation instead of the Auditorium. Also, the
Workman's Compensation costs applicable to the temporary employees
in the department were budgeted within the Finance Department's budget.
This year, an additional $7,000 is shown in the Recreation Budget
7O
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 12
for this purpose. In essence, there is no change in this area,
and these amounts will be deducted from the Auditorium and
Finance budgets~
The City Recreation Department will provide the same level
of service in 1972 and expand the elementary school basket ball
program from two eight team leagues to three eight teem leagues;
also, a playground program will be added at Centennial Park.
Having the Bakersfield Swim Club assume operation of the Central
Park pool will eliminate the salary of a swim coach.
It is recommended that an increase be made in the adult
tennis lessions from $4.00 to $5.00, as after reviewing this
program the Committee found that it has be~ ten years since an
increase in fees was made and a one dollar increase is justified.
This Committee recommends approval of the Recreation Division's
1973-74 Operational Budget.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, the report was
adopted.
Councilman Rogers commented that when the Council is
unhappy with the performance of Mr. Bergen's staff, it doesn't
hesitate to let them know. By the same token, he feels that
Mr. Graviss and the Recreation Department staff under the directic, n
of Mr. Bergen, have done a commendable job in the preparation of
this budget, especially in providing a better program than last
year for $957.00 less tax money, and he stated that he appreciates
their efforts.
City Manager Bergen reported that several weeks ago there
was a request for a left turn signal phase for the north-south
traffic on Haley Street at Columbus Street. This has been
investigated by both the Traffic Authority and the Department of
Public Works and this intersection does not meet the minimum
traffic signal warrants as defined in the "Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices" adopted by the State of California.
Councilman Bleecker stated that some time ago, so long
ago it is difficult to remember what actually happened, the
Council instructed the Planning Commission to make studies and
recommendations back to the Council regarding a Sign Ordinance.
It is his understanding also, that a special committee of the
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 13
7,1
Planning Commission has been instituted to study a new Sign Ordi-
nance. Over the past six or eight months, he has taken it upon
himself to acquire copies of sign ordinances from other cities
such as the City of San Diego and the City of Santa Barbara, and
he thinks it is important that the City of Bakersfield should
follow some of the guidelines that these fine cities have set out.
He then moved that the Council adopt a Minute Order instructing
the Planning Commission to give the Council a progress report next
Monday as to what has been done regarding a new sign ordinance
for the City of Bakersfield. This motion carried unanimously.
Consent Calendar
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3728 to 3800,
inclusive, in amount of $195,363.20
(b) Claim for McKinnon Enterprises for damages
(Refer to the City Attorney)
(c) Adoption of Resolution No. 28-73 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield making find that
Tentative Tract 3674, together with provisions
for its design and improvement, is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
(d) Adoption of Resolution No. 29-73 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, making finding that
Tentative Tract 3675, together with provisions
for its design and improvement, is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans
(e) Adoption of Resolution No. 30-73 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield making finding that
Tentative Tract 3677, together with provisions
for its design and improvement, is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans
(f) Notice of Completion of Paving of Parking Lots
in Central Park and Wayside Park and a portion
of Elm Street Median Island
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b), (c),
(d), (e) and (f) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
72
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 14
Request from Pacific Telephone Company
for extension of time to establish
Underground Utility District No. 2
until January 1, 1975 referred to the
City Attorney.
After Council discussion with the Director of Public
Works Bidwell regarding an explanation of the request from Pacific
Telephone Company for extension of time to establish Underground
Utility District No. 2 until January 1, 1975, upon a motion by
Councilman Bleecker, the request was referred to the City Attorney
to prepare amendment to the existing ordinance.
Claim filed by William H. Mattox, Re:
Demolished Building at 727-733 Baker
Street referred to the City Attorney.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Claim filed by
William H. Mattox, Re: Demolished Building at 727-733 Baker Street
was referred to the City Attorney.
Approval of Boundaries of proposed
Annexation designated as Rosedale
No. 1 Annexation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, boundaries of
proposed annexation designated as Rosedale No. 1 Annexation were
approved, and referred to the City Engineer and City Attorney
for referral to LAFC.
Extension of time granted Griffith Company
for construction of Lighted Game Court area
at Centennial Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, a twenty five day
extension of time was granted the contractor, Griffith Company,
for the construction of Lighted Game Court Area at Centennial Park,
the work was accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
contract. Liquidated damages will be assessed for additional two
days exceeding the contract completion date of March 7, 1973.
Approval of Revised boundaries of
proposed annexation designated as
Stockdale No. 8 annexation.
Councilman Thomas moved to approve the revised boundaries
of proposed annexation designated as Stockdale No. 8 Annexation
and refer them to the City Engineer and City Attorney for referral
to LAFC. Councilman Heisey pointed out that this illustrates the
fact that because City property taxes are rather high, Tenneco
West has reduced the proposed boundaries of the annexation from
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 15
2,000 acres to 726 acreas. Hopefully, at some future date, the
balance of the territory will be annexted to the City and developed.
As onerous as the utility tax is, at least it is not a burden on
uninhabited lands. Anything that would speed up annexation would
be a good thing for the City and certainly a reduction of the
property tax would aid annexation.
Councilman Bleecker took an opposite point of view,
stating that when large areas are annexed to the City with the idea
of commercial development of the property, the five percent Utility
Tax rate on water, telephones, etc., could amount to as much as
half of the property tax.
Councilman Rogers stated the big problem now is to make it
attractive enough for people to want to annex to the City. All that
can be offered them now is a high tax rate, which is lost when it
is merged into the County tax rate. The community would realize
more relief and see it every month if the City rescinds the
utility tax rate versus lowering the property tax rate.
Councilman Heisey remarked that all the Council agrees
it would like to reduce taxes, but he is sure that the Budget Review
and Finance Committee will come up with a recommendation that will
be in the best interests of the whole community and will sub-
stantially reduce taxes.
Councilman Whirremote commented that since everyone is in
favor of reducing taxes, when this matter comes before the Budget
Review and Finace Committee, it will be found that 49% of the cities
in the State of California representing 50% of the population, have
imposed a utility tax.
Councilman Bleecker stated he has never been too impressed
with what other cities do, that comparisons of whether or not
another city has a utility tax is not really important.
74
Bakersfield, California, May 7, 1973 - Page 16
Vote taken on Councilman Thomas' motion to approve the
revised boundaries of proposed annexation designated as Stockdale
and City
No. 8 annexation and refer them to the City Engineer
Attorney for referral to LAFC carried unanimously.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, t~e meeting was
adjourned at 9:15 P.M. ~
M YO&~F THE CiTY O~ BAKERSFIELD,
CALIF.
ATTEST:
CITY 'CLERK and Ex-Of~icio Clerk of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield, Calif.
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973
75
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of the City
Hall at eight o'clock P.M., May 14, 1973.
In the absence of Mayor Hart, the meeting was called to order
by Vice-Mayor Whittemore followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and
Invocation by the Reverend George Woodgate of the All Saints EpiscOpal
Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore,
Bleecker (seated at 8:05 P.M.)
Absent: Mayor Hart. Councilman Heisey
Minutes of the regular meeting of May 7, 1973 were approved
as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mr. Bob Charlton who resides at 3415 Belle Terrace,
addressed the Council, stating that he is chairman of the Kern County
Central Committee of the American Independent Party, and presented
the Council with a copy of a report on regional government by Mrs.
Bernadine Smith of Hanford,
He stated that there cannot
government at the same time.
of California if it is only
California, and supporting documents.
be a sovereign United States and a world
Neither can there be a sovereign State
a portion of a region within the United
States, nor can there be city-county political subdivisions truly
responsive to the citizens within their boundaries if local government
is superseded by regional or metropolitan government with appointed
officials throughout this State.
At the regular monthly meeting held May 1, the Kern County
Central Committee of the American Independent Party adopted by
unanimous vote a resolution resolving that the Kern County Central
Committee opposes any form of "regional" or "metro" government which
denies the voters the election of their representatives at all levels
of government and reaffirms its faith in and supports the traditional
City, County and State boundaries and the constitutional republican
form of government.
76
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 2
He requested the Council as elected public officials who
have taken an oath of office to uphold the United States Constitution
and the Constitution of California to recognize that dividing the
United States into regions is clearly a violation of Article IV,
Section 3, paragraph i of the United States Constitufion. After serious
consideration of these programs, both State and Federal, which changes
the present form of government, the Kern County Central Committee of
the American Independent Party respectfully requests that the Council
actively oppose regional or metro government at every opportunity,
and disengage the City of Bakersfield from participation in any form
of these regional government programs.
Councilman Rogers asked Mr. Charlton if he were correct in
assuming that under regional type of government the City Council would
lose control over local affairs and if there is ~ local organization
within Kern County now that is part of this regional government.
Mr. Charlton stated that by the City participating in the
Kern County Council of Governments program it has started to lose
control over local affairs. This is the local element of the regional
government picture in Kern County, it probably has another name in
other counties of the State. It constitutes more taxation and is
just another layer of regional government element, and if it is lo¢,ked
into closer, the Council will find that the Kern Council of Govern-
ments is making certain decisions that the Council, itself, should make.
Councilman Rogers remarked that it is frightening and
unsettling to him that an organization exists which is going to wrest
control away from the elected officials such as the City Council and
the Board of Supervisors. He asked Mr. Charlton if he had a solution
to this.
Mr. Charlton replied that he would suggest as the Kern
County Central Committee has already recommended, that the City of
Bakersfield be disengaged from participation in any form of regional
government programs. It will probably take a lot of courage, but he
is sure the Council can do it, if it wishes to save the taxpayers some
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 3
money, as well as preserve local authority, because there are certain
stipulations which causes the Council to give up its responsibility
for local affairs, which it should keep.
Mr. Roger Narinian, who lives at 3200 E1 Encanto Court,
stated he was present tonight representing the Good Government Committee
of Kern County to try to find out why Bakersfield has one of the
highest tax rates in the State of California, why the Council has seen
fit to levy the oppressive utility tax and why the Council won't
repeal it. Employees are receiving fantastic salaries and fantastic
fringe benefits. Funds are used to support bureaucratic organizations
such as the League of California Cities. Money is used to employ
more prople to give citizens more government and more regulations.
Citizens are told the user-pay tax is a good one because the user pays
the tax and the people and organizations not normally paying property
tax have to pay the utility tax. This is intellectual bureaucratic
double-talk. The property taxpayers, in addition to paying one of
the highest tax rates, is also paying the utility tax. He is here to
petition the Council to reduce the wartime taxes and repeal the
oppressive utility tax.
Two members of the Council pledged in their campaigns for
election to repeal the oppressive, unfair, unamerican utility tax.
Now they have had a chance to repeal it and they have voted "no." It
is not traditional in this country to be taxed for necessities of life
and certainly utilities are necessities of life. Repeal the utility tax
and force the City to change its
be leaders, show the rest of the
a utility tax.
mode of living. Don't be followers,
State that Bakersfield does not need
Councilman Thomas commented that he would assume Mr.
Narinian was referring to him as voting against the utility tax.
If Mr. Narinian had been present at last week's meeting, he would
know thet Councilman Thomas did not vote against the utility tax, he
voted to refer it to a committee for evaluation.. There is a very distinct
difference, there is no stalling, because budget sessions are in June,
and there is still plenty of time to make Councilman Rogers' deadline
of July 1st.
78
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 4
Also, he would assume that Mr. Narinian was referring to him
as campaigning against the Utility Tax. If his brochure had been read
closely, it states "Don Thomas is concerned", and it doesn't say anything
about him being definitely committed to repealing the tax. However, he
is concerned about "irresponsible Councilmen on this Council who are
willing to jeopardize the financial stability of this City for a
political hay-day."
Councilman Thomas them engaged in a discussion with Nr.
Narinian regarding lowering of the tax rate, services furnished by the
City and what has become of the money obt~ained from taxes. Council. man
Thomms stated the City doesn't have any money, the Council must wait
until June to ascertain what it can do about repealing the Utility Tax.
Councilman Bleecker commented that without getting into
personalities, when one puts out a brochure which may or may not be.
misleading regarding that Councilman's actions later, that sooner c,r
later he has to stand hitched. He is surprised at Councilman Thomas' state-
ment regarding "irresponsible Councilmen who voted to repeal the Utility
Tax are doing it for the purpose of making political Hay." He has
been on the Council for four years, he voted against the Utility Tax
when it was first imposed and he received 72% of the vote when he was
re-elected, so does not have to make any political hay.
Councilman Thomas said he had only one thing to say, that at
no time has he ever refused to recind the Utility Tax. His whole intent
was to be a little more rational than some of the other Councilmen were
last week by sending it to the proper committee to evaluate it and bring
a report back to the Council for further consideration during the budget
hearings, which is the proper time to do it.
Councilman Bleecker commented to Councilman Thomas that this
statement was more amenable to him than "irresponsible Councilmen making
political hay." If that had been said in the first place, it would be
more acceptable to him, because he has always tried to listen when he
is dealing with honest people as long as what they are saying is reason
able,sound, and does not delve into political attacks.
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 5
79
Councilman Rogers asked that the record be set straight.
Last Monday night he moved to recind the Utility Tax. That motion
was voted upon and failed. Another motion was voted on to refer the
issue to the Budget Review and Finance Committee, and that motion
carried. His motion last Monday night was to repeal the tax effective
July 1, 1973. Replying to the remark about "irresponsible Councilmen,"
he feels that one of the big reasons most voters and taxpayers in this
country have a deep and abiding mistrust of elected officials is
because they do not live up to their campaign promises. He doesn't
believe an attempt by an elected official to live up to his campaign
promise is an irresponsible act and that he is trying to make political
hay.
Councilman Thomas remarked that he doesn't believe a Councilman
is acting rational when on his second week as a member of the Council
without looking at the total budget concept, he votes to take
$1,125,000 away from the City without evaluating it fully.
Councilman Bleecker commented that as he has said many times,
this City has and will, spend every cent of money it gets every year
unless somebody puts a stop to it. According to the information that
he has received, he would venture that rescinding the Utility Tax would
amount to cutting the City budget something less than 2%. He doesn't
think it would be much of a trick to the staff to cut the budget 2%,
repeal the Utility Tax, and still balance the budget. He went on to
say that he promises he will make the utmost effort to see that this
action is accomplished.
Reports.
Councilman Bleecker, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, reported on the Subject of Weed Abatement
Program as follows:
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee has
reviewed the present program, and has found that it is basically sound;
however, in an attempt to eliminate potential problems, the Committee
is recommending the following changes:
8O
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 6
1. The first notice mailed to residents shall be by
certified mail. Any returned notices will be sent out again through
the regular mail as they have found that certified mail is more
effective, however, it is not forwarded to new addresses as is regular mail
2. The notice which is mailed to residents will include a
return postcard whereby the resident can check off that they will
clear their own property; that they prefer the City to clear it
for them; or that they do not own the property. This card will
include the fact that a fifteen dollar administrative cost will
be included if the City clears the property for them.
3. Instruct the City Attorney to broaden the definition
of noxious or dangerous materials, other than weeds, in the Municipal
Code, Chapter 8.80. Also, this ordinance should include a fee
schedule of City administrative charges for clearance.
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee feels
that these changes will result in a more efficient program and better
communication with the public. We recommend approval of the changes
by the City Council.
Councilman Bleecker then moved adoption of the report,
which cmrried unanimously.
Councilman Thomas asked if the material which he
submitted had been received by the Committee and congratulated the
Committee on doing a fine job. He moved that the Mayor send a letter
of thanks to Mayor St. Clair and Fire Marshal Robert T. Armstrong o.f
Milpitas for sending information regarding the Cityof Milpitas' weed
abatement program to the City of Bakersfield. This motion carried
unanimously.
Councilman Bleecker, chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject of Temporary
Employees' Title Changes and New Classifications, as follows:
In an effort to standardize job titles for temporary
positions within the Recreation Division, the following title changes
are submitted to the Council for consideration; the first four of
which are simply a reverse in titles:
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 7
Official I to Official II
Official II to Official I
Recreation Leader I to Recreation III
Recreation Leader III to Recreation Leader I
Jr. Recreation Assistant to Jr. Recreation Leader
District Recreation Supervisor to Program Coordinator
These changes are in title only and will not effectuate
any change in salaries.
Along with these recommended title changes, the Auditorium-
Recreation Manager has requested the addition of three new temporary
classifications to the salary ordinance.
Temporary Recreation Supervisor
Temporary Recreation Supervisor
Temporary Recreation Supervisor
These requests are as follows:
I $4.78 hr.
II $5.02 hr.
III $5.28 hr.
In the past, these positions have been filled through the
permanent Recreation Supervisor classification. By doing this, these
temporary employees could conceivably be promoted through the five-
step pay plan, and also receive pay increases periodically when per-
manent positions are adjueted. With the three requested positions, these
temporary employees could only attain what is now the third step for
the permanent Recreation Supervisor classification, and any other
salary change would have to be approved by the Council when temporary
employees' salaries are adjusted. The addition of these temporary
classifications will result in less cost to the City.
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee is satisfied
that these changes will result in more efficiency at less cost and
recommends their approval by the City Council. Upon a motion by
Councilman Bleecker, the report was adopted.
Planning Director Sceales reported on the status of the New
Sign Ordinance, stating that the final draft of
prepared and the Committee expects to submit it
Commission for. review on June 6, 1973.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Sceales
this ordinance has been
to the Planning
if he has had an
opportunity to read the preliminary report containing the recommendations
on the new sign ordinance. Mr. Sceales replies that he had. Councilman
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 8
Bleecker stated that he has had the opportunity to read the sign
ordinances of San Diego and San Barbara and certain portions of
these ordinances could be made applicable to the City o£
Bakersfield. He is referring to an ordinance which would prohibit
the application of "face" signs on the outside facade of a building
that have nothing to do with the business being conducted in that
particular location. He is talking about the Padre Hotel with its
horrendous signs which are degrading to the City and the Council.
He asked if there was such a provision of this kind in the draft of
the new sign ordinance.
Mr. Sceales stated that the draft contained a section
which would provide for the abatement of non-conforming signs,
but he is not sure if the signs described by Councilman Bleecker
would be non-conforming or not. He would prefer to talk to Mr. Leach,
Assistant City Attorney, and report back at the next meeting.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the preliminary report is
available and if it would be improper for a member of the City Council
to peruse the report before it is submitted to the Planning Commission.
If not, he would like to have a copy as soon as possible.
Mr. Hoagland stated i~ would not be improper. There is a
draft ordinance and it can be made available to Councilman Bleecker.
Regarding his specific question relative to obnoxious signs on
buildings, he will be able to give a report on that at the next meeting.
City Manager Bergen stated that for the Council's information,
a report from Public Works regarding Waste Water Treatment - Southeast
Bakersfield Area, is not on the agenda but was mailed out with the
Council's packet last week.
of Report from Public Works
Area Waste Water Treatment:
He read the following report on the subject
dated May 10, 1973, Southeast Bakersfield
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board has
informed the City that its Plants No. i and No. 2 must conform to
Federal and State Standards January l, 1975.
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 9
The only feasible way the City can finance these improvements
is with Federal Grant assistance. In order to qualify we must adopt
a plan and prepare a project report. Therefore, it is recommended that:
(1) The City Council adopt waste water plan Alternate
IIIB as detailed in the preliminary iuvestigation
as the best suited alternative for waste water
treatment in the Southeast Bakersfield Area
(2) That the Board of Supervisors be informed of
this action
Further action should be deferred
Board of Supervisors.
City Manager Bergen explained that
pending response from the
Alternate IIIB is the
consolidation of the Three (3) Treatment Plants located in the southeast
area into the City's Number 2 plant. Public Works Department will come
back to the Council at a later date with regards to further action
whenever response is received from the Board of Supervisors.
Councilman Thomas moved that the Council adopt Waste Water
Plan Alternate IIIB as the best alternative for waste water treatment
in the Southeast Bakersfield area and that the Board of Supervisors be
notified of the City's action. This motion carried by the following
roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
City Attorney Hoagland reported on AB 594, stating that by
law the City must have an Open Space Element in its General Plan and
must upgrade its Master Plan to the point where after July 1, 1973,
Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the Master Plan. Failing to do
this would preclude the City from issuing Building Permits, and acting on
subdivisions which would, in effect, bring all building activities
to a halt. AB 594 would extend the date for inclusion of the Open
Space Element in the General Plan and bringing the Master Plan up to
date. The Open Space Element has been prepared and brought into the
Planning Department this morning with no chance for review or public hear-
ings at the Planning Commission or chance for public hearings at
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 10
the Council level. He asked for authorization to direct a communication
to the City's legislators to express the Council's support of
AB 594 which will extend the date for adoption of the Open Space
Element and Master Plan until January it 1974, instead of July 1, 1973.
Councilman Bleecker moved that the City Attorney be
authorized to notify the City's legislators of the City Council's
support of AB 594.
During Council discussion, Councilman Rogers asked if the
master Plan must be approved by KERN COG, and if the City of Bakersfield
has only one vote on this Committee. Councilman Whittemore explained
that each of the incorporated cities in the County has one vote and
the County has one vote. Councilman Rogers asked what would happen
with the City having only one vote~ would it be possible for KERN COG
to override the wishes of the people and the Council of the City of
Bakersfield on certain matters.
Councilman ~hittemore asked to take a moment to explain
KERN COG. He stated that he was very much interested in Mr. Charlton's
presentation regarding regional government. He has pointed out on
the Council floor many times thai the people of the City do not realize
what is happening concerning regional governments. He has represented
the City of KERN COG for seven years and during this time the members
have been fighting consistently the awesome power which has been given
to the California Council of Intergovernmental Relations. The present
plan, which is still active, is to include Kern County in a six county
COG which would dilute any local influence in CCIR. They can come in
and zone City property, if the City doesn't do it~ they will. At the
last League of California Cities Convention, a representative of the
Department of Interior informed them that it isn't a matter of "if"
the Department of the Interior is going to become involved in the
development of cities, but "when." None of the cities was eager to form
KERN COG but it is the only defense the cities have.
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 11
In response to Councilman Rogers' question, would it be
possible for the other cities to override Bakersfield if they so desire,
he would like to point out that the Councilmen and Mayors of the
incorporated cities and Supervisor Webb,
have always worked together in a spirit
careful not to vote against any city or
KERN COG organization. With the spirit
the County's representative,
of cooperation, being extremely
County represented on the
of cooperation that does prevail,
the cities are protected as well as possible, as long as it can be
confined to one COG instead of being involved in six counties.
Councilman Rogers stated that his comment to that would be
"let's 8L~ out," because things may be cooperative today, but what
about tomorrow. In order to keep some control over the City by the
people and its elected representatives, he would say that if at all
possible, the Council should withdraw from this organization.
Mr. Hoagland commented that in answer to Councilman Rogers'
question, the upgrading of the General Plan and the adoption of the Open
Space Element is strictly a municipal or local affair. The General Plan
was adopted in conjunction with the County only for the Metropolitan
Area of Bakersfield, simply a County-City joint effort. Upgrading
the Master Plan for the City may again be a joint City-County effort
to bring in the entire Metropolitan Area in the event of annexations,
and, or course, the Open Space Element is strictly the City. KERN COG
does not vote on whether the City adopts the Open Space Element or
in what form.
After additional discussion, Councilman Whittemore stated
he feels that the City Attorney should research this and report back
to the Council on any alternatives to KERN COG. Councilman Rogers agreed,
stating he would like very much to have such a report. He then asked
permission to recognize Mr. Hyrum Amundsen~ who was present in the audienca
Mr. Amundsen stated the Council could be very important
in the preservation of the rights that citizens hold under the
Constitutions of the State of California and the Federal Government
which are guides to the representatives of the people on what they can
S6
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 12
and cannot do. Cities should speak up and tell the Legislature
that it is usurping powers and the people are not going to stand
for it and expect them to abide by the law. The City Council could be
very powerful because anything that will influence public opinion
will influence the representatives in the Legislature. He stated
that he hoped the Council would study the material submitted by
Mr. Charlton and be prepared to make a statement on how they can
support the State's constitution and protect the rights of the people
of the City.
Councilman Whittemore asked the City Attorney how much
time he would need to report to the Council on KERN COG, and Mr.
Hoagland stated he would probably need more than a week. Councilman
Bleecker remarked the City Attorney should be given plenty of time
to prepare the report on this particular issue as it is involved
and will take considerable research.
Councilman Rogers seconded Councilman Bleecker's motion
authorizing the City Attorney to indicate the Council's support of AB 594
and added that the City Attorney be given all the time required to
prepare a report on regional government for the City Council. This
motion carried unanimously.
Concent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Calims Nos. 3801 to 3868.
inclusive, in amount of $214,736.51
(b) Request from Mercy Hospital for vacation of
alleys in Blocks 412A and 413A and "C" Street
between Truxtun Avenue and 16th Street
(c)Street Easement for E1 Rio Drive and Quailwood
Drive from Stockdale Development Corporation
(d) Right-of-way Deed from Frank P. and
Judi A. Smith
Upon a motion by Councilman StrDng, Items (a), (b), (c), and
(d) of the Consent Calendar,
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Medders,
None
Councilman Heisey
were adopted by the following vote:
Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 13
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Griffith Co.
for the resurfacing of California Avenue between Oak Street and
"C" Street was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the Mayor
was authorized to execute the contract.
Ratification of change in Lease No. 73-36
for property housing Transit facilities.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, change in Lease No.
73-36 with the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit District was
ratified. This change will, provide that the lease housing the transit
facilities will commence on July 1, 1973 instead of May 15, 1973.
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.17.075 of Chapter
11.17 of the Municipal Code to provide
for Bicycle Parking Racks in the Parking
Mall and in any business district within
the City.
First reading was considered given An Ordinance of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 11.17.075 of Chapter 11.17
of the Municipal Code to provide for Bicycle Parking Racks in the
Parking Mall and in any business district within the City.
Councilman Rogers inquired who pays for the bicycle racks.
Mr. Bergen responded that the merchants will purchase and install the
racks at no cost to the City. Councilman Whittemore commented that
there was a provision in the ordinance providing that if at any time
the racks become a nuisance, the City can insist upon removal.
Mayor authorized to execute Bill of Sale
for equipment listed in Inventory of
Transit Equipment dated March 1, 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the Mayor was authorized to
execute Bill of Sale for equipment listed in Inventory of Transit
Equipment dated March 1, 1973.
Approval of Agreements for operation of
Concession Stands in certain City Parks.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker the following agreements
were approved for operation of Concession Stands in certain City Parks:
Bakersfield, California, May 14, 1973 - Page 14
Agreement with James E. Liggins and Cherry B. Liggins
for Operation of Concession Stand at Jastro Park for
the Months of June, July, August and September and
Memorial Day, 1973
Agreement with Willard James Martin for Operation of
City-owned Concession Stand at Planz Park for
approximately three months, beginning May 28 and
ending September 4, 1973
Agreement with Willard James Martin for Operation of
Concession Stand at Beale Park for approximately three
months beginning May
Hearings.
This is the time set
on Resolution of Intention No.
28 and ending September 4, 1973
for public hearing before the Council
890 of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield declaring its intention to order the abandonment of a
Drainage Easement in the NE~ of Section 10, T. 30 S., R. 27 E., in 'the
City of Bakersfield. This hearing has been duly posted. Application
for the abandonment was made by Stockdale Development Corporation.
These easements affect Tentative Tract No. 3499 which they will soon
wish to record.
Vice-Mayor Whittemore declared the hearing open for public
participation. No protests or objections were received, and Mr.
Chuck Tolltee, representing the Stockdale Development Corporation,
stated that they have constructed a storm drainage system which takes
off the water which would have gone into these sumps, therefore,
there is no longer a need for the sumps. The public hearing was
closed for Council deliberation and action. Upon a motion by Councilman
Thomas, Resolution No. 31-73 ordering the abandonment of a Drainage
Easement in the NE~ of Section 10, T. 30 S., R. 27 E., in the City of
Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker
Noes: None
Absent: Councilman Heisey
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before t~Council,
upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meetin. at 9:25P.M.
ATTEST: MAYOI~ the City ~f Bakersfield, Calif.
'and '~J~i0ffi~io ~ferk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973
Minutes of
City of Bakersfield, California,
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.
The meeting was called
the regular meeling of the Council of
held in the
M., May 21,
to order by
the
Council Chambers of
1973.
Mayor Hart followed
by the
Ober of the First Christian Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart.
Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Richard
Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas,
Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey
Absent: None
Minutes
approved as presented.
Mayor Hart stated
business, he wished to call
of the regular meeting of May 14, 1973 were
that before proceeding with the evening's
attention to the ordinance providing
for maintaining order and decorum in the Council Chamber.
chair is responsible for the conduct of
halls outside. The Council is here for
carrying on the business of the City and
The
the chamber, including the
the express purpose of
he would ask that it be
permitted to proceed with the least possible delay and in the best
possible fashion. Questions are to be directed to the Council
through the chair, and from the Council back through the chair to
those persons asking questions in the audience.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Mrs. Marie Dickinson, who resides at 1733 Cypress Circle,
addressed the Council, stating that she is here this evening as a
member of the Central Committee of the American Independent Party
to submit information on Regional Government. To add to the infor-
mation presented last week to the Council by Mr. Bob Chariron. Her
presentation this evening will deal primarily with KERNCOG - the
Kern County Council of Governments.
She then proceeded to read from a four page statement
which contained information taken directly from printed material
obtained from the KERNCOG office in Bakersfield. She stated that
this information barely touches the surface and if it were truly
realized that many local areas are now being directly influenced
and controlled by the Federal Government, that the situation would
be horrifying, even frightening.
9O
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 2
Councilman Rogers asked Mrs. Dickinson to whom the
Executive Director of KERNCOG is responsible, and she replied that
he is responsible to see
carried out in this area,
the local KERNCOG.
that the programs laid down by HUD are
although he was appointed and is paid by
Councilman Rogers asked if KERNCOG acts as a buffer
between local and regional government. Mrs. Dickinson answered
in the negative, stating that she considers KERNCOG a part of
regional government, an arm of the Federal Government that is
replacing local government.
Councilman Rogers inquired if all applications for revenue
sharing funds are required to go through the Executive Director.
Mrs. Dickinson stated that as of May 1, 1971, all applications for
Federal and State funds have to be approved by KERNCOG, applications
may be submitted to HUD, but will be returned if they have not
been reviewed by KERNCOG.
Councilman Rogers asked Mrs. Dickinson's opinion of the
regional approach to solving problems as compared to local approach
with local control. She stated she personally has no objections to
areas trying to solve their problems if done on a voluntary basis,
but when it becomes mandatory, through orders of the Federal Govern-
ment, it takes away the privileges and responsibilities of local
officials.
Councilman Rogers commented that if he understands it
correctly, this means that actually the Federal Government, or HUD,
could eventually control zoning, building permits, etc. in the City
of Bakersfield.
Mrs. Dickinson stated this is so, that regional govern-
ment is an executive order of the President of the United States
and as an executive order it covers the entire country. When one
of the goals is to divide the land, it doesn't mean to divide the
land only in Kern County or Bakersfield, it means the regional
government has plans to divide the land all over the United States.
Councilman Whittemore stated he wouldn't debate KERNCOG
tonight, because the City Attorney is presently preparing a compre-
hensive report on Bakersfield's participation in KERNCOG to be
submitted to the Council. He pointed out that Mr. Greer, Executive
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 3
Director of KERNCOG, does not work for HUD, he is under annual
contract to KERNCOG itself, approved by the eleven incorporated
cities and the County of Kern, and is under its jurisdiction. Mr.
Greet does not select the items appearing on KERNCOG's agenda,
basically the items considered by the members are applications
made by the cities or the County for funding under a particular
program, which are placed on the agenda for review and action.
KERNCOG does not have to accept Federal funds in order to follow
its programs.
Councilman Bleecker asked who pays the Executive Director's
salary and Councilman Whittemore stated the County of Kern con-
tributes one-third and the State and Federal Governments contribute
two-thirds.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mrs. Dickinson the title of the
publication from which she has obtained her information and she
stated the booklets were given to her by Mr. Greer. One booklet
is entitled "The Overall Program Design" of KERNCOG, as set out by
HUD.
Councilman Bleecker asked the City Manager to include
this pamphlet in the Council's next packet.
Mrs. C. E. Boydstun addressed the Council relative to
the regional government plan stressing the fact that State Govern-
ment will be utterly destroyed if the people vote this plan into
effect. State Government must be abolished before regional, metro
and world government can be forced into the United States. This
can only be done by changing the State and Federal Constitutions
in order to overthrow the State Government, which will then transfer
local, County and State Government over to regional government.
She asked that the City Council do everything in its power to help
stop the overthrow of State Government.
Councilman Rogers commented that as he understands it,
regional government has
of President Nixon, so
is in existence without
for or against it. Mrs. Boydstun agreed, but
can vote to throw it out and not accept it.
already been established by executive order
it would appear to him that this government
the people having had the chance to vote
stated the people
92
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 4
Councilman Bleecker informed the Mayor that one of his
Fourth Ward constituents has asked permission to address the Council.
Mr. George Webster, 1915 20th Street, stated he is
appearing here tonight as a process server on behalf of the Kern
County Good Government Committee and as a concerned citizen. The
notice which he is about to read is of great importance and concern
to every single person in this room and to the Council. He then
read a Notice of Intention to Circulate Recall Petition for the
recall and removal of Don L. Thomas from the position of Councilman,
Sixth Ward, which will be circulated at a date commencing seven days
after the publication of the notice as required by statute or as
soon thereafter as is practicable. He also read certain items
listed in the Candidate's Campaign Statement filed by Councilman
Thomas after his election.
Councilman Thomas commented that two years ago, prior to
his being seated as Councilman, his campaign spending was attacked
and it didn't work then. He thinks the people of the Sixth Ward
are going to resent a carpetbagger from the Fourth Ward trying to
tell them how their senior spokesman should behave.
Councilman Bleecker called the Council's attention to
the fact that according to the rules mentioned in the pre-meeting
by the Mayor and according to the heaviness of the Mayor's gavel,
citizens speaking before this Council cannot use bad language, etc.
He would therefore think that inflammatory statements by a Council-
man to the public should be just as much a concern of the chair.
Councilman Thomas remarked that if it would please Mr.
Bleecker, he would withdraw his last statement about "carpetbaggers"
in capitals. He then stated that he had no further comment, it is
not worth the effort.
Mr. Webster gave the City Clerk copies of the Notice of
Intention to circulate Recall Petition for distribution to the
Council.
Correspondence.
Copy of a communication received from Fletcher, Heald,
Rowell, Kenehan & Hildreth, Attorneys, addressed to Mr. Ben F.
Waple, Secretary of the Federal Communications Commission was read,
which stated that objections to "Application for Certification"
filed by Cypress Cable TV of Kern County, Inc. to seek authorization
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 5
to carry independent television Station KMPH Channel 26, were
requested to be filed no later than April 26, 1973. It has come
to the attention of Pappas Television, Inc., licensee of Station
KMPH, that a number of letters were filed with the Commission on
various dates directed to the above application without service
upon the various parties. In order that the rights of the parties
to this proceedings will not be hampered, it is requested that the
time for filing replies be extended to and including May 31, 1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the letter was received and
ordered placed on file.
Reports.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee, reported that the Miscellaneous Civil Ser-
vice Board, along with the GEPC has reviewed the following job
specifications and recommends their approval:
1. Community Center Coordinator - new specifications
2. Foreman I (Parks) - revised specifications
3. Foreman II (Parks) - revised specifications
4. Sanitation Superintendent - revised specifications
5. Waste Water Treatment Plant Lab Technician and
Operator - revised specifications
The Community Center Coordinator position is necessary
at this time in order that the California Avenue Park Neighborhood
Facility can open August 15th of this year. Several other positions
for this building were approved at budget time; however, the GEPC
is in the process of further evaluating these positions.
The revisions in the other four specifications are routine
in nature and bring them up to date with changes that have been
made in the past year in the Public Works Department. The GEPC is
satisfied
approval.
adopted.
that these changes are necessary and recommends Council
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was
and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject
Ordinance Revision regarding temporary employees.
at the Civic Auditorium, it is necessary to hire
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency
of Auditorium
In staging events
temporary employees
94
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 6
for positions, such as Stage Hands, Ushers, Ticket Takers, Guards
and Cashiers. The City's present ordinance states that the sponsor
of an event shall be required to hire and pay the salaries of these
employees. Many of the events held at the Civic Auditorium are
only one day shows, which makes it impossible for the sponsor to
comply with the present ordinance.
In an effort to ease this requirement and at the same
lime maintain more efficiency, the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee is recommending that the Auditorium Manager
be given the authority to hire these temporary employees without
being subject to ordinance hiring procedures pertaining to regular
or temporary employees of the City. The sponsor would be required
to reimburse the City for the salaries of such employees. The
GEPC recommends Council approval of this ordinance revision.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was
adopted.
Councilman Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read the following Resolution of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield relative to Revenue Sharing Funds into
the record, which had been approved by the Budget Review and
Finance Committee:
WHEREAS, the Revenue Sharing Program expires on December
31, 1976, and no assurance has been given by the Federal Government
that it will be extended beyond that date; and
WHEREAS, any local government ongoing activity, having
its salary costs and other operating costs financed with Revenue
Sharing Funds may necessarily have to be discontinued after 1976
or be wholly financed by local taxes of some type which could
become too great a burden on the local taxpayer; and
WHEREAS, Federal Revenue Sharing Funds may be expended
only for capital outlay items or for eight specified maintenance
and operating expenditure categories; and
WHEREAS, a recent court ruling has prohibited the use of
Revenue Sharing Funds for lowering taxes; and
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 Page 7
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield has in recent years
been unable to adequately fulfill all the capital outlay needs of
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield has need of some high
priority capital outlay projects for which funds, other than Revenue
Sharing Funds, are not now available; and
WHEREAS, capital outlay expenditures under the Revenue
Sharing Program are relatively free of any "attached strings" when
compared to other Federal programs and to the eight maintenance and
operating expenditure categories under Revenue Sharing; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this City Council to utilize
all Revenue Sharing Funds in a manner which is the most beneficial
to the citizens of Bakersfield as a whole.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the
City of Bakersfield that all Federal Revenue Sharing Funds be used
for the capital outlay needs of the City as they occur.
Councilman Rogers asked what is meant by the statement
that capital outlay expenditures under the Revenue Sharing Program
are relatively free of any "attached strings."
Director of Finance Haynes stated that the only strings
attached to capital outlay expenditures are those having to do with
wages paid during construction of some capital projects.
Councilman Rogers asked if the statement that the City
of Bakersfield has in recent years been unable to adequately fulfill
all the capital outlay needs of the City is due to the standards
which have been imposed on the City by State and Federal authority
so that now they consider the City needs additional capital outlay
to meet their standards and not necessarily the local standards.
Mr. Bergen stated that the answer to that is "no." These
are capital needs that the City Council and the staff have felt
were needed by the City but because of budget limitations and other
more pressing needs, and as one gentleman pointed out the "high tax
rate" the Council had been reluctant to increase the taxes to con-
struct, and have been deferred from year to year.
6 Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 8
Councilman Strong commented that he had received this
proposed Resolution at 3:30 this afternoon and asked Mr. Bergen
how much money is involved.
Mr. Bergen said the amount of funds accumulated to the
City of Bakersfield for the year 1972 is $1,228,649.00 and to that
can be added payment of $364,090.00 received on April 9, 1973.
Councilman Strong asked if the Council will be voting on
this resolution tonight or if this could be considered a first
reading.
City Attorney Hoagland stated this is a resolution and
ordinarily does not receive a first or second reading; however,
the Council may wish to hold it over for another week.
Councilman Strong went on to say that he is a freshman
on the Council and perhaps the other members are used to spending
this amount of money without too much discretion, but he would
like more time to at least peruse the priorities involved. He read
portions of the Revenue Sharing Act to the Council for the use and
expenditure of Revenue Sharing Funds received by units of local
governments. As a Councilman he wishes to give the matter a little
more consideration, give the public a chance to exercise its views
as to how this money should be spent, and give the public a chance
to exercise its feeling as to what priorities are necessary in
Bakersfield. If it is the Council's will to adopt this resolution
tonight, he urged that the resolution be rephrased to state that
"most" of the Federal Funds be used for capital outlay projects.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he also received the
resolution about three o'clock this afternoon and did have a chance
to read it over. He thinks that the whole intent of the resolution
is that the City of Bakersfield cannot and should not put Revenue
Sharing Funds into any "on-going programs," because the termination
is 1976. He also thinks it would be unwise for the Council to even
consider using Federal Revenue Sharing Funds for wages, or fringe
benefits, things of that nature.
Councilman Rogers has questioned a statement in this
resolution that the City of Bakersfield has in recent years been
unable to adequately fulfill all the capital outlay needs of the
City. Part of that statement is true, but the City was not unable
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 9
to do so, the City chose to raise wages and fringe benefits instead
of using funds for capital improvements. That is a matter of the
record, set out in the minutes. In fact at one budget session, he
made an unsuccessful attempt to put capital improvements first and
his motion was defeated and salaries and fringe benefits were con-
sidered first and what was left over went to capital improvements.
Historically, this has been the way the Council has spent the tax-
payers' money. In view of Councilman Strong's concern about the
wording and the fact that he has not had sufficient opportunity to
consider this resolution, Councilman Bleecker offered a substitute
motion that action on this resolution be deferred for one week.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that due to a holiday, this
resolution would be held over for two weeks. Budget Committee
meetings are in progress right now, and he feels it is most
imperative that the use of these funds be determined tonight so
that no committee will be relying on them for purposes other than
those for which they have been designated. Therefore, he supports
the resolution as read into the record by Councilman Medders.
Councilman Heisey stated it is true the new Councilmen
haven't had much time to discuss the use of these funds but he
would assure them it is for the best interests of the community
that these funds be used for capital improvements and it also
insures that the funds will not be cut off next year because of
improper use of the funds by the City. They should be used as part
of the regular budget, because when the funds are suspended later
on, the City will find itself out on a limb without sufficient funds
to carry out its on-going programs.
Councilman Strong stated that the Act itself very speci-
fically and emphatically states these funds shall be used for
priority expenditures. If the Council decides tonight what is to
be done with these funds two years hence and does not follow the
guidelines as set down by the Federal Government, he feels the
Council might be in trouble legally. He would like to have the
Council vote on this resolution in such a way that it would give
some latitude to a new Council in the years to come.
98
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 Page l0
Councilman Thomas stated that he is a member of the
Budget Review and Finance Committee and it was pointed out to the
Committee that the City has a 3une 20th deadline to indicate to
the Federal Government the specific projects it plans to undertake
with the Revenue Sharing Funds. If
will not be sufficient time to meet
to the substitute motion.
there is a two week delay, there
this deadline, so he is opposed
Councilman Whittemore stated he was prepared to vote on
this resolution this evening, and he possibly will regardless of
what the delay is; however, he feels that the new Councilmen are
entitled to sufficient time to evaluate and digest the impact of
Revenue Sharing Funds on the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Rogers commented that he shares Councilman
Strong's concern of trying to predict the use of the funds for the
next three years. He recognizes the necessity for acting quickly,
however, and asked Councilman Strong if changing the last sentence
to read "1973 Federal Revenue Sharing Funds be used for the capital
outlay needs of the City" would be acceptable. That would not be
tying the Council to use of the funds in 1974 and 1975.
Councilman Strong stated he would have no objection to
that phraseology.
Councilman Heisey asked the City Attorney if there was
any question in his mind regarding the legality of the resolution.
Mr. Hoagland replied that all the categories listed by Councilman
Strong are priority categories and those priorities amongst them-
selves are largely within the discretion of the City Council to
determine. In his opinion the resolution is perfectly legal as
drawn, because it is discretionary that capital improvements are
priority items.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Hoagland to define in the
very last sentence of the resolution "capital outlay needs of the
City." Mr. Hoagland stated he would define that as capital improve--
ments which have been authorized
Council over a five year period,
has not been able for one reason
by the Planning Commission and the
always in advance, which the City
or another to finance, plus any
additional necessary capital improvements which may present them-
selves by virtue of outside forces.
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 Page
99
Councilman Bleecker commented that he is in favor of the
resolution as it stands without any additions or deletions. However,
the idea of inserting 1973 into the last paragraph appeals to him
as there is no guarantee that the Federal Government will grant
more money and the City does have this money on deposit. It would
certainly show good faith on the part of the Council in that these
capital outlay projects were approved before there were any Revenue
Sharing Funds.
After additional Council discussion, vote taken on
Councilman Bleecker's substitute motion to defer action on the
Resolution for two weeks carried by the following roll call vote:
Bleecker
Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Whittemore,
Councilmen Medders, Thomas, Heisey
None
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 3869 to 4020,
inclusive, in amount of $95,856.97.
(b)
(c)
(d)
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
on the Consent Calendar:
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Claim for damages from Mrs. Jacqueline
J. Chaney, Carmichael, California, Re:
Demolishing of hotel building in the
southeast corner of 21st and Baker Streets
(Refer to City Attorney).
Claim for damages from Rancho Bakersfield
Motel (Refer to City Attorney).
Claim for damages from Mrs. Betty Jo
Lasater, 1223 Townsley Avenue (Refer
City Attorney).
to
Claim for damages from Michael Dale
Shipman (Refer to City Attorney).
Application for Encroachment Permit from
George Waheed, 1814 Eye Street.
Application for Encroachment Permit from
K~ C. Steak House, 2515 "F" Street.
Plans and Specifications for construction
of Storm Drains in Bank Street - Olive
Street to Cypress Street, and in Cypress
Street - Bank Street to Verde Street
(Approve Plans and Specifications and
authorize the Finance Director to
advertise for bids).
100
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 12
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i)
adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Rogers,
Bleecker Heisey
None
None
Councilman Medders
Action on Bids.
Noes:
Absent:
Abstaining:
(i) Storm Drain Easement to serve "Q" Street
area from Stockdale Development Corporation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b),
of the Consent Calendar were
(c) ,
Strong, Thomas, Whittemore,
of 1973, was
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
adopted by the following vote:
Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas,
Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey
None
None
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Rogers,
bid for Annual Contract for Blueprint Reproduction was awarded
to Hoven & Co.~ all other bids were rejected and the Mayor was
authorized to execute the contract.
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2094
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 11.17.075 of Chapter 11.17 of the Municipal Code to provide
for Bicycle Parking Racks in the Parking Mall and in any Business
District within the City, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas,
Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 32-73 fixing
the time of Meetings of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield during the Months
of June, July, August and September of
1973.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
32-73 fixing the time of Meetings of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield during the Months of June, Jul~ August and September
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 13
101
Adoption of Resolution No. 33-73 of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, State of California,
extending time by one year within which affected
property owners must be ready to receive Under-
ground Service and within which affected utilities
must underground facilities in Divisions 2 and 3
of Underground Utility District No. 2 and revising
description of said Division.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 33-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, State of California,
extending time by one year within which affected property owners
must be ready to receive underground service and within which
affected utilities must underground facilities in Divisions 2 and
3 of Underground Utility District No. 2 and revising description
of said Division 2, was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore,
Bleecker, Heisey
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adoption of Resolution of Intention
Upon
No. 891 of the
No. 891 of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield declaring its intention
to order the vacation of a small
portion of the W~ of the extension
of Union Avenue, lying adjacent to
Tract 3538, north of Panorama.
a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution of Intention
Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its
None
Rogers, Strong, Thomas,
Heisey
Whittemore,
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Medders,
Bleecker,
intention to order the vacation of a small portion of the W½ of
the extension of Union Avenue, lying adjacent to Tract 3538, north
of Panorama, was adopted by the following vote:
102
Bakersfield, California, May 21, 1973 - Page 14
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2095 New
Series of the Council of the City
of Bakersfield amending Section
3.18.070 (Temporary Positions) of
the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield.
Upon a mo~ion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2095
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.070 (Temporary Positions) of the Municipal Code of
the City of Bakersfield was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Councilmen Medders, Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore,
Bleecker, Heisey
Noes: None
Absent: None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, the meeting was
adjourned at 9:25 P.M.
MAYOR the C~ield,
Calif.
ATTEST:
ERK and E~-Offi'eio Clerk of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973
103
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., June 4, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by Captain D. Patrick of
the Salvation Army.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart.
Absent: None
Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas,
Bleecker, Heisey,
Minutes of the regular meeting of May 21,
approved as presented.
Whittemore,
Medders.
1973 were
Scheduled Public Statements.
Robert Paaren, 424 - 18th Street, addressed the Council,
being taxed out of his home and he requested the Council
Mr.
stating he is
to consider lowering property taxes and holding the line on City
assessments. In his opinion executive departments of the City should
be re-examined, re-assessed and re-oriented to the public need which
is to lower taxes. City property owners should not be expected to
pay the City for weed abatement, the City's Fire Department should
either provide the service of burning weeds or stand by while the
property owner does it. Revenue sharing funds should be placed in the
general fund and used to lower taxes and the Council should not be
discussing ways and means to utilize these funds for other purposes.
Councilman Rogers asked the City Attorney to comment on
a case in Atlanta, Georgia, where revenue sharing funds had been
used for lowering property taxes. Mr. Hoagland stated that it is a
test case whereby a municipality used the funds to directly cut
property taxes which is not specified in the guidelines of the
Federal Revenue Sharing Act. He is not aware of the results.
Mr. Paaren went on to say he has been informed that
Councilman Heisey has held secret meetings with the Greater
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce staff to lobby for the Utility Tax
and in his opinion this is another example of how the taxpayers'
money is being used by the bureaucrats for their own benefit. He
104
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 2
asked why the City should provide the Chamber of Commerce with
$40,000 for this activity and why should Mr. Heisey use his
position as Councilman to intimidate the Chamber staff to conduct
this activity.
Councilman Heisey stated he is a member of the Chamber of
Commerce Committee referred to by Mr. Paaren, and as a member he
tossed out as a timely issue that the Committee might investigate
and the Chamber make a recommendation regarding the merits of
reducing either the property tax or the utility tax. He is a
businessman in this community and has his own personal feelings in
this matter. He recommended that the Chamber Committee discuss it
with the Budget Review and Finance Committee and also with the
City staff.
Mr. J. Everett Kochheiser, vice-president and general
manager of Warner Cable of Kern County, formerly Cypress Cable TV
of Kern County, informed the Council that recently there have been
two state regulatory bills on cable television introduced in the
State Legislature which will be heard June 12 before the Senate
Committee on Public Utilities and Corporations. These are Senate
Bill 1330 and Senate Bill 754. Both bills propose full state
commission regulations of cable television, provide for the pro-
mulgation of rules and regulations by a state commission and require
that cable operators secure "Certification of Conformation" from the
state commission to operate their systems.
Mr. Kochheiser is strongly opposed to a full state regula-
tion as proposed by both senate bills, because the cable television
industry is already thoroughly and heavily regulated by both federal
and local franchising bodies. Full state commission regulation only
adds a third layer of rules and regulations and another certification
process at the expense of the taxpayers and cable subscribers and
may eleminate the authority and expertise of the local franchising
body. He requested the Council to oppose Senate Bills 1330 and 754
through the California League of Cities and to the members of the
Senate Committee on Public Utilities and Corporations.
Councilman Rogers asked if the City Council and the Kern
County Board of Supervisors would lose their authority to regulate
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 3
105
and grant cable TV franchises if these two proposed bills were
approved.
Mr. Kochheiser replied that they would have the right to
award a franchise, but final approval would be certified by this
new commission at a state level.
Councilman Bleecker asked Mr. Kochheiser if there had been
any particular problems involved with cable tv which would lead the
State of California to believe that it should take over the regularion
of the cable systems. Mr. Kochheiser replied that there have been no
particular abuses or activities revealed, nothing was brought out
at an interim hearing held last year. The industry has had a remark-
able record of excellent service at very reasonable prices. There
are a number of people in Sacramento who would like to have a
separate commission to regulate cable television in a similar manner
as a public utility.
Mr. Hoagland stated these bills would establish state wide
standards which the local agency would be compelled to adhere to
and would be an erosion of local control.
After additional discussion, upon a motion by Councilman
Rogers, the Mayor was authorized to direct a letter to the members of
the Senate Committee on Public Utilities and Corporations expressing
the City Council's opposition to Senate Bills 1330 and 754, with a
copy of the letter to be forwarded to the League of California Cities.
Correspondence.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, communication from
Griffith C. Sutton-Jones expressing opposition to any proposed
ordinance which would ban the flying of model airplanes in City
Parks and School Yards, was received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
Fletcher, Heald, Howell, Kenchart and Hildreth, notifying the Council
that the time had been extended for filing replies to June 15, 1973,
on application to include Television Station KMPH Channel 26, Tulare,
California, on cable television was received and ordered placed on file.
106
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 4
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, communication from
Kern County Water Agency regarding a cooperative effort with the
county-wide water agency indevelopment of the Conservation Element
of the General Plan, was received and ordered placed on file.
Council Statements.
Mayor Hart stated that Councilman Strong has expressed
a willingness to accept appointment as a member of the Board of
Charity Appeals and Solicitations, and upon a motion by Council-
man Bleecker, Councilman Vernon Strong was appointed to serve on
this Board to fill out term of S. Del Rucker which expires October 11,
1975.
Reports.
City Attorney Hoagland reported that he has furnished each
member of the Council with a lengthy written memorandum, concerning
Kern County Council of Governments (KERCOG), and would suggest that
it be made available to the public, and after receipt of any public
input, be further discussed by the Council.
Councilman Thomas moved that the report be accepted as
a public document, copies made available for the perusal of inter-
ested persons, and that the report be discussed at a later date by
the Council.
Councilman Whittemore suggested that the report be
scheduled for discussion by the Council within a minimum of two
weeks, which would enable interested persons or groups to review it
and submit their comments to the Council; that this not be con-
sidered a hearing, just a discussion. Councilman Thomas incorporated
this suggestion in his motion, which carried unanimously.
Councilman Medders, chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, reported on the subject of Lease of the Dog
Pound to the County of Kern, stating that recently the Council
received a letter from the County Administrative Officer trans-
mitting the intention of the Board of Supervisors to terminate
Agreement and Lease with the County for the operation of the dog
pound as of June 1, 1973, and to lease the entire premises for
the period from June 1, 1973 through June 30, 1974.
107
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 5
After receiving this notice, the staff prepared a new
base whereby the County would operate the entire facility with
its own employees and/or through sublease to the SPCA for the
interim period from June l, 1973 through June 30, 1974. On May 20,
1973, the Board of Supervisors approved the new lease and on June l,
1973, actually took over the operation of the dog pound. Based upen
the Budget Review and Finance Committee's understanding that this
agreement is an interim measure, this Committee recommends that the
Council approve the lease with the County of Kern and authorize the
Mayor to execute. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the report
was adopted.
Councilman Medders, chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, reported on the subject of Site Acquisition for
the New Police Building, stating that the architect for the proposed
new police building has prepared tentative floor plans for the
project; however, the inability of the property owner and the City
Attorney to arrive at an agreement on the terms for acquisition of
the site has delayed the project from proceeding.
The Budget Review and Finance Committee recommends that
the City Attorney be authorized to proceed to acquire the property
at the southeast corner of Truxtun and "H" Streets in whatever
manner necessary. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the report
was adopted and the City Attorney was authorized to proceed as stated
therein.
Councilman Medders, chairman of the
Finance Committee, reported on the subject of
Budget Review and
a proposal from Elmer
Fox and Company for the audit of the City's records for the year
ending June 30, 1973. This proposal is essentially the same as
that for the previous year with a maximum cost of $9,500. The
Committee feels that the firm of Elmer Fox and Company has been doing
a good job for the Council in the past, that their recommendations
have been valuable, and recommends that the Council approve an audit
108
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 6
contract with this company
1973. Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the report was
and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Director of Public Works Bidwell reported on the
as outlined, for the year ending June 30,
adopted,
develop-
merit of the Grissom Park Site, stating that at the time it was
proposed to enter into an agreement with HUD to develop the Grissom
Park Site, it appeared that their participation in this development
would be in the City's best interests. Since that time, certain
conditions have changed which require further evaluation. Bids
have been received to perform a major portion of the work which
indicate the cost of the project will require an additional
$51,000 to be funded by the City. This money is not budgeted, and
it is recommended that all bids be rejected and the project be
given further evaluation before any further action is taken. Upon
a motion by Councilman Whittemore, all bids for the development
of Grissom Park Site were rejected for further evaluation.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the Council and the
staff had been handed a copy of a report on the Utility Users Tax
from the Budget Review and Finance Committee. Having had an
opportunity to read it over only once, he would say that the report
is filled with inconsistencies and opinions. He feels that the
report should be read into the record, and then received and filed
after Council comments.
Councilman Medders, chairman of the Budget Review and
Finance Committee, read the following report into the record on
the subject of the Utility Users Tax:
On May 7, 1973, the City Council referred to this
Committee for study and recommendation the matter
of rescinding effective July l, 1973, the 5% Utility
Users Tax.
None of us enjoys paying taxes; however, funds must be
raised to finance the services currently provided by the
City of Bakersfield. During the past several months,
each member of this committee has received many more
expressions of concern from constituents about the
substantial increase in property taxes than received
about the utility users tax. To illustrate the
dramatic increase in property taxes, one only needs to
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 Page 7
109
compare the general property taxes levied by the City
of Bakersfield for the last two years. For fiscal year
1971-72, the amount was $4,449,567. In comparison, the
property taxes levied for fiscal year 1972-73 will amounl
to $5,248,739, or an increase of $799,172. Of course,
a part of this increase is due to continuing growth and
development of the City. By contrast, the average annual
increase over the previous ten years was approximately
$165,000.
In evaluating the City of Bakersfield property tax rate,
we find that it is the fourteenth highest in the state.
Of course, the high property tax rate can be attributed
to the high level of services being provided city residents,
and the non-government type services being financed from
the property fax levy. In order to correct the latter,
the City of Bakersfield should have a better balanced
tax structure.
This committee has evaluated the property tax vs. the
utility users tax as a source of revenue. The passage
of Senate Bill 90 has limited the ability of cities to
raise needed funds through the property tax levy to
finance the expected increase in future costs of city
services. On the other hand, the utility users tax, an
extension of the sales tax, is an expanding source of
revenue. Its growth is affected by both the growth of the
community and of the utilities rate structure. It has the
advantage, also, of imposing the tax on renters and lessees,
thereby expanding the tax base and capturing some measure.
of payments from transients and transitory users.
During the fiscal year 1973-74, it is estimated that
$1,156,000 will be raised from the 5% utility users tax.
This amount is equivalent to 61 cents of the property
tax rate. Contrary to statements which have been made
in the past, the City of Bakersfield established a
utility users tax on July l, 1970 to avoid raising the
property tax rate. Without levying the utility users
tax, the City Council wouldhave had to raise the property
tax 57 cents in order to balance the City Budget.
It is obvious to us that government costs will continue
to increase in future years. Two reasons are apparent -
the first being the continuing inflationary spiral, and
the second being the continuing growth and development
of the City. Even if service levels are reduced one year,
the possibility of which we think the community as a
whole would not support, the cost of providing the
services at the reduced level will increase in the follow-
ing year. This fact was demonstrated by the Executive
Secretary of the Kern County Taxpayers Association when
he presented to this Committee his own independent
analysis of city financial statements showing a definite
imbalance between projected future expenditures and revenues.
The staff has reviewed his analysis and agrees with this
trend.
After careful review of the budget, this committee is
pleased to announce that $974,280 is available in unapplied
appropriations for tax relief. At this time, this
committee does not know what the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee's salary recommendations are going
to be. Raises or supplemental benefits granted by
the Council will have to be deducted from this total.
110
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 8
This committee has reviewed what we feel are all of
the implications of rescinding the utility users tax
vs. reducing the property tax. We know that these
unapplied funds principally result from the sub-
stantial increase in property taxes; therefore, we
unequivocally recommended that all funds which are
available after the Council acts on the recommendations
of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
be used entirely for property tax reduction. We believe
this recommendation is the mOst responsible action the
Council can take.
Councilman Heisey moved that the report be received.
Councilman Bleecker took issue with certain statements
made in the report, stating that many members of the Council have
received many more calls about the Utility Users Tax than the
property tax. What the City should do and perhaps what it hasn't
done in many instances, is to stop incorporating areas that can't
pay their fair share of the tax load. If property is going to be
undeveloped for a long period of time and other areas do not pay
their way but are provided with city services, funds must be
budgeted for this purpose.
Councilman Bleecker asked Councilman Medders what the
non-government type services were referred to in the report.
Councilman Medders answered that 85~ on the tax roll is
budgeted for refuse collection, and this is a non-government type
of service.
Councilman Bleecker disagreed, stating that this is
a government service when it is
employees using city equipment.
at some future time to contract
being performed by government
If the Council should see fit
out the refuse service to private
collectors who are performing this service in the
areas at the present time,
rate enterprise will make
pay taxes to the City for
city in some
the people who are engaged in this pri-
a profit which the City cannot do, and
their endeavor.
Councilman Bleecker commented
is entirely~different
something purchased.
He was here
that the Utility Users Tax
from a sales tax which is normally imposed on
the Utility Users Tax and was the only Councilman who opposed it.
he recalls it, the Utility Tax was ram rodded through the Council
at the time the City of Bakersfield established
A
111
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 9
through the Council because the statement was made by Councilman
Heisey that if the Council did not establish the tax, the State
of California would preempt it and impose it. The State of
California has never done this. He doubts very seriously that the
statement "that the City would have had to raise its property tax
in order to balance the city budget for that year" is factual.
Tax reduction is an important item, tax elimination is a lot more
important than reducing property tax. As property taxes go up
through increases in assessed valuation, this city has and will
continue to spend every cent of the increases each year. Elim-
inating the Utility Users Tax will give relief to everyone, not
just property owners.
Councilman Rogers complimented Councilman Bleecker on
his analyzation of the report on such short notice. It may be true
that some members of the Council have received many more expressions
of concern from constituents about the substantial increase in
property taxes, but as a member of the City Council, he has re-
ceived far more complaints on the Utility Tax than on the property
tax. The report comments on the dramatic increase in property
taxes, however, back in 1970, when the Utility Users Tax was levied,
it went from zero to a million dollars in one year, and that can
be considered pretty dramatic. The Committee report states that
the City of Bakersfield should have a better balanced tax structure,
which to him means "let's shift the tax load," Shifting the tax
load from one group to another doesn't accomplish anything, only
people pay taxes, therefore, the only way any meaningful tax relief
can be given is to clamp a tight lid on expenditures.
Councilman Heisey stated that it is apparent any report
submitted by the Committee which didn't agree with Councilman
Bleecker's opinion would not be a satisfactory report to him. All
the information in the report is factual, it was very carefully studied
with the Finance Director, and Councilman Heisey is satisfied that
the figures and statistics are most accurate. He pointed out that
when the Utility User's Tax was enacted, it was on the recommendation
112
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page l0
from the League of California Cities that the State was going to
preempt that field, however, they did not do so. That particular
year he fought against
thought were too high,
Mr. Bleecker voted for
pay raises for city employees which he
and because these raises were voted, and
the entire budget, it was mandatory that
the Council come up with the utility tax money in order to balance
the budget that year, or it would have been necessary to raise
the property taxes. He still believes it was the best way to go
at that time.
Councilman Bleecker stated that the figures may be
factual but the report contains a lot of opinion. There is a great
deal of reference around City Hall and elsewhere about the level
of service, that the people of the City of Bakersfield would not
stand for a cut in service. In his opinion, the level of service
is fine but he does not believe it is as efficient as it could be
and it could be provided at a lower cost if certain economies
were observed from the top to the bottom. As soon as budget hearings
are over, it is his intention as chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, to recommend to that Committee
that they make a complete survey of efficiency in the City even
if it is necessary to hire an outside efficiency expert to come in,
look things over and see if city operations can be done cheaper than
they are at the present time.
Councilman Medders commented that the Committee did not
expect the Council to agree with the report, it is not easy to
prepare a report of this nature without including some opinions.
This report was not thrust on anyone, the Budget Review and Finance
Committee was asked to submit the report a week in advance of the
budget, and this was done.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's motion to receive the
report and place it on file carried, with Councilmen Bleecker and
Rogers voting in the negative.
Councilman Whittemore remarked that in receiving and
placing the report on file, it was not the intention to adopt the
report in that form, but to make it a matter of record for public
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 11
113
knowledge. Councilman Whittemore commented on the statement in the
report that all the funds available after the Council acts on the
recommendations of the Committees will be used entirely for property
tax reduction. At the budget sessions next week he wants to see
exactly what can be done, where cuts can be made and the money
spent to best suit the majority of the people of Bakersfield.
He has no objection to placing the report on file where the
public can read it, but he is not adopting all the provisions
contained in it.
Mr. Hoagland stated that it was the Committee's intention
to have the report received, placed on file and available for the
public, and to be given consideration at the budget hearings.
Councilman Bleecker commented that after this explanation
he would withdraw his negative vote. Councilman Rogers withdrew
the vote was unanimous to receive the report and place it
his, and
on file.
(c) , and
vote:
AYES:
Consent Calendar.
The following items were listed on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 4021 to 4115,
inclusive, in the amount of $31,693.24
(b) Grant of Sewer Easement from Loren W. Stroppe.
(c) Petition from property owners on Gordon Street
for annexation to the City of Bakersfield of
Tracts 2093, 2651, 2465, 2397, 2270 and 2346.
(d) Claim for damages from Auldis N. Windes and
Evelyn Windes (Refer to City Attorney).
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b),
(d) of the Consent Calendar were adopted by the following
Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker,
Heisey, Medders.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Action on Bids.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, low bid of Frank Terry
Construction Company of Bakersfield for the Construcfion of Restroo.m
Storage Building at Patriots Park was accepted, all other bids were
rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
114
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 12
Deferred Business.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2096
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section
5.32.080 (Service Furnished by City) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker,
Heisey, Medders.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
This was the time set for further discussion of a Resol-
ution of the Council of the City of Bakersfield relative to
Revenue Sharing Funds which had been deferred from last meeting.
Councilman Strong commented that he recognizes the impor-
tance of taking some action on the resolution tonight, he is not
attempting to delay that action, he is merely attempting to enlighten
some members of the Council as to what the public's thinking is
regarding revenue sharing funds. He then introduced Mr. Gabriel
former Councilman, to submit his view on
Solomon,
revenue
attorney and
sharing.
Mr. Gabriel
Solomon, addressed the Council, stating he was
present tonight representing himself as a resident and a taxpayer
of the City of Bakersfield. As an attorney and as one who works
rather closely with the NAACP and various other community groups
that are particularly concerned with those areas that are not as
bountifully blessed as some others, he has been frequently called
upon to explain and comment upon revenue sharing and what its impact
might be upon the community, and over a period of several months he
has accumulated various sources for information.
He recognizes that the Revenue Sharing Act, after going
through eight other categories of possible priorities, does include
the phrase that one expenditure that can be regarded as a priority
expenditure is necessary capital improvements. However, to be
honest on a local level, before any commitment is made as to how
the taxpayers' money is going to be spent, there should be a real
examination of what the priorities should be. There is a need for
a new police facility and he has no question that using a portion
of the funds for that purpose is a reasonable expenditure. But
without considering other priorities, whether they are capital or
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 13
115
in some other category
objective fashion, he does
the spending of this money
of the funds.
permissible under the legislation, in an
not believe that any proposal to commit
is a really fair assessment of the use
been promulgated by the office
Department, it does not appear
arbitrary, there are all sorts
of Revenue Sharing of the Treasury
to him that the deadlines are very
of waiver provisions and opportunities
for extensions of time in the regulations. He asked if any study
had been conducted as to possible priorities and if so, when was it
made and by whom was it conducted, and has any report heretofore
been rendered to the public where citizens might be able to reach
their own conclusions as to what the priorities should be.
Councilman Medders asked Mr. Bergen to confirm the fact
that a June 20 deadline has been set for filing some sort of plan
with the government for the use of revenue sharing funds.
Mr. Bergen stated that regulations of the Federal Govern-.
ment require notification to the government by the Council for
expenditure of certain of these funds before June 20. It was the
staff's feeling that the budget hearings would be the proper time
for determining the use of these funds. It has been the Council's
policy that the entire Council make determinations on capital
improvement projects. The Council feels that it is not appropriate,
for committees to be involved with priorities for expending capital
outlay funds; however, the Council does use Committees for personnel
and operating budgets. The intent of the Resolution was to indicate
that the funds would be used for capital improvements only, not any'
of the other eight categories.
Mr. Solomon commended the Council for extending Councilman
Strong the courtesy of deferring to his request that he be allowed
two weeks to consider the subject of the revenue sharing funds
resolution which was first presented to him on the evening of the
Council meeting. He questioned the time element expressed earlier
regarding the necessity of adopting the resolution this evening.
After reading the Statute and some of the regulations that have
116
Bakersfieid, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 14
Mr. Solomon remarked that his question as to whether
there is anything in the Statutes which makes it mandatory to
adopt a resolution this evening had not been answered.
Mr. Bergen stated that to his knowledge, there is no
requirement that the Council adopt a resolution this evening, he
had merely stated that there was a deadline for submitting a
planned list for use of certain funds.
Councilman Thomas commented that he doesn't think the
Council actually needs to adopt a resolution. It was proposed with
the idea in mind that revenue sharing funds are to be used for
capital outlays and not for a property tax reduction. He wished
to make it clear that he is supporting this use of the funds.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he thinks what Mr. Solo-
mon wants to know is who recommended the resolution and how did
they arrive at their conclusions. Also, if this resolution is
passed, is it resolved that all funds will be used for the capital
outlay projects of the City as they occur. Mr. Solomon wants to
know if the Budget Review and Finance Committee made a study before
recommending that these funds be used solely for capital outlay.
Councilman Thomas stated that the answer to all of
Mr. Solomon's questions is "no."
Councilman Bleecker stated that prior to his election,
before revenue sharing funds were even a reality, in fact, they
had not been voted upon by the Congress of the United States, he
did make a motion that these funds be used to reduce taxes, and
this motion carried six to one. However, evidently there is a
federal mandate that these funds could not be used to reduce taxes.
Councilman Heisey pointed out that one of the requirements
of the federal revenue sharing funds was that they be used for the
entire community. The Budget Review and Finance Committee spent a
lot of time discussing this with the staff, it was not a spur of
the moment action. The whole community probably shares more from
capital improvements than from any other type of expenditure; such
projects as sewer systems, or a police facility, which would be for
the best interests of the community. Next week the Council will be
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 15
117
considering the Capital Outlay Budget and it was felt that it
would be timely to set a policy for the budget hearings on the
use of the revenue sharing funds, that it would be wise to set
them aside for capital expenditure only. It was a matter of
good planning, and he would support the resolution.
Councilman Thomas stated his only reason for voting
"no" at the time Councilman Bleecker moved to use the funds to
reduce the tax rate was because he knew they could not be used
for that purpose.
Mr. Solomon concluded his remarks by saying that as he
understands it, there is no deadline which mandates action by the
Council on this resolution tonight. There has never been a
detailed study conducted by this Council as to possible priorities,
no report has ever been complied discussing what the possible
priorities would be and what the expenditures should be. Nothing
has ever been made available to the public to express its opinion
for public input. He urged the Council out of respect to the
community, that no action be taken on the resolution tonight
and that some study be made. After a study is made and an opportun~Lty
provided for public discussion, it might be that he would subscribe
to use of the funds for capital outlay purposes.
Councilman Strong commented that he does not think as
the Act is presently being interpreted in other cities, it means
that it is supposed to benefit all citizens of the community. The
Act does clearly state that the money is to be expended for high
priority items. He asked Mr. Solomon if the Council adopts the
resolution in its present form where it clearly states that all
revenue sharing funds are to be used for capital outlay would be
~consistent with the intentions of the Act.
Mr. Solomon answered that the Council should consider the
alternatives before making a choice, and from his point of view,
if any consideration has been given to alternatives, it was extremely
limited in scope with no opportunity for public input.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 16
Mrs. Marie Dickinson addressed the Council, stating that
there is one alternative she has not heard mentioned here and that
is to refuse the funds and not be obligated under the federal rules
and regulations that go with them. She asked the Council to go
on record as rejecting these revenue sharing funds.
Councilman Rogers remarked that to his knowledge the
Council has not discussed this side of it, but it is something to
consider, as every time funds are accepted from the federal
government there are always strings attached.
Councilman Heisey stated the federal government has made
certain funds available for revenue sharing up until December, 1976.
What the committee has tried to do is recommend using these funds
for specific projects so that the City will not become dependent
upon the money to the extent that it will be necessary to budget
money in the future to carry out certain commitments. He asked
the City Clerk to read the Resolution in its entirety in order to
refresh the Council's memory on its contents.
Mrs. Edna Buster stated she was begging the Council to
investigate what regional and metro government will mean to the
City. She asked the Council to return the revenue sharing funds
to the federal government and spend money for capital projects
when they have the funds to do so.
Mrs. C. E. Boydston stating she was representing herself
and other concerned citizens, addressed the Council. It appears to
her that the Council is dodging the question of regional government
and asked if a study had been made of what this government really is.
She urged the Council to refuse the federal revenue sharing funds
and also that the Council urge the Senate to take back its power,
do away with executive orders, and overthrow any attempts to
inflict regional government on the whole world.
Councilman Bleecker commented that regional government
had been a concern of his for some time, it needs to be thor-
oughly examined. In reading over the report on Kern Council
Council of Governments submitted by the City Attorney, he learned
119
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 17
that in order for KERCOG to recommend and obtain approval for
certain local projects they must always be approved by the federal
government. He can't say at this time, because he has not looked
into it, whether or not staying in KERCOG would be detrimental to
the City of Bakersfield. He can say that if the City of Bakersfield
or the County of Kern gets out of KERCOG, there is no more Kern
County Council of Governments. It is a subject this Council is
going to be continually concerned with and on which it will need
to make a decision soon.
Councilman Strong stated there has been a lot of talk
about many things, but the issue before the Council is revenue
sharing. In view of the comments that have been made, he would
move that the Resolution be referred back to the Committee for
further study and additional recommendations back to the Council
one week in advance prior to the time for action.
Councilman Thomas asked if action could be deferred on
use of the revenue sharing funds or will it be necessary to act on
it during the budget sessions.
Mr. Bergen stated that as the staff interpreted the Revenue
Sharing Act, the federal government expects a determination on the
use of certain funds by June 20. As this date falls after the
budget hearings, it was the staff's feelings that recommendations
for the use of these funds would be made to the Council for deliber-
ations during the budget hearings.
Councilman Bleecker requested information on the amount of
the funds and the period during which they had been received. Finance
Director Haynes submitted the following entitlement periods for
which funds have been received from the federal government:
January l, 1972 to June 30, 1972
July l, 1972 to December 31, 1972
January 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974
July 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974
Councilman Bleecker commented that in the past, salaries,
wages and fringe benefits have taken precedent over capital improve-
ment, they have taken too much precedent. Capital improvements
$626,991
$601,658
$728,181
Amount Unknown
120
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 18
need to be accomplished and right now; however, he would not be
willing to commit all the revenue sharing funds through 1976 as
the resolution calls for. After Council discussion, it is his
intention to move that the words "received during the year 1972
and 1973" be used for the capital outlay needs of the City as
they occur and incorporated in the resolution. Councilman
Heisey stated he would support that motion.
Attorney Solomon addressed the Council stating that if
it is true that there is a June 20 deadline for submitting a
report to the federal government on the use of the revenue
sharing funds, then he would suggest that the decision be limited
only to those funds that the Council must act on at this time.
Also, that provision be made for study and report, either by a
Council Committee or perhaps more desirably, by a Citizens
Committee, prior to the Council committing any funds that it does
not have to commit at this time.
Councilman Bleecker restated his substitute motion that
a phrase be inserted in the Resolution to read that "all federal
revenue sharing funds for 1972-1973 be used for the capital out-
lay needs of the City as they occur," and Resolution No. 38-73 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield relating to Revenue Sharing
Funds was adopted by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Rogers, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders
NOES: Councilmen Strong, Thomas.
ABSENT: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2097
New Series of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 3.18.060
(Salary Schedule) to include Community Center Coordinator, of the
Municipal Code of the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker,
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Heisey, Medders.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 20
Adoption of Resolution No. 36-73 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
fixing a time and place for hearing
protests by persons owning real property
within territory designated as "Pacheco No. 6",
proposed to be annexed to the City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 36-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing July 28, 1973 in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for
hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory
designated as "Pacheco No. 6", proposed to be annexed to the City
of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker,
Heisey, Medders.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Adoption of Resolution No. 37-73 of
Intention to inciude within the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District
a portion of certain territory designated
as "Pacheco No. 6", and setting the time
and place for hearing objections to the
inclusion of said territory within said
District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 37-73
of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation
of Grade District a portion of certain territory designated as
"Pacheco No. 6", and setting July 23, 1973 in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall as the time and place for hearing objections to
the inclusion of said territory within said District, was adopted
by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker,
Heisey, Medders.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
First reading of an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.04.755 (Speed Limit
on Truxtun Avenue) of the Municipal
Code of the City of Bakersfield.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 11.04.755 (Speed
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - ~age 19 1~_
First reading of An Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
amending Sections 8.80.010 and 8.80.090
of the Municipal Code, providing for the
removal of certain weeds as a public
nuisance and creating a lien for the
cost of abating such nuisance.
First reading was considered given an Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Sections 8.80.010 and
8.80.090 of Chapter 8.80 of Title 8 of the Municipal Code, providing
for the removal of certain weeds as a public nuisance and creating
a lien for the cost of abating such nuisance.
Adoption of Resolution No. 34-73 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield
fixing a time and place for hearing
protests by persons owning real property
within territory designated as "Pacheco
No. 5", proposed to be annexed to the
City of Bakersfield.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 34-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield fixing July 23, 1973 in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall as the time and place for
hearing protests by persons owning real property within territory
designated as "Pacheco No. 5", proposed to be annexed to the City
of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker,
Heisey, Medders.
of
of
"Pacheco No. 5",
of the City Hall
the inclusion of
by the following
AYES:
Adoption of Resolution No. 35-73 of
Intention to include within the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District
a portion of certain territory designated
as "Pacheco No. 5", and setting the time
and place for hearing objections to the
inclusion of said territory within said
District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, Resolution No. 35-73
Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield Separation
Grade District a portion of certain territory designated as
and setting July 23, 1973 in the Council Chambers
as the time and place for hearing objections to
said territory within said District, was adopted
vote:
Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker
Heisey, Medders.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 21
Limit on Truxtun Avenue) of the Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield.
Councilman Medders questioned not including Pine Street
within the 35 mile speed limit instead
Street. Mr. Hoagland stated
in front of Franklin School.
block away from the school.
the speed
It might
of confining it to "A"
limit will still be 25 miles
be a question of posting a
Councilman Bleecker asked why the posting could not be
made between the Racquet Club and the school or even down to the
next corner at Pine Street. He would like to see it spelled out
before the next meeting, like to see the wording of the request
changed.
Mr. Bergen stated he would check it out with the Traffic
Authority before the next meeting.
Approval of Contract between the City
of Bakersfield and Musicians' Union
Local 263.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Medders,
Contract between the City of Bakersfield and the Musicians Union
Local No. 263 for seven band concerts to be held in Beale Park
commencing June 17, 1973 and extending through July 29, 1973, seven
consecutive Sundays, at a cost not to exceed $2,500.00, was
approved and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Councilman Thomas asked if any consideration had been
given to rotating the band dates to other city parks, and was told
that the facilities are present at Beale Park and the accoustics
are better. Mr. Bergen stated they had tried this some years ago,
but the turnout was not good. The Committee evaluated it very
closely before recommending that the concerts be held in Beale Park.
Approval of request of Robert J. Martufo,
Sanitation Crewman I, for 60 day leave of
absence without pay.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, request of Robert J.
Marrufo, Sanitation Crewman I, for additional 60-day leave of
absence without pay beginning June 2, 1973 and extending through
July 31, 1973, was approved.
1o 3
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 22
Approval of Agreement between City of
Bakersfield and County of Kern for
Traffic Signal Maintenance at the
Planz Road - Union Avenue and White
Lane - Union Avenue intersections.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, agreement between
City of Bakersfield and County of Kern for traffic signal main-
tenance at the Planz Road - Union Avenue and White Lane - Union
Avenue intersections was approved and the Mayor was authorized
to execute same.
Approval of Change Order No. 1 for
Construction of Storm Drains in
portions of V Street, U Street,
Pine Street, Lacey Street, Planz
Road and California Avenue.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Change Order
No. 1 with T. C. H. Corporation for the Construction of Storm
Drains in portions of V Street, U Street, Pine Street, Lacey
Street, Planz Road and California Avenue, was approved, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Request from C. A. Bowker and John E.
Harbin for annexation of property to
the City of Bakersfield located at
1900 Ming Avenue, referred to the
Planning Commission for study and
recommendation.
Upon a motion by Councilman Thomas, request from C. A.
Bowker and John E. Harbin for annexation of property to the
City of Bakersfield located at 1900 Ming Avenue, Lot 48, Tract
1874, with zone change to R-3 upon annexation, was referred to
the Planning Commission for study and recommendation.
Approval of Minute Order referring
the matter of amending the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to the
Planning Commission for public
hearing and report back to the Council.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Minute Order referring
the matter of amending the Land Use Element of the General Plan to
the Planning Commission for public hearing and report back to the
Council was approved. This referral is required by Section
65356 of the Government Code.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 23 125
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing before the Council
on Phase I of the 1973 Weed Abatement Program. All lots have been
posted and owners notified by certified mail.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. Mr. Ivan Thor, who resides at 5228 Montecito Drive,
addressed the Council regarding a lot that he owns in Panorama
Heights. He stated that the weeds on this particular lot were
sprayed early this spring, no weeds are growing on the lot at the
present time, and he asked that his property be removed from the
Weed Abatement List. Public Works Director Bidwell was requested
to investigate the matter and remove the property from the Weed
Abatement List if the weeds have been abated.
Mr. Albert A. Lowell, who lives at l101 K Street, stated
that he had employed two men and had gone to considerable expense
to remove the weeds from his property. He stated he had seen a
notice in the Bakersfield Californian that the ban had been lifted
on burning in the City, and related his experiences in seeking to
obtain a burning permit from the Fire Department.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the Fire Department had been
given permission by the City Manager to deviate from its policy to
ban burning within the City limits except under certain conditions.
Mr. Bergen stated this was not the case.
Mayor Hart closed the public hearing for Council deliber-
ation and action. Councilman Thomas called attention to property
located at 1912 Montgomery Street which had been posted for the
abatement of weeds. He stated that a very bad fire hazard exists
at this location, and he asked if the Fire Department could move in
and abate these weeds immediately instead of waiting for the regular
Weed Abatement procedure.
Mr. Walter Regan addressed the Council, stating that he is
concerned about his property at 132 "L" Street which houses 33
senior citizens. The property on the southside of this location
has knee high weeds growing on it which are a potential fire hazard.
He would like to see more "teeth" in the present Fire Ordinance.
The property has been posted for abatement of the weeds, but as the.
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 24
tenants are very concerned, he feels the weeds
at once rather than waiting for the usual weed
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker,
should be removed
abatement program.
Resolution No.
39-73 finding that certain weeds growing on properties in the
City of Bakersfield constitute a public nuisance and directing
the Superintendent of Streets to destroy said weeds, was adopted
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore,
Bleecker, Heisey, Medders.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
This is the time set for public hearing before the
Council on application by E. F. Reid to amend the zoning
boundaries from an R-3-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling -
Architectural Design) Zone, to a C-O-D (Professional Office
Architectural Design) or more restrictive, Zone, of that certain
property in the City of Bakersfield located on the southeast
corner of 21st Street and Oak Street.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
property owners notified in accordance with the ordinance. It
was the opinion of the Planning Commission that a professional
office use would be the highest and best use for this parcel of
land and would be compatible with adjacent zoning and development.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections were received. Mr. E. F. Reid,
the applicant, explained his plans for development of this
property.
The public hearing was closed for Council deliberation
and action. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No.
2098 New Series amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code by changing
the Land Use Zoning of that certain property
field located on the southeast corner of 21st
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Rogers, Strong, Thomas,
Heisey, Medders.
NOES: None
in the City of Bakers-
Street and Oak Street,
Whittemore, Bleecker,
ABSENT: None
1'27
Bakersfield, California, June 4, 1973 - Page 25
Councilman Bleecker asked that Fire Chief Haggard be
requested to appear before the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee at its next meeting after budget hearings
to discuss the responsibilities of the Fire Department on the
abatement of fire hazards.
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
~ty o~f Bakersfield,
Cal..
ATTEST:
CITY ~LERK and Ex-Offic~io Clerk of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield, California
1o 8
Bakersfield, California, June ll, 1973
Minutes of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, meeting in budget sessions at 7:00 P.M., June 11, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend
Charles D. Wilkenson of the Chester Avenue BaptistChurch.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Absent:
None
Mayor Hart stated
Rogers, Thomas, Strong,
Whittemore.
that the Council operates under strict
rules of parliamentary procedure, questions are asked through the
chair. The Council is here for the purpose of conducting bud-
get hearings and the first order of business will be the report
of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee. At the
conclusion of the report, representatives of the Employees'
Associations will be permitted to speak, and public comment will
be invited. At the conclusion of all comments, the public por-
tion of the meeting will be closed for Council deliberations and
action.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he appreciated the
Mayor's concern with the conduct of the meeting, but a con-
stituent of his, Mr. Roger Narinian, wishes to address the
Council on an emergency matter affecting residents of the
Riviera Westchester area.
Mayor Hart stated he would be most happy to refer
Mr. Narinian to the proper department to handle any emergency,
but this is a budget hearing, persons are present in the audience
for the express purpose of hearing the Council's deliberations
on that subject, and he would, therefore, ask Councilman Bleecker
to put his request in the form of a motion to be voted upon by
the entire Council.
Councilman Bleecker stated he would not make such a
motion,
permits
privilege
he is only exercising the prerogative which historically
a Councilman to recognize anyone and grant him the
to speak to the Council.
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 2
Mayor Hart stated this could not be done without the
approval of the chair and unless a motion was made as requested,
the Council would proceed with the budget hearings.
After discussion, Councilman Bleecker then made a
motion that Mr. Narinian be permitted to address the Council,
which carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Mr. Roger Narinian, who lives at 3200 Encanto Court in
Riviera Westchester, stated that he was present on behalf of
the Riviera Condominium Association. He read a letter from this
association requesting that the Council pass a resolution to halt
the construction of the federally supported low income apartment
complex of 40 units for the elderly on the property commonly
known as 1841-1849 Golden State Highway, Riviera Westchester area.
Many of the residents in the area have not been duly notified and
intend to circulate a petition in the surrounding neighborhoods
to protest the construction of this facility and requesting that
said facility be moved to another area more suitable for its
exist~ce. It is the intention of the Board of Governors to
submit in the petition the many reasons that the Council should
overrule the Planning Department's adoption of this facility in
one of the better established neighborhoods in the City of
Bakersfield.
Mr. Narinian submitted three letters from the residents
of other condominiums in the same general area and cited various
reasons why this is poor planning on the part of City departments.
He asked that the Council pass a resolution tonight to temporarily
halt the construction of this facility so that there can be an
investigation of the whole matter, that public hearings be held
and residents of the area notified.
130
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 3
Councilman Bleecker stated Mr. Narinian has informed
the Council that an emergency does exist in that the Planning
Commission has approved this project and building permits have
been issued. If it is satisfactory with the City Attorney and
Mr. Narinian to discuss, some time tomorrow, the feasibility
and expediency of halting
sufficiently aired before
the proper action to take.
this project, until it can be more
the Council, he would think that is
He asked Mr. Hoagland if it would
take a Minute Order of the Council to halt this building. Mr.
Hoagland stated the Council has absolutely no facts upon which to
issue a Minute Order, not only that, it would be improper at
a budget hearing, because it hasn't been advertised. He stated
he would be happy to discuss this matter with Councilman Bleecker,
Mr. Narinian, and the Building Department and the Planning
Department to determine what did actually take place. As he
recalls it, it was properly zoned by the Council, and if a
building permit has been issued, he would say it was proper to
do so.
Councilman Bleecker stated he did not want to take more
time with this matter but will be available to meet with the staff
and Mr. Narinian at any time convenient to all persons concerned.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, presented the Committee's
recommendations on Salaries and Supplemental Benefits as follows:
KERN COUNTY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION LOCAL 700
REQUESTS
Request No. 1: 58~ per hour salary increase for all employees
who earn the average City employee salary or
less.
Recommendation: Disapproved.
Request No. 2: 8~% increase for all employees above the
average City employee salary.
Recommendation: Recommendation at end of this report.
Request No. 3: Dependent medical coverage
Recommendation: Disapproved
Request No. 4: $7.00 per month per employee for group dental
plan.
Recommendation: Disapproved.
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 4
131
Request No. 5:
Paid vacation of 20 days after 15 years service.
Recommendation:
Disapproved
Request No. 6:
Employer supplied work uniforms
Recommendation:
Disapproved
Request No. 7:
Longevity pay of 5% after 20 years service
Recommendation:
Disapproved.
Request No. 8:
Retiree 5% increase in benefits.
Recommendation:
This request is for all former employees who
retired under the Public Employees' Retirement
System on or before December 31, 1970. This
request approved at an annual cost of $44,000
paid over a period of five years.
Request No. 9:
Current medical plan premium increase.
Recommendation:
Insurance program to be re-bid. If it is
found that an increase in premium rates is
justified, it is recommended that the City
pay any increase in the employee's premium
rates.
KERN COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS UNION LOCAL 1301
REQUESTS
Request No. 1:
Firefighters' salary increase from $965 to
$1,065 and all other classificafions maintain
the same differential.
Recommendation:
Recommendation at end of this report.
Request No. 2:
Upgrade P.E.R.S. Safety Retirement to 2% at
age 50 plan.
Recommendation:
Disapproved.
Request No. 3:
Straight time pay for holidays or comp days
over the maximum accumulation of five shifts.
Recommendation:
The Committee feels that some adjustment is
justified, and recommends that Fire Suppression
personnel be paid straight time pay for six of
their ten authorized holidays which is equiva-
lent to three shifts.
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
REQUESTS
Request No. 1:
Parity established between the Sanitation
Crewman II and Equipment Operator II
Recommendation:
Disapproved.
Request No. 2:
10% increase for all employees represented by
A .F.S.C .M.E.
Recommendation: Recommendation at end of this report.
1_32
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 5
Request No. 3:
City pay entire cost for work uniforms and
increase number of uniforms per employee to
eleven rather than seven.
Recommendation:
Disapproved
Request No. 4 &
Request No. 5:
Safety glasses
to employees.
and safety shoes be furnished
Recommendation:
Not a meet and confer issue. If safety equip-
ment is warranted in order to prevent
accidents, the City will provide any needed
equipment. The Union representatives have
agreed fo discuss this request with the
staff. If not settled at the staff level,
will then be presented to the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee.
Once again, the Committee has reminded that any dis-
agreement which they have with the City must be submitted in writing.
Request No. 6:
City pay full cost of employee medical coverage.
Recommendation:
Insurance program to be re-bid, If it is
found that an increase in premium rates is
justified, it is recommended thaf the City
pay any increase in the employee's premium
rates.
Request No. 7:
All members of A.F.S.C.M.E. shall enjoy full
equity and parity with all City employees,
including vacation and seniority.
Recommendation:
The union members who went out on an unlawful
strike last year were terminated according to
ordinance. Granting this request would violate
the conditions of re-employment which they
agreed to at that time. This request dis-
approved.
We call to the attention of the City Council that during
the last meet and confer session between the A.F.S.C.M.E. union
representatives and this Committee, the union was not satisfied
with this Committee's proposals. The union submitted a letter to
the Chairman of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
declaring in their opinion, an impasse in negotiations. The union
formally requested third-party intervention at the earliest possible
date, which is not recommended because the City's Employer-Employee
Relations Ordinance makes no provision for this procedure, neither
is it required under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. A refusal to
mediate does not violate the meet and confer in good faith
principle. This Committee has met and conferred in good faith
with the A.F.S.C.M.E.
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 6
133
BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT
REQUESTS
Request No. 1: 5% salary increase.
Recommendation: Recommendation at end of this report.
Request No. 2: Ready Stand-by pay - $5.00 per shift.
Recommendafion: Approved.
Request No. 3: Current medical plan premium increase.
Recommendation: Insurance program is to be re-bid. If it is
found that an increase in premium rates is
justified, it is recommended that the City
pay any increase in the employee's premium
rates.
Request No. 4: Upgrade P.E.R.S. Safety Retirement to 2% at
age 50.
Recommendation: Disapproved.
DEPARTMENT REQUESTS FOR RECLASSIFICATIONS,
NEW POSITIONS, AND SALARY ADJUSTMENTS AS
RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER:
Reclassification (1) Clerk-Stenographer II to Secretary (City Clerk's
Department).
Additional funds for Administrative Assistant position (City Clerk's
Department).
(1) New position of Police Property Manager (Police Department)
Salary adjustment (1) Traffic Marking Foreman and (2) Maintenance
Leadmen (Police Department).
(1) New position of Supervising Foreman (Waste Water).
(2) New positions of Sewer Maintenanceman (Waste Water).
(2) New positions of Park Maintenanceman (Parks Division).
(1) New position of Building Maintenanceman I (Auditorium-Recreation
Department).
(1) New position of Auditorium Technical Aide (Auditorium-Recreation
Department).
In addition to these positions, it is recommended that
if the redevelopment of the downtown area becomes a reality during
the 1973-74 Fiscal Year, a position of Executive Director be
established. According to agreement with the Redevelopment Agency~.
funds will be off-set for this position by the Agency.
It is also recommended that the City no longer continue
in the Federally sponsored Emergency Employment Act Program,
July 1st of this year which will eliminate the following
effective
positions:
(1) Building Inspector I
(2) Utility Men (Street Division)
(3) Sanitation Crewman I (Sanitation Division)
134
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 7
It is recommended that the Data Processing Operator in
the Finance Department and the Utility Man in the Plant Maintenance
Section be retained. Monies for these two positions were budgeted
during the 1972-73 Fiscal Year and are included in the budget
for this year.
In addition to the above City Manager recommendations,
it is recommended that the C~y Attorney be given a car allowance
of $100 a month.
Councilman Bleecker indicated that this section of the
report was submitted and approved for recommendation unanimously
by the members of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Com-
mittee, and he moved acceptance and implement~ionof the items
covered in the report.
Mr. Fred Ward, Special Consultant for the Bakersfield
City Employees' Association, addressed the Mayor, stating that
their chief concern is on the salary matter, however, they do not
concur with all the recommendations in the report relative to
fringe benefits. He requested that action be delayed until the
employee organizations and union have been given the opportunity
to be heard. Councilman Bleecker stated it was not his intention
to preclude anyone from being heard or for any member of the Council
to ask questions. Many times during the year when taxpayers and
residents of the City have appeared before the Council, they have
been told that if they have something really concrete to discuss
regarding expenditures, they should come to the budget sessions
and hopefully, all of them will be heard along with the representa-
tives of the various employees associations. He then withdrew his
motion to accept the report.
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 8 135
Mr. Ward thanked the Council for the opportunity to speak
which is very important to all employees, and introduced the City
representatives of the Bakersfield City Employees' Association and
staff members who were present at the budget hearings.
He stated a copy of the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee report was received at the close of business on
Friday and they have been working since that time on the comments
contained in a communication which he read to the Council:
The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Com-
mittee majority report and recommendation for
no City employee salary increase for the coming
year, in face of all of the evidence to the
contrary in support of salary and fringe benefit
increases, is really incredible. It has shocked
not only your employees but also reasonable
minded citizens as well.
Cost of Living Factors - The latest Bureau of
Labor Statistics report shows that the cost of
living is 5.1% higher in April than it was a
year ago, and in recent months the cost of living
is currently rising at an alarmingly accelerated
rate equal to 9.2% annually.
Movement of Salaries in the Community - The
upward adjustment of City salaries the last
three years, compared to increased salaries in
Kern County area now lag 9.5%.
The County Civil Service Commission has recommended
an average salary increase apart from any fringe
benefit improvements of 7.5% for 1973-74. The
State Legislature has budgeted for an average
12.9% salary increase for State employees. The
Bakersfield High School Board has granted a 6.2%
average increase, Delano City employees increase
of 5% is guaranteed for 1973-74, and Taft, just
this evening, has been granted a 5% increase.
Two members of the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee see no justification for any
salary increase for Bakersfield City employees
this year despite an increase in the cost of
living and salary disparity which exists.
Thanks was expressed to Councilman Robert Whitte-
more, the other GEPC member, for his fairminded
effort to deal realistically with the facts and
to recommend some salary adjustment in his minority
report which in his opinion did not go far enough.
The Association is concerned by the rejection
of all but two of its fringe benefit requests
which they feel were both reasonable and well
supported and they desire to discuss some of
the points raised by us in support of all of
its requests.
136
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 9
It is requested that the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee proceed seriously and
promptly to negotiate completion of an acceptable
draft of an Employer-Employee Ordinance.
It is urged in conclusion that the Council act
in good faith to bring City employee salaries
into line with what other employers are paying.
He expressed the Association's thanks to the GEPC for
its plans to conduct reclassification studies during the ensuing
year and asked that the Account Clerk series be placed at the
top of the list. He feels that the results of the study should
be acted upon during the year, not deferred until July 1st of
the coming year.
Mr. Ward stressed the fact that the Bakersfield City
Employees' Association had submitted its recommendations in the
areas of fringe benefits and salaries to the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee in May and expressed the
Association's disappointment at the GEPC recommendations on cer-
tain fringe benefits which were not approved.
Councilman Bleecker stated he appreciated Mr. Ward's
very astute representation for the Employees' Association. As
the majority report of the GEPC has a great deal to do with
some of Mr. Ward's comments, he would like to read it at this
time. Before doing so it should be brought out at this time that
the City Council sets the policy for the City Manager to carry
out the day to day affairs of the City. Many hours were put in
by the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee in
decision making, and the various items which were brought up
have been "hassled over" in meet and confer sessions with the
various associations involved. The majority report of the GEPC,
with certain required reports of the staff, was used as a back-
ground for the decisions made, as the statements he will make
were not just invented by the Committee, they are facts and
figures complied by the staff of the City, and in one case, a
report taken directly from a Bureau of the Federal Government.
The majority report, signed by Councilman Keith Bleecker,
Chairman and Councilman Donald Rogers is as follows:
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page l0
137
Honorable Mayor and Gentlemen:
It should be noted that all three members of the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee agreed on all recommenda-
tions made to the Council, except on the subject of wage increases.
This is a majority report of that Committee.
Subject A: Actual cost of living increase compared
to City wage and fringe benefit increases,
1963 to 1973.
During the past ten years according to records kept by
the City of Bakersfield and using a weighted average to arrive at
dollar amounts, the average increase for City employees in the
area of wages and fringe benefits has been 69 percent. During this
same period of time according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Price Index applicable to Bakersfield, the cost of living
has increased 33.4 percent. This comparison indicates that City
wage and benefit increases have more than doubled the cost of
living.
Subject B: Employee benefit and rights.
Employees of the City of Bakersfield enjoy a retirement
plan, major medical coverage, life insurance options, liberal
vacations, sick leave, and holdiays and overtime pay. They also
have the right to join organized labor or employee associations,
in addition to all protection offered by Civil Service employment.
It is a rare occurrence where all of these benefits and rights are
offered employees by the private sectors.
Subject C: Number of prospective employees
currently certified for possible
employment.
There are a minimum of 200 prospective employees waiting
for job openings in the City.
1. Clerk Tyoist
2 Draftsman
3
4
5
6
Here are
Equipment Operator I
3
Sanitation Crewman
Utility Man
Fireman
38
54
49
some examples:
8
3
7 Policeman 13
138
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 11
Job openings vary from eleven in the Police Department
to none in most departments.
Subject D: Government efficiency.
It is the intention of this Committee to soon evaluate
the efficiency of the City in all areas of endeavor, since a survey
of this type has not been made in the last ten years. If sub-
stantial real and potential savings can be made before the next
budget sessions, the majority of this Committee would be happy
to recommend meaningful adjustments in wages where warranted.
Subject E: Employee benefits from tax reductions.
If City taxes can be reduced, the employee who resides
within the City will receive the full benefit from such reductions.
Conclusion and Recommendation:
After many hours of meet and confer sessions, and after
complete and thoughtful deliberation, the majority recommends to
this Council that no basic monthly wage increases be granted any
employees at this time; and that the approximate $900,000 of surplus
estimated for 1973-74 be used totally for the reduction of taxes.
Councilman Robert Whittemore, member of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, submitted his minority report
as follows:
Honorable Mayor.and Gentlemen:
After careful deliberation with the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee regarding salary increases,
it is apparent we have reached a disagreement regarding the subject
of wage increases.
Councilman Whittemore digressed from the report to compare
salaries of various positions of the City, after a local survey
of the private secfor paid during the year 1964-65 with those paid
in 1973.
He pointed out that in January, 1973, the Police Depart-
ment recruited for Patrolman. 94 applicants were tested during
January, February, March and April. The following is a breakdown
of how these applicants fared during the testing procedure:
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 12
13'9
65 Failed Written Examination.
8 Failed Strength and Agility Examination
i Failed to appear and 1 Failed the Oral Examination.
19 Passed all examinations, 1 withdrew after passing
all tests, 7 have failed the medical, 3 are still
taking the medical tests and 8 have passed all
tests and are eligible for certification.
There are presently ll openings and two anticipated
retirements in the near future. There are not enough people on the
eligible list to fill the anticipated openings in the Police
Department. According to the Police Department, this is a typical
recruitment.
Councilman Whirremote continued with the minority report:
I recommend a five percent across-the-board salary increase
for all employees. We are all concerned about taxes; we all
strive to reduce taxes to the maximum consonate with maintaining
prevailing wages of employees comparable to both the public and
private sector within our community.
Last year the employees were granted a 2~% increase in
general, which did not match the cost of living of the same year,
which was 3.8%. The cost of living has gone up even higher since
that time. The cost of living during the past few months has risen
drastically, and the 5% granted employees will help them maintain
parity with this rise in the cost of living.
My responsibility is to the taxpayer to maintain this
high level of service with the lowest level of taxes. We should
not expect the employees of the City to subsidize the government
in maintaining this level of service. ~They are entitled to the
prevailing wage in the community.
The City can provide for this minimum salary increase
and still provide meaningful tax relief, and I propose that this
tax relief
20 percent,
tax relief
be in the form of a reduction of the Utility Tax of
which will still provide sufficient funds for property
in the amount of 17~.
140
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 13
Councilman Bleecker commented that Councilman Whittemore
had plenty of time during the many Committee sessions to bring out
these facts and figures of wages being paid by the private sector.
The facts and figures he received from the staff about the Police
Department indicated that there were 13 people certified and
there are eleven positions open. In the majority report the
Committee gave an accurate appraisal of the positions which
were open and the people waiting to take those jobs, when they
are open. He then cited the increase in wages granted to certain
employees of the City from the period 1964 to 1973, stating that
the weighted average for all employees of the City of Bakersfield
shows an increase of 69% in salaries and fringe benefits over
the last ten years, whereas, according to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the cost of living has increased 33.4 percent, which
indicates that City wage and benefit increases have more than
doubled the cost of living.
Councilman Rogers stated that the average taxpayers'
bill in the City of Bakersfield went up 20%, his alone went up
45%. Also, a quick calculation of the figures that Councilman
Whittemore recommended as a salary increase and the tax reduction
which could be enjoyed by the taxpayers, totals $1,013,800, while
the City only has approximately $974,000 to work with.
Councilman Whirremote stated he would like to have
Councilman Rogers figures checked with the Finance Director,
and Councilman Rogers replied that those figures were given to
him by the Finance Director. Councilman Whittemore stated he
obtained his figures from the same staff, he is entitled to that
privilege.
Mayor Hart granted permission to Mr. Charles Boxwell to
address the 'Council, who stated he represents the Service Employees
International Union here on behalf of the Bakersfield City
Employees Association. Hr. Boxwell discussed fringe benefits
and stated that not counting fringe benefits, the average City
employees' salary increase over a ten year period is 4.4% a year,
not 6.9%. He took exception to Workmen's Compensation and over-
time compensation being considered fringe benefits. He stated
Bakersfield, California, June ll, 1973 - Page 14 141
that the average fringe benefit for the employee amounts to 1.5%
of his salary. In conclusion, he wished to bring out that the
employees are very anxious to see what happens tonight. They
received a 2.5% salary increase last year, the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee has recoramended no raise this
year; he asked how long the City expects to maintain eligible
lists of employees waiting for jobs, when this attitude is taken
toward City employees.
Councilman Bleecker commented that any set of figures
can always be disputed, a different set of values can be placed
on them depending upon the person quoting them. This Committee
has been working over a period of months to come up with a plan
whereby all City employees by their own choice, and by honest and
free election, can vote for a union to represent all of them;
however, the unions are not really in favor of this.
Mr. Fred Ward stated they have had some problems in
getting information since the new GEPC was constituted. He went
on to say that last year before they costed the employee's request,
the staff sat down and explained how they arrived at those figures,
so that when the GEPC came in with its recommendations, they were
knowledgeable and had a chance to cooperate with the Committee.
This year when they asked for the cQsting information, the GEPC
went into caucus on the question as to whether or not the Employees'
Association could be given the information on which the Committee
had formed its recommendations. Later in the meeting the informa-
tion was given to Mr. Ward, although he did not feel that he had
been treated with respect by the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee.
Responding to Mr. Ward's remarks, Councilman Bleecker
commented that for a long time the unions would meet with the City
Manager and he would more or less acquiesce to certain points of
142
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 15
their requests, with the idea that the GEPC might recommend a
certain issue to the full Council. There was objections because
many times the GEPC did not follow through on the action pre-
viously taken by the City Manager, and the union was therefore
upset. In order to avoid this type of misunderstanding, the
City Manager, under the present Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee, refers any requests from employee organi-
zations to the Committee. His office and assistants meet with
organized labor on a day-to-day basis, only to discuss certain
minor things regarding working conditions. Otherwise, the GEPC
of this Council has the sole charge of recommending, after
lawful meet and confer sessions, whether or not certain employee
requests should or should not be considered by this Council.
Thaf is the main reason why the information Mr. Ward requested
was not given to him until the Committee had met and considered
whether or not this would be done, which, as a matter of fact,
was done within two days.
Mr. Ward commented that their organization did not be-
grudge the larger benefits paid to the Fire and Police Departments,
that this is traditional everywhere, because of the added hazards
and because of the deep concern the average citizen has regarding
the maintenance of law and order in the community. He also pointed
out that City employees pay taxes too, in fact they are the only
group that helps to pay its own salaries.
Mr. Ward stated that salary increases should be given
top priority, before capital improvements are considered, and if
no increases are given whatever, that is hardly any priority.
The City manufactures nothing, it renders service, most of the
people could hardly do without these services. Employees render
the service and do a job that the Council, as elected officials,
is asking them to do because the citizens of the community request
these services. He thanked the Council for its courtesy in
listening to the Association, and urged, in view of the data which
they have presented to the GEPC, that an across-the-board wage
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 16
143
recommendation of
to $231,200 and a
takes up $322,600;
$1,013,800.
increase of 10% be granted which is very much in order.
Councilman Rogers commented that unlike private industry,
the City cannot pass the cost of wage increases along to the tax-
payers without raising taxes which penalizes 76,000 people in the
City.
Councilman Whittemore stated that the actual figure for
the 5% across-the-board increase is $465,000. Councilman Rogers
pointed out that to that figure must be added Mr. Whittemore's
a 20% reduction in the Utility Tax which amounts
17~ reduction in the property tax rate which
which is how he came up with a total of
A recess was called at
convened at 9:45 P.M.
Mr. James Barton, President of the
tion of Firefighters No. 1301, stated he was
9:30 P.M. and the Council re-
International Associa-
a professional Fire-
fighter, a resident of the City and a homeowner for 21 years.
Employees are here tonight to demonstrate their concern about their
salary requests. As a representative he is asking them to refrain
from any more vocal or other physical demonstrations, so that the
Council can conduct an orderly and serious hearing on salaries
which are very important to all City employees.
The Firefighters are proud and dedicated employees, through
leadership of the Council and the administrative staff they have
built the department up to a number one classification. They pro-
vide excellent and A-1 service to all citizens of this community.
The basic recommendations have been made in order to live,
within the economy of the area. Salary increases for the Fire-
fighters have only gone up 7.5% while salaries in 1972-73 in this
area have gone up 17%. This survey was made through the private
sector and includes many employees, thus City employees are 9.5%
behind the private sector, and continuing to fall further behind.
The Consumer Price Index indicates that prices have gone up 9.2%,
and it is generally agreed they will go higher.
144
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 17
The Fire Department is a service that provides a great
saving to the homeowner and the businessman within the community,
this City enjoys one of the finest insurance premiums in the
country. The Firemen are loyal to the City now, but he asked
the Council to consider how long can it keep loyalty, and
dedication when these men are not given salary increases. Fire-
fighting is the most hazardous profession in the country, the
citizens expect the Firefighters to respond to floods, earth-
quakes, any circumstances and any situation, in addition to
fighting fires. A morale problem did develop when the majority
report was received, but this can be overcome if a fair salary
increase is given.
Mayor Hart granted John McAteer, Vice President of
Fire-fighters Local 1301, permission to speak to the Council.
He stated that in making its salary survey, the Firefighters
cut their conclusion sheet down to the bare bones. In order to
come up with a solution they compared many cities and their
conclusion was that Bakersfield Firefighters are low in salaries
by 6.5% compared with other cities in the salary survey. These
deficiencies in wages reflect several years of high priority
expenditures by the City at the cost of salaries and benefits
for Firefighters. He then went on to point out all the benefits
the Firefighters in other cities are receiving, which Bakersfield
Firefighters do not receive.
When they averaged out all the cities, it was found that
the Firefighters are 12.5% behind, they asked for 10% because of
the step makeup of the City. He agrees with the Committee that
the 2% at 50 plan would not be feasible if it is going to be man-
dated by State legislation, which is presently underway. He stated
that it is in the hands of the Council whether it has a happy group
of employees or a very "sour" bunch.
He asked that the Council after it has made all its
deliberations and if there is any money left over, to consider
upgrading the Safety Member Retirement System to 2% at 55.
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 18
145
Councilman Bleecker stated that the figures used by the
Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee were those supplied
to it by the staff, they believe they are true and correct. He
commented on the study made by the Firefighters with other cities
relative to wages and benefits received compared with those
received in Bakersfield, stating that Bakersfield does not
necessarily compete for employees with various cities throughout
the State of California. Bakersfield competes with its environs,
cities in the County, and with the community. A number of years
ago it was voted upon by the people of the City of Bakersfield
to tie employees requests for salary increases, etc. with what
other named cities in the State of California were receiving, and
that ballot measure was
the City of Bakersfield.
Mr. Val Swart,
defeated by about 2 to i by the people of
International Union Representative of the
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO, addressed the Council stating that he is not a taxpayer
of the City of Bakersfield but lives in San Jose. His years of
experience in representing City employees in this State gives
him a certain amount of professional knowledge in making valid
comparisons especially with respect to local salary data and with
respect to comparison jurisdictions. Certain people on the GEPC
have made a point rather forcefully of talking about the meet and
confer process in the City of Bakersfield. He would indicate,
with his understanding of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, that sub-
sequent to short meetings at which there was limited exchanges, and
not what he would consider negotiations of meeting and conferring,
he found the process to be more of a public hearing, or more
appropriately a sub-committee of the Council, but not in keeping
with the context of the Act which indicates in effect that the
governing body of the jurisdiction shall meet with the employees
and their representatives as long as it deems necessary, and
then it is free to make whatever determinations it chooses. In
conducting negotiations with six other jurisdictions, of the
San Joaquin Valley, there was meeting and conferring with good
146
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 19
faith, there were meaningful exchanges of written proposals in
long sessions. The amount of time that they have been afforded
in the City of Bakersfield based upon his calculations, is
roughly about 20% of the negotiation time that he has in other
jurisdictions. Me does not call that meaningful negotiations.
At the last meeting of the Governmental Efficiency and
Personnel Committee based on the direction that he saw it was
going, he, in good faith, felt that an impasse had been reached,
and pursuant to the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act of the State of
California, he requested third-party intervention. The State of
California has seen fit to provide in the law various approaches.
With that in mind, after formal request to the Chairman of the
Committee, they contacted the State Conciliation Service, to
advise them of their request to Bakersfield for third-party
intervention. It is his understanding that this office has plans
to contact the City Manager of Bakersfield regarding this request.
Mayor Hart asked Mr. Swart as he had called for this
third-party intervention does he think it serves the purpose to
appear here tonight. Mr. Swart informed the Mayor that any
third-party intervention requires bilateral participation, he
means that both parties must agree to this third-party inter-
vention, it is unilateral at the present time.
Mr. Swart stated there has only been a sub-committee
hearing and the Council is now accepting the sub-committee's
recommendations with the intent to act upon these reco~umendations.
He cannot consider that to be meeting and conferring in good
faith within the meaning of the law. His union submitted
recommendations to the Committee, they were prepared to receive
reasonable counter offers, not be furnished with a copy of the
recommendations which were later submitted to the Council.
He asked that the Council make meaningful attemps to
arrive at an Employee-Employer Relations Ordinance which carries
out the intent of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. In responding to a
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 11
147
comment of Councilman Bleecker, in which he stated that the Com-
mittee has been attempting to develop an Employee Relations
Ordinance which will allow for one union to represent all the
employees. He would simply indicate that the very intent of the
law is to provide employees with a choice of their representative,
and to provide the mechanics and the machinery for effective union
determination. The law never intended that any governmental
agency would make unilateral decisions regarding the process
which would be involved so that one organization or another would
wind up as representing all the employees.
In conclusion, he asked if it was the intent of the
City of Bakersfield to operate within the context of the Act as
he would seriously request that they enter into a bilateral
request for third-party intervention.
Councilman Bleecker stated that he would like to comment
on Mr. Swart's opinion on meet and confer processes. Just because
he doesn't like the way the Committee functions, in no way means
that it isn't meeting and conferring properly and legally in
every way under the laws of the State of California. He would
call attention also to the fact that the State law prohibits
more than three Councilmen meeting in any one place at any one
time to make any decision whatsoever, official or otherwise, for
the City of Bakersfield. The system used for a number of years
is to have a three man committee to meet and confer with the
various employees groups and to recommend to the Council what they
believe is reasonable and sound, plus the fact that all of the
representatives are here tonight in a public meeting before this
entire Council, meeting and conferring in good faith, abiding
by the laws of the State of California.
This Commiteee has not recommended anything to the
Council regarding Mr. Swart's request for third-party intervention,
a telephone call was received from an individual who offered his
services to the City of Bakersfield, but nothing has been received
in writing. At every meeting that the Governmental Efficiency
and Personnel Committee had with the various groups, at a point
in time when it appeared that neither the union nor the City of
Bakersfield had any more input for the session, the Chairman of
this Committee asked if there was any other point the group
148
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 21
wished to present to the Committee, and when there was not, the
meeting was considered over. In the case of the A.F.S.C.M.E. when
Mr. Swart, Mr. Paul Smith, President o£ the union, and other City
employees caucused out in the hall to decide what they wanted,
Mr. Swart came back into the room and said that as far as his
union was concerned, an impasse had developed and he was going to
ask for third-party intervention. The Chairman told Mr. Swart
if there was an impasse, the meeting was over.
Mr. Swart stated he is well aware of the law which
prohibits more than three Council members meeting in a private
session. Most jurisdictions have delegated the meeting and
conferring process to a management team and have given them
negotiating parameters in which to operate, there then exists
meeting and conferring, not with a sub-committee of the Council,
but with a management team delegated the responsibility to make
agreements with the employee representatives. This process works.
Subsequent to a lengthy statement as to the parameters of the
Committee, Councilman Bleecker stated that the Committee was
taking certain things under advisement then would make its
recommendation to the Council. Mr. Swart went on to say that
after making his presentation, he was advised that copies of the
recommendation would be available some time on Thursday, and for
the record, he received his in Mortday's mail. He reiterated
his request that the City and the union enter into a bilateral
decision involving the offices of the State for conciliation
purposes. The telephone call referred to by Councilman Bleecker
is the process which the State of California uses, verbally
making its Office of Conciliation available.
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 22
Councilman Bleecker commented that Mr. Swart had been
advised by the GEPC that its report would be available on Thurs-
day or Friday, and because he doesn't live here he didn't receive
it until Monday, it had to be mailed to him. Everyone else had it,
it was hand-carried to those representatives living in Bakersfield.
Mr. Nurl Renfro, who resides at 1915 - 20th Street,
addressed the Council, stating that he was here tonight on behalf
and at the request of one of Bakersfield's senior citizens. He
read a communication from Mrs. Ida M. Daniels, 252 Jefferson
Street, appealing to the Council to do everything in its power to
liberate her from the payment of excessive taxes, such as Utility
Taxes and Property Taxes, and stating that she needs representation
to look out for her welfare and her rights.
Mr. Renfro stated that nuisance taxes should be submitted
to the voter for approval, and that all the so-called increased
City services should be submitted to the voter for an election to
indicate whether or not they want these increased services from
the City.
Mrs. Ann Monroe asked who pays all the City employees
present tonight, and Mayor Hart informed her that it was the tax-
payers of Bakersfield, seventy odd thousand of them. Mrs. Monroe
stated her tax bill was outrageous. She commented on the education
program for City employees, and that the public was not able to
get information from City departments, also, that the employees
had many representatives speaking for them, while the taxpayers
had no representation at all. She wondered what City employees
would do if taxpayers stopped paying City taxes levied upon them.
Mr. A1 Briones, President of the Retired Employees
Association, addressed the Council, and commented on the privilege
of having a retirement system, working under civil service, and
enjoying the many fringe benefits offered by the City. He stated
City employees should appreciate all these things, or go to work
in private business.
149
150
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 23
Mr. Glenn Ferguson addressed the Council, stating he was
speaking for himself, and in his opinion, if the Police Department
of the City was paid twice as much as it
would be underpaid. He would say almost
Fire Department. But all City employees
is getting, the employees
the same thing for the
should recognize that
there is a limitation. If no more services are to be produced
from the employees, then it would be an inflationary move to pay
higher salaries, just as it would be in private enterprise. He
concluded by stating that the taxpayers appreciate the Council's
efforts in their behalf.
Mr. Jack Rothstein, 2425 Beech Street, stated he was
speaking only for himself, and that as far as he can see it, a
working person is giving his labor and getting back purchasing
power. If he does the same amount of labor and doesn't have more
purchasing power, he is getting a pay cut. Unless the Coucil
feels that its employees are overpaid, there is no logical reason
to say "no salary increase" because that is effecting a cut. He
is a taxpayer, but he doesn't want the Council to save him taxes
at the expense of exploiting the employees.
Mr. Thomas Brown who works for the Public Works Depart-
ment, stated every City employee's taxes have increased. Many
City employees attend school on the GI bill or by paying their
own expenses, but in most instances, the City does not pay
employees who are obtaining an education.
Mayor Hart closed the public portion of the meeting and
returned to the Council for comment and action.
Councilman Bleecker moved that all of the various requests
made by the unions and the Chief of Police as recommended to the
Council by the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, be
approved and implemented.
Councilman Strong stated he had not had the meaningful
exposure of sitting in Committee meetings, being a new member of
the Council. In connection with the GEPC's recommendations, this
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 24
151
Council is concerned with a very small part of the budget that will
be acted upon with respect to what is available for fringe benefits
and raises. Each year at this time the Council finds itself in
the same position with no money. The added revenue accruing to the
City as a result of property tax increases, seemingly should have
resulted in more of a surplus for employees' salaries and benefits.
It seems that this Council has elected to proceed in the same way
each year, to consider priority items last instead of first. For
all intents the $17.2 million budget is already spent or earmarked
for spending except approximately $900,000, and there doesn't
appear much chance for any cuts the way the budget is prepared.
If this Council exercised the prerogative of taking care of the
priority expenditures first and then said to the department heads,
this is what you are going to have to perate on, those department
heads could do that. He quoted a statement made by Mr. Bleecker
at last year's budget hearings - the best way to stop spending is
to stop the inflow of funds - in other words, if you don't have it
you can't spend it. It is surprising the number of economies that
can be made under these circumstances.
He stated that the Council has got into the position it
is tonight, because it has not exercised its prerogatives of voting
on the priorities first, and to him that would mean salary adjust-
ments for deserving employees.
He can't support Mr. Bleecker's motion to approve the
report the way it was submitted as he doesn't intend to vote to
give Mr. Hoagland $100 car allowance, and he wants to register his
"no" vote, right now.
After Council discussion, Councilman Strong stated that
he was not on the Council at the time the City elected to take a
certain position with reference to the vacation time and seniority
in the Sanitation Division. He knows many of these men and they
have given the City faithful and loyal service. Obviously, these
men relied on the advice of their leaders to go out on strike last
152
Bakersfield, California,
year, and violated the City ordinance,
these men should be penalized forever
June ll, 1973 - Page 25
but he does not believe
because of this. He asked
that Request No. 7 contained on the A.F.S.C.M.E. Union requests
be separated from the initial motion for consideration as a
separate item, and offered a
Vote taken on this
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
substitute motion to that effect.
substitute motion carried by the
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Thomas, Whittemore
Rogers, Strong,
None
None
Councilman Bleecker restated his original motion that
all recommendations contained in the report of the Governmental
Efficiency and personnel Committee with the exclusion of Request
No. 7 of the A.F.S.C.M.E. Union be approved at this time. This
does not include departmental requests or neither does it include
the issue of wage increases.
Vote taken on this motion carried by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: Councilman Strong
Absent: None
Councilman Strong remarked that it would cost the City
$3,000 to restore full equity and parity with all City employees
to the members of the Sanitation Department and he asked if con-
sideration had been given to computing the benefits taken from
these employees in arriving at this $3,000 figure. Councilman
Bleecker answered the question by stating that the dollar value
is not the important factor. If employees chose to join a union
and in violation of an ordinance chose to go out on a "wildcat"
strike against the advice of the union itself and perhaps on the
advice of some of the members of the union, he feels very strongly
that the City cannot acquiesce and return to those employees certain
Bakersfield, California, June ll, 1973 - Page 26
153
advantages lost when losing those benefits was a condition of their
re-employment. Without exception, each employee was hired and
returned to work under certain conditions. They did not lose
these privileges forever, they can earn them again, and he feels
very strongly that this Council should not overturn the recom-
mendation of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee,
if it sits here on the side of management.
Councilman Thomas stated he is a union man and when the
strike was called by the Sanitation Workers, he made the state-
ment that he could not support a "wildcat strike," as he considers
it illegal. The men were misdirected and terminated by a City
ordinance.
Councilman Bleecker made a motion that this Council deny
Request No. 7 of the A.F.S.C.M.E. Union. This motion carried by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers~ Thomas,
Whittemore
NOES: Councilman Strong
ABSENT: None
Councilman Bleecker then moved that the recommendations
of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee covering
Departmental Requests be approved by the Council.
Councilman Strong offered a substitute motion to separate
from the motion the recommendation that the City Attorney be given
a car allowance of
with the Council's
City's budget.
$100 a month,
desire to cut
as he feels it is inconsistent
taxes to include this item in the
Councilman Heisey pointed out that
the City Attorney $100 a month car allowance
with a car. It may well be that it would be
future
heads.
it is cheaper to give
than to furnish him
beneficial in the
to adopt the same policy for some of the other department
He is in favor of the recommendation.
Vote taken on Councilman Strong's substitute motion failed
154
Bakersfield, California, June ll, 1973 - Page 27
to carry by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilman Strong
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Whittemore
Rogers, Thomas,
None
Vote taken on Councilman Bleecker's motion to approve
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whittemore
Medders, Rogers, Thomas,
Councilman Strong
None
Councilman Bleecker then moved that the Majority Recom-
mendations of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Commitee
of the Council that no basic monthly wage increases be granted any
employees at this time; and that the approximate $900,000 of
surplus estimated for 1973-74 be used totally for the reduction of
taxes be approved by the Council.
Councilman Whirremote offered a substitute motion that
the Minority Report be adopted granting a 5% raise across-the-
board to all employees, with the exclusion of his recommendation
that the Utility Tax be reduced by 20% that funds be provided in
the amount of 17~ for property tax relief, as it is premature at
this time. The Budget Review and Finance Committee will be sub-
mitting its report to the Council tomorrow night which is the
proper time for consideration of these taxes.
Councilman Heisey remarked that the City has a really
great staff and they do a tremendous job. Sometimes comments
from the Council make it appear that the department hears are not
the best in the world, but in his opinion, the City couldn't have
better department heads or a better City Manager. The Council
also has a great bunch of City employees, and whether or not they
receive a raise is not going to change the calibre of the employees
the recommendations of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Commitee contained in its reports to the Council carried by the
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 28
working for the City. He has served on the GEPC and he knows it
is a tough one to be on, as the members are always under /he gun
and spend hours on the meet and confer sessions.
He noticed in the Majority Report that the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee intends to evaluate the
efficiency of the departments; he feels it should go much further
than simple evaluation of efficiency. He thinks a time schedule
should be made up of each department, in advance, that the depart-
ments be investigated in depth, not only for efficiency but for
salary schedules. It is inconceivable to him that no one in the
City of Bakersfield deserves a salary increase this year. Every-
one knows that is not correct, but it also isn't fair to the public
to grant a blanket raise to everyone in the City. Nothing is
accomplished by this method, it should be done in an orderly,
investigative manner, which is fair to the public and the employees.
The Committee has not had the time to submit this type of evalua-
tion, but he is sure that over the next several months this
evaluation can be made, with meaningful recommendations from the
GEPC to be submitted to the Council to consider in Executive
Sessions. He suggested that a monthly meeting of the entire
Council sitting in Executive Session on this matter would be
appropriate, as it would be helpful to the Committee and the entire
Council.
motion as
He stated he is not
he does not believe
prepared to support the substitute
it has been properly thought out,
he intends to support the Majority Report until
had time to survey all the City Departments and
tions back to the Council.
Vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's substitute motion
failed to carry as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the Committee has
bring recommenda-
Councilmen Strong, Thomas,Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers
None
156
Bakersfield, California, June 11, 1973 - Page 29
The original motion of Councilman Bleecker
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Council
Tuesday,
carried
Rogers
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whittemore
None
Recess until Tuesday, June 12, 1973
There being no further business to come before the
at this time, the budget hearing was recessed until
June 12, 1973, at 7:00 o'clock P.M.
by
Cit y~~
MAYOR Ca.
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California
157
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973
Minutes of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, meeting in budget sessions at 7:00 P.M., June 12,
1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart
by the Pledge of Allegiance.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Mayor Hart.
None
Present:
Absent:
followed
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Strong, Thomas, Whittemore
Rogers,
Adoption of Budget Review and Finance
Committee Report on the Subject of
Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1973-
74.
Councilman Clarence Medders, Chairman of the Budget Review
and Finance Committee, read a report of the members of this Com-
mittee, stating that this Committee has reviewed in detail the com-
plete operating budget which includes operating expenses and fixed
assets. Operating expenses consist of maintenance items, e.g.,
materials, supplies, utilities, services, etc. Fixed assets
consist of departmental capital outlay items, e.g., office,
equipment, automotive equipment, etc. The operating budget does
not include salaries and supplemental wage benefits nor capital
improvement projects. The Governmental Efficiency and Personnel
Committee will make recommendations on all salary matters prior
to action on this report. The entire City Council will review
the Capital Improvement Program which has been evaluated and
recommended by the Planning Commission.
This year the staff has prepared the 1973-74 depart-
mental operating budget with several changes so as to represent
a truer cost of providing individual programs. Budget requests
have been prepared with a new feature to reflect the related
share of the cost of maintaining City Hall in the budgets of
each of those departments actually located in City Hall. It has
been allocated according to the square footage of space occupied
by each. This cost is reflected in a new account entitled "City
Hall Maintenance Cost Allocation," Object No. 5300.
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 2
Another allocation has also been made which adds admin-
istrative costs to each program in addition to the usual direct
costs. These costs are reflected in a new account entitled
"Administrative Cost Allocation," Object 5400. The method of
allocating the administrative costs consists primarily of first
separating the costs of the various programs into two classifi-
cations, i.e., staff programs and line programs. The staff
program costs are allocated to the line programs according to
the percentage of each line program as it relates to the total
of all line programs. The allocations are, of course, deducted
from the budgets of the staff programs as "Costs Applied,"
Object No. 001, so that the total city budget remains the same.
Staff programs consist of those operations of city
government which provide services to other city government pro-
grams. These include the City Manager's Office, the City Attor-
ney's office, the Finance Department, and the City Clerk's office.
The line programs are those operations receiving the services.
Examples of such programs are police programs, fire programs,
public works programs, etc.
Another change in the departmental operating budget
results from an adjustment in city equipment rental rates to
realistically reflect the total cost of maintaining each piece
of equipment and a replacement allowance. This cost continues
to be shown under the account entitled "Rental Internal Organi-
zations," Object No. 6200. Those amounts allocated are, as in
the other allocations, taken as a reduction in the budget of the
equipment maintenance programs as "Costs Applied," Object No.
001, so that the total budget of the city is not changed. These
changes reflect a more accurate cost of operating each depart-
ment.
The departmental operating budget requests, as origi-
nally submitted, totaled $3,120,695. These requests have been
reduced as much as possible; therefore, this committee is recom-
mending approval of a departmental operating budget for fiscal
year 1973-74 of $2,969,315, or approximately 20.5percent of the
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 3
159
year, the
$508,000,
budget.
$14,497,035 general tax rate category budget. In view of the
relative size of the departmental operating budget, it was impos-
sible to make reductions totaling a substantially large amount of
money without adversely affecting continuing operations.
Many of the maintenance and operating account requests
such as utilities, are impossible to reduce. During this next
city's utilities bill will amount to approximately
or 17.2 percent of the whole departmental operating
This committee has looked closely at departmental
capital outlay. By establishing priorities, spreading out requests
over several years, or deferring a few items, some departmental
operating budget requests were reduced. Further reductions
would only be immediate savings and could, in the long run, be
more costly.
In order to help in reviewing the individual depart-
mental operating budgets, the following summary of programs
lists (1) the total budget amount requested which includes
salaries and supplemental wage benefits, (2) the departmental
operating budget amount this committee is recommending which
includes departmental capital outlay, (3) the increase or decrease
amount in our recommendation over what was approved last year,
and finally (4) pertinent comments about each of the various
programs.
Councilman Medders then proceeded to review the indi-
vidual departments operating budgets, stopping for Council dis-
cussion and Council requests for explanation from the staff.
Comments were made on the following departmental budgets:
510 - CITY COUNCIL - Total Budget Request, Less Unapplied Appro-
priations, $70,405.
Operating Budget $60,150 (No Departmental Capital Outlay)
Increase in Operating Budget $4,665.
This increase is due to additional awards needed for
anticipated retirements, consulting service fees, our League of
California Cities membership, and the annual outside audit.
160
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 4
This budget includes $22,000 for property taxes which the city
is required to pay. Also included is $15,000 for the City's
consulting water engineer, Thomas Stetson. The city has paid
approximately $14,000 to Mr. Stetson this year.
Councilman Rogers asked on what property the City was
required to pay property taxes, and Mr. Bergen stated it was
the Sewage Treatment Plan and some of the lines in the southeast
area; all property in the unincorporated area is subject to
taxation.
In reply to Councilman Rogers' question if this property
could be annexed, Mr. Hoagland stated it could not because it
is not contiguous to the City.
Councilman Bleecker inquired the cost of the city's
membership in the League of California Cities, and Mr. Bergen
stated it was $3,750, based on population. He also questioned
including $15,000 for the city's consulting water engineer,
Thomas Stetson, and the taxes on city property, in the City
Council's operating budget. Mr. Bergen stated they could be
placed in another budget, but it was felt that this account had
better control. Since the water engineer is primarily hired
by the City Council, it was included in this budget.
511 - COMMUNITY PROMOTION - Total Budget Request $64,000
Operating Budget $64,000 (No Departmental Capital Outlay)
Increase in Operating Budget $21,000.
The major portion of this budget is expended through
two contracts with the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce.
One is for the operation of the Convention and Visitors Bureau.
Last year, the Council approved $14,000 for this activity. The
Chamber has requested an additional $21,000 this year (see
Attachment No. 10, Report from John Vorhees, Manager of the
Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, Convention and Visitors
Bureau, Re: Convention and Visitors Bureau). It is estimated
that all of this additional request will be recovered from the
increase of room tax from 5 percent to 6 percent, which is
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 5
expected to generate approximately $42,000 additional revenue
during the fiscal year 1973-74. The Chamber has also requested
$20,000 for Industrial Promotions, the same amount as the Council
approved last year (see Attachment No. 9, Letter from Loron
Hodge, Jr., Executive Vice-President of the Greater Bakersfield
Chamber of Commerce, Re: Industrial Promotion).
Mr. Loron Hodge, Executive Vice-President of
Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Council
to the Chamber's communication attached to the report.
reminded the Council that representatives from the Chamber of
Commerce had appeared before the Council in April and had asked
for an increase of 1% in the room tax, which was approved by the
Council at that time. They are now asking for an increase in
their Convention Bureau contract. The reason for this is that
their Convention Bureau now rates No. 6 in the State of California
for conventions served. It is a very lucrative business, raising
millions of dollars for the City of Bakersfetid each year. They
have a great deal of competition from other cities, such as
Fresno, Santa Barbara, Anaheim, Palm Springs, etc., and feel
they need an increase in order to keep up with their competition
and to increase the revenue income to business.
In connection with the request for $20,000 for Indus-
trial Promotions, they do work very hard in this area as they
realize that industry is a most needed thing to the community.
One of the strong Chamber programs is in Industrial Development.
They also have a program in image promotion, one of which is the
A.A.U. Tract Meet, which will be held at Bakersfield Stadium
this week.
Councilman Rogers asked if Bakersfield ranked sixth
for cities of its size, or all over the State, and Mr. Hodge
stated it was all over the State. People like to come here
because of the facilities, because of the ease of getting here,
motel facilities, etc. It is a'multi-million dollar business.
the Greater
relative
He
162
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 6
540 - PLANNING - Total Budget Request $152,397
Operating Budget $39,127 (Departmental Capital Outlay $1,010)
Increase in Operating Budget $1,971
This increase is attributable to additional Planning
Commission meetings, a higher City Hall cost allocation, adminis-
trative cost allocation, internal equipment rental charges, and
departmental capital outlay for a storage filing .cabinet and
replacement of a 25 year-old calculator. This budget includes
consulting fees for John Gray, the city's urban renewal finan-
cial consultant.
Councilman Bleecker asked the amount of the consulting
fee for John Gray last year. Mr. Bergen stated last year it was
zero, and they have placed $10,000 in the budget in case a
study will be needed, or will be used to evaluate a recommendation
that might come in from a private firm.
Councilman Bleecker asked what internal rental charges
the Planning Commission would have, and Mr. Bergen replied it is
car rental.
Councilman Rogers asked what else Mr. Gray would be
asked to do for the consulting fees paid to him. Mr. Hoagland
explained that when the city determined to work jointly with
the Bank of America for the construction of the parking facility,
if will be necessary to analyze the financial figures regarding
the tax increments, so that it would not be a general charge
against the city and those amounts are recovered out of the
project itself. It is Mr. Gray's specialty to put this type of
project together.
Mayor Hart asked if it was a retainer, and Mr. Hoagland
stated he was paid on an hourly basis.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the City Attorney's office
could not handle work of this nature, and Mr. Hoagland replied
that it was not possible; Mr. Gray is a financial consultant
and works with Mr. Eugene Jacobs on urban renewal projects.
Councilman Bleecker asked if this type of work is above the
expertise of the Finance Department. Mr. Bergen stated that
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page ?
:!_63
Mr. Jacobs has strongly recommended that someone of Mr. Gray's
capabilities be employed and his fees are recaptured by the
city out of the tax increments from the project. Mr. Hoagland
added the financial institutions which would ultimately purchase
the tax increment bonds for the project would want assurance thal~
a specialist had been employed for the purpose of preparing the
background information for the sale of these bonds.
650 - PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION - Total Budget Request $206,380
Operating Budget $89,205 (Departmental Capital Outlay $1,075
Increase in Operating Budget $60,829.
This increase is primarily attributable to a request
for a $59,150 engineering consulting fee to prepare a project
report for treatment of waste water in the southeast area (see
Attachment No. 8, Report from Calvin Bidwell, Director of Public
Works, Re: Southeast Waste Water Treatment Plants). Departmental
capital outlay is for replacement of a 13 year-old adding machine
placed in surplus, a worn-out swivel chair, and a 9 year old
calculator which needs repairs exceeding its present value.
Councilman Rogers asked if the Report for the Southeast
Waste Water Treatment Plants could not be prepared by the staff
of Public Works.
Mr. Bergen stated it would be more cumbersome and take
additional time to handle this type of report, and the staff
feels it is more feasible to employ engineering consultants.
Councilman Bleecker asked how they arrived at the
figure of $59,150 as a fee for this report.
Director of Public Works Bidwell stated they have had
discussions with the engineering firm which prepared the Feasi-
bility Report the Council accepted late last fall. Since that
time the report has been brought to the Council and it adopted
one of the alternates from that Feasibility Report as the first
step in the program to make total improvements to the southeast
area treatment facilities. This project would be the second
phase of this project and those items which they feel are
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 8
for Council
out to bid; proposals are asked for from any number
engineering firms qualified to do the work, and one
that the staff feels can do the best job.
necessary to make a complete report are outlined in the attach-
ment to the report. The engineering firm of Metcalf and Eddy
from Palo Alto has given an estimate of the cost, which is
based on work cost, plus a percentage; they have estimated the
man hours required to prepare the report. County and city staffs
may contribute part o~ the services which could reduce it some-
what, as this is a joint project with the county and the
$59,000 represents the city's share of the costs for the engin-
eering services. A breakdown of the hourly costs, plus a
percentage, has been given, and if this item is approved, the
staff will come back to the Council in about two weeks with a
draft of the agreement which can be reviewed at that time. This
is only the allocation of the funds to be followed by a contract
approval. Normally, this sort of work is not put
of
is selected
664 - HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING - Total Budget Request $41,896
Operating Budget $24,821 (Departmental Capital Outlay $230)
Increase in OperaSing Budget $1,144
This overall increase is due to an additional amount
for materials, professional services, administrative cost
allocation, and departmental capital outlay for testing equipment.
This increase was partially offset by a reduction in the main-
tenance equipment account.
Councilman Bleecker asked what professional services
were needed for Heating and Air Conditioning. Mr. Bidwell stated
that item is a contracted one with a private individual in the
amount of $12,600 for the year. He is on call at all times and
maintains the equipment at the City Hall and the Civic Auditorium
on a day-to-day basis. The name of the firm is Chris's
Refrigeration, and he is on the fifth year of a five-year contract
at this time.
Councilman Bleecker commented that as they go through
this budget he notices that there are substantial increases in
almost every department for equipment and rental rates. He
asked for an explanation.
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 9
165
Mr. Bergen stated they have not been charging enough
for the full amortization of equipment and indirect costs. They
have considered only the basic cost. These figures have been
changed to more truly reflect the actual total cost.
690 - EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE - Total Budget Request $117,084
The Equipment Maintenance Division is responsible for
the maintenance of 312 pieces of equipment for all departments
except Police and Fire. This budget contains a request for
$82,880 in departmental capital outlay. Included is $26,000 for
a street sweeper. However, this committee recommends that this
sweeper not be purchased unless an agreement can be reached by
the Director of Public Works with the State Division of Highways
for the sweeping of state highways within the city and reimbursement
for same. The other principal departmental capital outlay items
include two space heaters, two pickups, a flat bed truck, a water
truck, three two way radios, two leaf rake attachments, a leaf
trailer, a mower tractor, and a turf truck. A power sweeper was
deleted by this committee.
Councilman Bleecker commented on the reference to the
agreement with the State Division of Highways for the sweeping of
state highways within the City and stated it had been called to
his attention that the state was not sweeping Brundage Lane, for
example, often enough, and when asked to perform this service to
a greater degree was told that the equipment was not available for
this purpose. Wherever there is a state highway running through
the city, Councilman Bleecker feels that the city should require
the State Division of Highways to sweep the street according to
city standards.
Councilman Heisey stated that this is the reason for
attempting to reach an agreement with the state. It has been a
"hassle" for years, and if the state will agree to a contract,
the city can well afford to buy a sweeper and take care of the
state highways in a manner that is commensurate with the
community.
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 10
He asked the status of the agreement at the present time.
Mr. Bidwell stated they had not had a discussion up
to this point but intended to pursue the matter with the
state and attempt to work out an agreement to sweep the state
highways within the city and receive reimbursement for the
service.
705 - CIVIC AUDITORIUM - Total Budget Request $334,493
Operating Budget $158,518 (Departmental Capital Outlay $35,845)
Decrease in Operating Budget $19,184
This decrease is due to a lower request for repairs
by outside firms, as last year's budget contained an amount for
new carpeting. Included in this budget is an additional $4,145
for materials and supplies, an extra $3,250 for utilities, and
an additional $2,235 for internal equipment rental rates. The
principal departmental capital
two typewriters ten and eleven
equipment, a graphic equalizer,
outlay includes replacement of
years old, radio communication
three replacement amplifiers,
an automatic telephone answering system, three power regulators,
an expansion of the sound system, an oscilloscope, a tallescope
ladder, modification of arena control room and press rooms,
replacement of trade show draperies, and a wet vacuum.
Councilman Rogers asked where the amount that reduced
the Recreation Budget appeared in the Auditorium Budget. Mr.
Bergen stated it was a very significant item in salaries which
has decreased the operating budget of the Civic Auditorium in
the sum of $19,000.
Councilman Heisey stated a number of items had been
requested which would have made the Civic Auditorium a much
nicer community center but many of them were deleted, such as
a grand piano, an organ, and a few other things. The thought
occurs to him that this city is not receiving gifts which other
communities receive from benefactors quite frequently, and he
suggested that a list of these items be publicized so that
civic-minded donors would be aware of the gifts which would be
appropriate to contribute to their city.
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page ll
167
In conclusion this committee has spent a great deal
of time reviewing all the accounts of the departmental operating
budget requests in the Preliminary Budget. We have also consid-
ered these requests as they relate to the growth of the city
demonstrated in the attached charts. Reductions have been made
where possible; however, since the departmental operating budget
is tied to the maintenance and operation of the city departments,
substantial reductions were generally not possible.
This committee recommends acceptance of this report
and approval of the operating budget of the 1973-74 Preliminary
Annual Budget, with those changes as herein outlined.
No one in the audience requesting to speak relative to
the Operating Budget, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the
Budget Review and Finance Committee's Report on the Operating
Budget for fiscal year 1973-74 was adopted by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whittemore
Councilman Strong
None
Medders, Rogers, Thomas,
Finance Director's Report on Revenues
and Summary of Balances, Revenues, and
Budgets by Funds for 1973-74.
Finance Director D. L. Haynes stated that this year the
budget has been summarized very well by graphs and charts and is
self-explanatory. He stated the budget can pretty well be brought
down to one figure and asked the Council to turn to Page 10 of the
budget, pointing out the figure of $974,280 as the amount avail-
able for appropriation for the year 1973-74. It is available to
the Council for additional appropriation as it may see fit, or
for tax cutting purposes. The budget summaries really boil down
to that one figure, which must be reduced by the amount of
$82,360, the cost of the recommendations approved in the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Report of last evening, leaving a
balance of $891,920. To this is added the amount of $2,890 as a
Bakersfield, California, June 12, 1973 - Page 12
result of the report of the Budget Review and Finance Committee,
which will bring the figure up to $894,810.
Recess.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, the
its budget bearing at
at 7:00 o'clock P.M.
Council recessed
8:10 P.M. until Wednesday, June 13, 1973,
t~eld
ATTEST:
Council of the City of Bakersfield, California
169
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973
Minutes of the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, meeting in budget sessions at 7:00 P.M., June 13, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart, followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers,
Strong, Thomas, Whirremote
Absent: None
Councilman Whittemore stated he would like to recognize
Mr. James J. Barton, President of the International Association of
Firefighters, Local No. 1301, who wished to address the Council at
this time.
Councilman Heisey inquired if this request was relative
to the Capital Improvement Budget, and Councilman Whirremote
replied that it was.
Mayor Hart asked for a motion to this effect, and Council-
man Whittemore then moved that the Council recognize Mr. Barton for
budgetary purposes.
Councilman Rogers asked on what subject Mr. Barton in-
tended to speak, and Councilman Whirremote stated it was related
to personnel and salaries which would have a direct bearing on the
finalization of the budget.
After Council discussion, Councilman Bleecker stated he
would not oppose the union representative's right to speak, but he
would ask that he make his presentation as brief as possible.
Vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's motion carried by
the following roll call:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Mr. James J. Barton, representing Kern County Firefighters
Union 1301, stated he wanted to speak regarding the unappropriated
reserve of $974,000, and asked if it were anticipated that a portic, n
170
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 2
of this surplus would be set aside as a contingency fund for the
purpose of making the evaluation and survey of all City depart-
ments and making adjustments where warranted, which had been
recommended in the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Com-
mittee's report of June 11, 1973.
Councilman Rogers pointed out that the $894,000 is not
surplus any longer; as of 11:30 P.M. Monday night this money had
been spent by vote of the Council. This money was dedicated to
tax reduction.
Councilman Heisey commented that he thinks it would be
appropriate for the Council to go ahead with the Capital Improve-
ment Budget, as those balances could fluctuate up or down, depend-
ing on what is done. When that is completed, the Council can
better make decisions on what it wants to do with any surplus funds.
Councilman Whittemore pointed out it was the consensus
of opinion of the Council that a survey and study be made of all
departments of the City and report to the full Council on any
recommendations for salary increases. Since he is sure this will
be done, he asked the Council to consider replacing him as a mem-
ber of the GEPC to analyze the results of any survey, as he has
already submitted a minority report which was rejected by a 4 to 3
vote of the Council, and anything he could contribute to the Com-
mittee would not be any more meaningful than what he has already
done. He feels that a third member of the Council should be
working on the Committee other than himself, and he suggested
that Councilman Heisey replace him for this purpose.
Councilman Bleecker commented that if Councilman Whitte-
more is desirous of being replaced on the GEPC, he would suggest
that this be done immediately. During the meet and confer sessions
Councilman Whittemore had extremely little to offer by way of
questions or suggestions; many of the things that he is saying
now could have been brought out during these sessions with the
unions. He was there when the Chairman of the Committee suggested
to the unions that from zero to a five percent increase was "in the
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 3
171
ball park." He made no comments whatsoever about the percentlie
wage increases at any meeting with any union representing the
employees of the City of Bakersfield.
Councilman Bleecker told Mr. Barton that one of the
considerations that will be made by the GEPC is conducting a
survey of City departments which will seriously affect the Fire
Department in matters of personnel, salaries, equipment, etc.
and will save the taxpayers of this whole community a tremendous
amount, leaving more dollars for wage increases where warranted,
is functional consolidation of the Kern County Fire Department
and the Bakersfield Fire Department. This has been submitted to
both departments with the suggestion that all the fire stations
in the County and City will not be needed if the consolidation
is accomplished. It has also been suggested that this consolida-
tion be done through attrition, and at this moment it is not
known what the general effect will be on these departments,
because a study has not been made. However, this study will be
all inclusive and will encompass all endeavors of the City.
Councilman Whittemore stated that he did not say he
wanted to be replaced on the Governmental Efficiency and Person-
nel Committee, he asked only that he not be required to sit in
on this one particular survey. He explained that his reasons for
not being vocal in the Committee sessions were because everything
had been decided in advance by the other two members of the Com-
mittee and it was a foregone conclusion how the voting would go.
Furthermore, he knew most of the answers to the questions from
the unions, because he had heard the questions many times during
the past ten years.
Councilman Bleecker reiterated that the Council should
seriously consider removing Councilman Whirremote from the GEPC
since he doesn't care to become involved in one of the most impor-
tant considerations this Committee will be making in the last ten
years. Perhaps he should resign permanently, if he is not going
to be a productive member of the GEPC.
172
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 4
Councilman Whittemore commented that he had made it
very plain that he did not want to participate in this one par-
ticular study and that is salaries. He does not intend to re-
sign, because he is going to be very much in attendance to pass
judgment on the final results of the survey. None of the Coun-
cil has the expertise to conduct this in-depth study that Coun-
cilman Bleecker is insisting on. In the past it has been neces-
sary to hire efficiency experts for a study of this nature.
These surveys are expensive, but if the City adopts and utilizes
the recommendations of the report, it may save the City a great
deal of money.
Councilman Rogers remarked the press should remind the
public that due to being in the Civil Service program City em-
ployees will get raises this year. Approximately 30% of all City
employees will receive a 5% pay raise this year, so it is not
nearly as bleak as some of the union representatives would like
to make it appear.
Councilman Bleecker commented that this proposed study
is not necessarily confined to the area of salaries and wages;
it will cover the entire endeavor of the City, which is a very
broad term meaning everything that is done in the City.
Mayor Hart commented to Mr. Barton that he believes
Councilman Rogers has answered his question in connection with
the disposition of the surplus revenue in the City's 1973-74
budget.
After additional discussion, Councilman Heisey suggested
the Council get on with the Capital Improvement Budget, as he
feels this subject has been exhausted.
Capital Improvement Program 1973-74.
City Manager Bergen stated that the Council will recall
a major change was made this year in the preliminary budget in
reporting expenditures by sources of funds, resulting in three
different categories: (1) General Tax Rate, funds over which
the Council has complete control; (2) Debt Service funds based
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 5
on prior bond issues; and (3) Restricied Revenue funds
which the Council has definite restrictions.
The proposed Capital
prepared on .a year round basis.
all the department heads. This
over
Improvement Budget is carefully
First, it reflects the input of
input would include any recom-
mendations by citizens, Councilmen, or most anyone that would
have suggestions on needed improvements in this City, and this
is done throughout the year.
The final input of this proposed Capital Improvement
Budget is just prior to these Council deliberations and is made
by the Planning Commission at a regular public meeting~ He then
read into the record the following letter from the Planning Com-
mission, signed by Mr. Joe Davis, Chairman:
The Planning Commission of the City of Bakersfield
herewith submits the Capital Improvement Program
for the years 1973-74, inclusive, pursuant to the
State Conservation and Planning Act, Title Seven,
Chapter Three.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the
five-year Capital Improvement Program, as submitted
by the Capital Improvement Program Coordinating
Committee.
The record should show that there is considerable input
into this document at public meetings by many people. Sometimes
people think it is dreamt up and then submitted without any factual
input. This is not true; considerable thought and planning from
the community and the staff goes into the preparation of this docu-
ment.
In regards to administration input into this document,
no consideration has been given to ward boundaries; the staff
attempts to use need and economics as the main criteria. There
are times when it is necessary to expend more money in wards where
new development is taking place; i.e., streets, sewers and parks.
Councilman Bleecker stated that his name as a Council-
man is printed on the first page of the Capital Improvement Budget.
He had nothing to do with the preparation of this report, except
from time to time he has suggested a few items for his ward which
might be cranked into this budget. He went on to say that he has
1_74
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 6
not had too much confidence in certain areas of endeavor of the
Planning Commission for some time and has made this statement
several times from his Council seat. Also, since a great deal
of money is being considered here, whatever the Planning Com-
mission recommends, and it is not his wish to intrude on the
Commission's rights or privileges, should be submitted to the
Council some time in advance, perhaps by going through a Com-
mittee of the Council to see that the recommendations are rea-
sonable, sound and on good ground.
Councilman Bleecker stated he had been concerned about
this for some time, as it is the only budget which is not thor-
oughly studied ahead of time by a committee of the Council. He
offered the suggestion that the Council at some future time make
a motion that the members of the Council be thoroughly familiar
with all of the Planning Commission's recommendations on the
Capital Improvement Budget before they are presented to the Coun-
cil on an annual basis, particularly when the projections are
made five years ahead of time.
Mr. Bergen stated that it was not intended to infer
that the Capital Improvements Budget was prepared or approved by
the Council. The names on the front page were only placed there
because documents of this type always list the Council members.
When the Council was furnished copies of the five-year budget
last year, it was assumed that it was scrutinized for the fol-
lowing years. The Council hasn't sat as a committee or as a group
and evaluated this budget since last year when the five-year pro-
gram was submitted to the Council for consideration. In the past
the Council hasn't submitted the Capital Improvement Program to
a committee because of the importance it has to each Councilman's
ward.
The Program is subdivided into four major categories,
as follows:
I
II
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
SANITARY SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 7
175
III PARKS
IV' PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND IMPROVEMENTS
Director of Public Works Bidwell reviewed the Capital
Improvement Budget by category, indicating where the funds were
from and the cost of each particular project, and stopping for
discussion and questions from the members of the Council, begin-
ning with Category I - Transportation and Traffic.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the need for all the pro-
posed Traffic Signals and Installations and Traffic Signal.Modi-
fications have received prior approval from the Council.
Mr. Bidwell replied ~at none of these.would have, but
as the plans and specifications for each pro3ect are prepared
they will be brought to the Councilsfor approval and authoriza-
tion to spend the funds allocated for this purpose. However,
some of the Council will recognize that their suggestions have
been included in the budget;
Councilmen make their wishes
Traffic Authority prepares a
that is how the list is made up.
known, citizens will. call in, the
list with its priority on it, the
Engineering Division in Public Works has a continuing traffic
study, and these are all put together and each project is assigned
a priority.
Councilman Thomas questioned the use of taxpayers money
to build the proposed fencing along South "H" Street between
Belle Terrace and Ming Avenue for the canal company~ Mr. Bidwell
explained that this was in exchange for the dedication of the
right-of-way from the canal company for the widening of South
"H" Street.
Councilman Bleecker observed that he would like to have
the resurfacing of 21st Street from Oak Street to Union Avenue
included in this budget. It was pointed out that $250,000 was
being proposed for the reconstruction and widening of 21st Street
Chester Avenue to Union Avenue in next year's budget; another
$250,000 was proposed for the construction and widening of 21st
Street - Oak Street to Chester Avenue in the 1975 budget. This
is being done totally from Gas Tax Funds.
176
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 8
Councilman Bleecker stated he would like to have this
given priority and then asked who determines the priorities in
the first place. Since a Committee of this Council has not met
with the Planning Commission to study these projects, who deter-
mines the need and where the projects will be as proposed in the
Capital Improvement Budget.
Mr. Bergen explained that street improvement recommen-
dations usually start in the Maintenance Department and are based
on frequency of repair and overall maintenance cost. If a street
requires excessive maintenance, then it is moved onto the priority
list. Input from Councilmen and from the public will modify a
list, but need and justification cannot be totally ignored; also
these projects depend on the availability of funds.
At this point Councilman Rogers asked permission for one
of his constituents to address the Council. Mr. Bruce Hoyt stated
there is a pressing need for the installation of a traffic signal
at the intersection of University and Wenatchee. They have asked
the City for a traffic count, as this intersection is a very dan-
gerous one, particularly to the school children using the street.
Councilman Heisey suggested that the staff make a thorough
traffic study of this intersection and return with a recommendation
to the Council. He asked that a copy of the report from the Traffic
Authority be furnished to Mr. Hoyt so he will be aware of the rea-
sons for the recommendations.
Councilman Strong stated that in looking at the map he
could see that any indicated improvements are conspicuously absent
from Ward One. He asked if all the streets in that particular area
are in good repair. Mr. Bidwell responded in the negative, stating
that could be said about the streets in every ward in the City;
many of them are in need of repairs. All of the streets in each
ward are inspected and an evaluation made of the streets which
are the most costly to maintain, the amount of traffic, etc., and
the priorities are assigned in that fashion.
Councilman Strong inquired which Planning Commission
appointments were made by each Councilman and the length of the
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 9
177
terms of the members. He asked the name of the person serving on
the Planning Commission who was appointed by his predecessor.
Mr. Bergen stated that the Planning Commissioners serve
for four years. Councilman Heisey commented that the appointments
are made by the Council. as a whole and no individual Councilman
has a Planning Commission appointee; no ward has a representative.
Councilman Thomas questioned spending City money for
crossing protection at the intersection of AT & SF RR and "S"
Street. Mr. Bidwell explained it is a fifty percent participation
with the railroad. The City is reimbursed for one-quarter of its
fifty percent by the Public Utility Commission, and this crossing
protection will not be installed unless the City participates.
Councilman Heisey remarked that there wasn't even a
street in this location when the railroad first began operating.
The City developed around it, constructed streets, and it is the
City's responsibility to help defray the cost of this crossing.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out that there was only one
project for the Homaker Park area in his ward indicated in the
1975-78 Years, and he feels there is a need for street work in
that particular area of the City.
Mr. Bergen stated the City has a fairly extensive main-
tenance program not included in the Capital Improvement Budget
which is being done on a continuing basis. Councilman Bleecker
stated this is another reason why a committee of the Council should
have an opportunity to go over this program with the staff before
it is presented obstensibly by the Planning Commission to the staff.
Mr. Bergen commented there was no problem; the staff
would be very pleased to submit the Capital Improvement Program
to the Council prior to giving it to the Planning Co~mission.
Councilman Heisey stated he thinks it is a good sugges-
tion and it should be the Council as a Committee of the Whole,
because they all represent separate sections of the City. He,
himself, has made suggestions from time to time and as far as he
can tell most of them have been picked up and included in the
Capital Improvement Budget, and he is sure that the same thing is
178
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 10
done for other Councilmen. If a Councilman doesn't bring them
to the attention of the staff, and no one else thinks about it,
projects will probably not be included in the program.
Councilman Bleecker inquired if the Planning Commission
per se cranked in any projects themselves. Mr. Bergen stated most
of the projects are cranked in from comments by Councilmen, the
public, by the administrative staff, such as the Street Department,
the Traffic Authority which is aware of the need and priority for
proposed projects. Councilman Bleecker stated he was talking about
the widening, resurfacing or constructing of streets.
Councilman Bleecker asked if the Planning Commission had
added any projects to the Capital Outlay Program at its public
hearing recommending approval. Mr. Bergen stated not at the for-
mal hearing; the Commission made its input to the program prior to
that time.
Councilman Bleecker commented he would hate to suggest it,
but it could be the Planning Commission is rubber-stamping the
staff's recommendations. It is quite obvious that some other meth-
od needs to be devised to figure out what the needs are. However,
he would like time to think about it before taking action to sub-
mit the Capital Outlay Program to the Council as a whole before
submission to the Planning Commission.
This completed the review of Category I - Transportation
and Traffic - consisting of 31 projects financed as follows:
General Tax Revenue
Gas Tax Funds
Other
Total
Mr. Bidwell reviewed Category
GTR $ 15,000
GT 909,000
O 480,000
$1,404,000
II - Sanitary Sewers
and
Storm Drains, for which $500,000 had been budgeted from Bond Funds,
$197,500 from General Tax Revenue and $36,500 from other Funds,
covering a total number of twelve projects at a total cost of
$734,000.
Category III- Parks, for which $155,450 was budgeted
from General Tax Revenue for eighteen projects, was reviewed by
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page
179
Director of Public Works Bidwell, who stopped from time to time
to answer pertinent questions from the members of the Council.
Mr. Bidwell pointed out that Quailwood is a new street
which is in the prooess of being constructed. This area is going
to be developed and the developer has made the City an informal
offer of dedication of a 12-acre park site with a major portion
of the improvements being made by the developer. Any improvements
that are budgeted for this particular park would be contingent
upon the Council accepting the dedication of the park which will
be coming to the City within the next month. The developers are
prepared to make between seventy five and one hundred thousand
dollars worth of improvements in this park.
Mr. Bergen stated the next and last category was Cate-
gory IV - Public Buildings and Improvements. The staff has assem-
bled documents which have been given to the Council at various
times in connection with the new Police Facility, also a memoran-
dum on property acquisition adjacent to Fire Station No. 2, and on
the proposed communication building to be constructed at the Sani-
tary Landfill. It is proposed to use revenue sharing funds in
the amount of $728,181 towards the new Police Facility Building:
$22,000 for the property acquisition adjacent to Fire Station No.
2, and $16,000 for the new Communications Building.
Mr. Bergen pointed out that June 20, 1973 is the dead-
line for local government to submit to the Treasury Department
reports on how they plan to spend federal revenue sharing funds
during the third entitlement period, which is the first half of
1973. He then read a memorandum from C. C. Haggard, Chief of the
Fire Department, requesting
714 East 21st Street, which
to the City Fire Station No.
the purchase of property located at
is immediately west of and adjacent
2 at 716 East 21st Street. The prop-
erty is 50' wide by 150' deep. It is completely black topped, has
a 6' chain link fence around it with two large gates that open to
East 21st Street. At the rear of the lot there is a 40' x 40' all
steel building with large sliding doors on both the north and
south sides.
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page
This property would provide the department with the
desperately needed storage building for large reels of alarm
cable, fire hydrants, hydrant parts, hydrant burys and miscel-
laneous gear, which at the present time are outside at Station
No. 1 and Station No. 2. The property would also provide a
fenced-in, black-topped parking area for the employees at
Station No. 2 and the maintenance shop.
At Station No. 2 the street parking is two hours limit,
so employees must move their cars around or park on private prop-
erty until 5:00 P.M., at which time they can park in the shop
drive entrance. This creates problems when emergencies occur
after 5:00 P.M.
This property belongs to the Pyrenees Bakery and has
been used to park their trucks. It is no longer needed as the
bakery has purchased the property next door.
Councilman Whirremote asked the status of the Imperial
Hotel property. City Attorney Hoagland commented that they are
waiting for the costs to come in for the demolition and for placing
a lien on the property. It will be necessary to go to court for
that purpose.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that prior to this meeting
the Council voted to use all revenue sharing funds for capital
improvements. For some time it has been his opinion that the most
pressing need the City has is for a new Police Building. There-
fore, he will have to oppose the property acquisition adjacent to
Fire Station No. 2 and the new Communications Building unless it
can be demonstrated to him that there is a pressing need for these
projects.
Councilman Whirremote stated he is also in favor of the
new Police Building and asked if the new Communication Building
could not be incorporated into the Police structure.
Mr. Richard Rowe, Administrative Assistant, explained
that it is planned to construct this new Communication Building at
the Sanitary Landfill in conjunction with two radio repeater sta-
tions which were approved by the Council last evening and are needed
Bakersfield, California, Ju~e 13, 1973 - Page 13
181
by both the Police and Fire Departments. The elevation of the
sanitary landfi.ll site makes it ideal for installing this equip-
ment and can be accomplished without installing a tower and an-
tennas attached.. Also, savings can be made by installing the
new system in this location which will be an unmanned facility.
The cost of this proposed Capital Project will include fencing
and other security equipment and will serve boIh the Fire and
Police Departments.
Councilman Bteecker asked for the total number of dol-
lars allocated from the revenue sharing funds for Capital Improve-
ments. Mr. Bergen stated they~ are recommending only $766,181 at
this time. Councilman Bleecker questioned this, stating it is
not correct according to: the figures given to him previously.
Mr. Bergen. stated that this is the amount allocated for
the period on which the Council needs to make a report to the
U.S. Treasury by Ju~e 20.
Director of Finance Haynes stated, that the total number
of dollars that will be allocated to the City through next June 30,
1974, the end of the budget year under consideration, will have
been approximately $3,456,830.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out that the funds allocated
from the revenue sharing funds for the new Police Building is shown
in this budget as $728,181. Right below this figure. are the symbols
BF, referring to-Bund Funds, which shows the amount of $2,384,299.
Is it being suggested that d~ring 1973-74 Bond Funds will be used
for the Police Building.
Mr. Bergen stated the symbols for this.budget were typed
up some time ago, and the BF could be shown as RS - Revenue Sharing,
if it is the Council's wish to make this change.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that if he hadn't brought
this matter out, this Council would be on record as s.upporting a
bond issue in the amount of $2,384,.299. At least that is what it
says, that is all he has to go by.
Mr. Bergen responded that it is recommended that $728,181
for the new Police Facility Building, $22,000 for the property
182
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 14
acquisition adjacent to Fire Station No. 2, and $16,000 for the
new Communications Building be approved at this time, which would
allow the staff to make the report to the Federal Government by
the deadline of June 20 for the third entitlement quarter. Accord-
ing to the recent resolution adopted on revenue sharing, the Coun-
cil obligated certain funds for Capital Improvement. The staff
intends to update the estimate for the land acquisition, for the
Police Building, etc., and will submit a revised estimate before
the next reporting period of revenue sharing funds.
The Council engaged in a discussion regarding the revenue
sharing funds needed for the construction of the Police Building.
Councilman Medders remarked it was his recollection that the reso-
lution adopted by the Council on June 4 referred to those funds for
1972-73 and would only include funds received up to December 30,
1973.
Councilman Strong stated he, too, is curious about the
limitation placed on the revenue sharing funds by the resolution
passed by the Council.
Director of Finance Haynes stated that if the change is
made in this budget to pick up the $2,384,299 as revenue sharing
funds, there would still remain a balance of the estimate as of
June, 1973, of $306,350 unallocated. He is certain the resolution
was adopted to include funds through December 31, 1973 only.
They have passed that point now and gone into more than $400,000
of the entitlement period ending June 30, 1974.
Councilman Bleecker stated the Council's resolution
didn't allocate any funds past the 1973 point. Mr. Haynes agreed
that the resolution did not, but the allocation indicated pre-
viously this evening passed the December 31, 1973 point by about
$400,000.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the Council is being
asked to approve something here for about $400,000 in funds which
it has not asked for.
Mr. Haynes stated this $400,000 was not included in the
resolution.
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 ~ Page 1.5
183
Councilman Bleecker remarked he did not want anybody
shooting him a curve. First, the budget starts off with
and a BF which is Bond Funds, but it is all revenue sharing funds,
and when it is added up it would appear there is plenty of money
because the Finance Director told the Council $3,456,~00is avail-
able.
Mayor Hart then read Resolution No. 38-73. of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield relating to Revenue Sharing Funds which
was adopted on June 4, .1973. There. is no reference to any amount
of money, but it does state that "all federal revenue sharing
funds for 1972-73 be used for
as they.occur.t'
From-the Minutes of
the capital outlay needs of the City
the June.4, 1973 meeting the Mayor
revenue sharing funds
through December 31,
at that date.
read the following entitlement periods for.which funds.have been
received from %he Federal Government, which were submitted by
Finance Director Haynes at that meeting:
.January 1, 1972 to June 30, 1972 $626,991
.July l~ 1972 to December 31, 1972' .$601,658
January.l, 1973 to June 30, 1973 $728,181
July 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974 Amount unknown
Councilman Bleecker stated the total of those figures is
$1,956,830. The information given to the Council by Mr. Haynes was
$3,456,830, the funds supposed to be available for capital improve-
merits that were passed by the Council. He asked Mr. Haynes which
one of the figures was correct.
Mr. Haynes replied "both of them." The first figure read
is the balance on June 30, 1973, and the other will be the total
funds received through June 30, 1974. If it is assumed that the
for capital outlay will be allocated only
1973, then the balance would be only $2,706,830
Councilman Bleecker asked if the Council had already indi-
cated that the cut-off date was December 31, 1973, why would it be
extended to June 30, 1974. There was quite a discussion by the
Council on the night the resolution was proposed, about how many
184
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 16
dollars of the revenue sharing funds should be allocated for
capital improvements. Councilman Strong objected to using the
revenue sharing funds for capital improvements and the Council
then agreed on a cut-off date of December 31, 1973.
Mr. Haynes stated again that the December 31, 1973 figure
would be $2,706,830, and if it were extended through the June 30,
1974 entitlement period, six months later, it would amount to
$3,456,830.
Councilman Strong asked for a clarification of the funds
which are to be voted upon tonight regarding the Capital Outlay
Budget.
Mr. Haynes commented he would have the same question.
He is not certain whether the Council is voting upon the funds
through June 30, 1974 or funds through the December 31, 1973
period only. If the funds are to be considered through June 30,
1974, where the total is $3,456,830, which is an estimate, that
amount is covered in the notice and advertising done for the public
hearing on revenue sharing funds set for this meeting.
Councilman Rogers commented it would appear to him that
if the Council goes beyond December 31, 1973, the Resolution must
be changed.
Councilman Bleecker added if the Resolution is not
changed, the Council is going to come up about $750,000 short, if
anybody challenges the action of this Council on this budget.
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Haynes if his reason for
using the figure of June 30, 1974 is to stay within the fiscal
year. Mr. Haynes explained that the reason for using June of 1974
is that the Revenue Sharing Act sets the entitlement periods and
the next entitlement period takes in the entire fiscal year 1973-74,
so for that reason it was necessary to advertise the entitlement
period as required by the Act. If the Council
the Revenue Sharing Act,
June 30, 1974. However,
money at this date.
Councilman Strong stated
ing to be fair and open itself
is going to parallel
it should act on funds all the way through
it is not necessary to allocate all the
that if this Council is intend-
to public input, it would delay
Bakersfield, CalifeTnia, June 13, 1973 - Page 17
185
taking action on that portion of the funds accruing to the City
from January 1, 1974 through June 30, 1974; until the Council
has heard any public input as advertised in the newspaper.~
Councilman Thomas asked Mr. Bergen if it were correct
that the $728,181 included in the Capital' Outlay Budget to be
spent for the new Police Building was changed from "O" to "RS."
Mr. Bergen explained 'the symbols in the Capital Outlay
Budget again, stating that he tried to do so earlier and he feels
some of the Councilmen have misunderstood what he was saying.
The statement he made.was that the recommendation in:the prelimi-
nary budget was based on the assumption that the Council was
going to allocate third quarter entitlement funds only so that at
least the staff could make a report to the Treasury Department by
June 30, 1973. There are additional funds included in the Reso-
lution adopted on June 4, 1973. The estimate for the construction
of the Police Building is $3,112,480. This figure will need to be
refined within the next several months. In anticipation of the
public'hearing tonight, the total amount of funds was advertised
as explained~by Mr. Haynes so,that the Council could file an
intent up to the maximum amount.
Councilman Thomas asked the City Attorney if the Council
budgeted the amount of $728,181 for the Police Facility, together
with the. S22,000 and the $16,000 for the other two projects, a
total of $766,181, and at a.later date the Council decides they
do not want to use revenue sharing funds but want to go to another
method for financing the Police Facility, would it be violating
the Act to withdraw the $728,181 and go another way; can they
change the~intent.
Mr. Haynes answered that there were provisions for.making
modification.
Councilman Thomas stated it would seem to him they could
act tonight on this amount and work out the other details later.
Councilman Bleecker asked who prepared the report with
the "O" and "BF's" in it. Mr. Bergen stated it was prepared and
typed in the Public Works Department with input from other sources.
186
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973
Page 18
The symbol code was devised several years ago at the time the
format was worked out for the five-year Capital Improvement
Budget.
Mayor Hart then asked for public participation, stating
that a portion of this meeting was now open for public statement
on Revenue Sharing Funds and items discussed in the Capital Out-
lay Program. No request being received from the public, Mayor
Hart closed the public portion of the meeting for Council comment
and action.
Councilman Bleecker commented that the first thing they
should clarify in the mind of the Finance Director is how many
dollars this Council has allocated for Capital Expenditures from
the revenue sharing funds. The Resolution states the period end-
ing December 31, 1973, and those are the funds the Council has
allocated for Capital Expenditure purposes, and in lieu of any
motion to change that, he would suggest that figure be used. That
is all this Council has authorized. He asked Mr. Haynes if the
figures of $2,706,830 as of December 31, 1973 would be correct.
Councilman Medders moved that the date of the Resolution
be extended to June 30, 1974 in order to finish the Police Building
as proposed.
Mr. Haynes stated that would finish the building as
presently estimated and still leave $306,830 unallocated.
Councilman Strong stated that in view of the Resolution
and that the public has had no chance for input, he would move
that the Council go on record as spending those funds which would
accrue to the City until December 31, 1973 from revenue sharing
funds in the amount of $2,706,830 and reserve the balance of
$443,650 for consideration at a later date.
Mayor Hart commented that this action was taken when
the Resolution was adopted at the last meeting; however, the
amount of money was not specified in the Resolution.
Councilman Strong stated he is saying that the Council
should abide by its own rule as set forth in the Resolution.
Mayor Hart remarked that he is confused at this point,
because the Resolution already stated that the revenue sharing
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 19
187
funds shall be expended for. Capital Improvement projects with a
cut-off date of December 31, 1973, which is the same motion
Councilman. Strong has just made. Councilman Medders has just
made a motion that the period for using revenue sharing funds
be extended until June 30, 1974, which would not only provide
sufficient funds to complete the building as proposed, but would
leave a surplus of $306,830~
Councilman Heisey offered an amended motion to have a
ten minute recess.
Councilman Strong commented that it was his impression
from the City Attorney there could only be one amended motion on
the floor at the same time. Councilman Heisey stated he would
make a substitute motion to recess for ten minutes. Councilman
Strong stated his motion.was meant to be a substitute motion.
Mayor Hart said that is correct, a substitute motion to the one
Councilman Medders has already voiced, to extend the period to
June 30, 1973, which would be an additional six months.
Councilman Strong said his substitute motion had to do
with the Council following its own dictates, to commit the funds
up until December 31, 1973.
Mayor Hart again pointed out that this action had
already been put into effect by adoption of the Resolution on
June 4, 1973. He then asked the City Attorney for a point of
clarification.
Mr. Hoagland remarked that the last time they got into
this he said the Council should go by their own rules. He dis-
cussed this later with Mr. Rogers. He stated he is going to let
the Council determine their own rules on this. He is not going
to be put on the spot any more on these controversial issues on
motions. It just makes the Council mad, and he thinks the Chair
and every Councilman should be aware of Mason's Rules for,sub-
stitute motions.
Mayor Hart interjected that he was not asking for a
reprimand; he had asked the City Attorney for an opinion. A
motign has been made by Mr. Medders to the effect that the Coun-
188
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 20
cil extend the date of the Resolution. Councilman Strong has
offered a substitute motion for the Council to abide by its own
rules on a Resolution which is already in effect. He is merely
asking if it is necessary for Mr. Strong to reiterate this motion.
He is reiterating a motion that was put into effect at the last
meeting.
Mr. Hoagland stated that Mr. Strong's motion is
already a fact.
Mayor Mart then advised Councilman Strong that his
motion is already in effect, phraseology and all, just as he
uttered it.
Councilman Strong stated his substitute motion did
include figures which would commit the revenue sharing funds in
the amount of $2,706,830 which would accrue to the City by Decem-
ber 31, 1973 to be expended for Capital Improvement projects.
Councilman Whittemore commented that what he would like
to see done is to appropriate enough money to construct the Police
Building and still retain the balance of the funds until the Coun-
cil has heard public input regarding the expenditure of this money
for certain needs of the community.
Councilman Strong stated he wanted it emphasized very
clearly to the press that his objection has nothing to do with
the construction of the new Police facility, because he does sup-
port the idea 100% and will vote for it when the occasion comes
up. The Resolution was adopted after the public had a chance to
provide some input and all he is saying is that to commit two mil-
lion dollars to Capital Improvement between now and December
1973, would follow the dictates of the Council which were set out
in the Resolution, and at the same time give the public a chance
at later meetings to decide how the balance of the money should
be spent.
Councilman Bleecker stated that if it is the intention
of the Council to provide sufficient funds to cover the two items
of $728,181 and $2,384,299 for a Police Building, expend $22,000
for the property acquisition adjacent to the Fire Station No. 2,
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 21
189
and $16,000 for the new Communications Building, that total would
be $3,150,480, which is an amount somewhere between what the Coun-
cil acted upon,previously and extending the funds to June 30, 1974.
If the other Councilmen would like to withdraw their motion and
substitute motion, he would make the motion that the first $3,150,480
received in federal revenue sharing funds be allocated according to
the amounts indicated for the Police Facilit~ acquisition of property
adjacent to Fire Station No. 2, and the new Communications Building.
Councilman Strong withdrew his substitute motion, and
Councilman Medders stated he would withdraw his original motion,
but he feels it should be done on the fiscal year basis.
Councilman Bleecker made a motion that the first $3,150,,180
received by this City in revenue sharing funds be allocated as
lows: $728~18}'for the Police Building, plus $2,384~299 for the
Police. Building, $22,000 to acquire property adjacent to Fire Sta-
tion No. 2, and $16,000 for a new Communications Building. This
motion carried by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas,
Whirremote
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Rogers
Councilman Rogers stated he abstained because he believes:
the entire Revenue Sharing Program is a clever plan designed to
entice local communities to give up their freedom. He believes
that all revenue sharing funds have strings attached. His con-
science will not allow him to vote "yes" for any plan that he be-
lieves will further erode the country's freedom.
A brief recess was called at this time.
The Council reconvened, and upon a motion by Councilman
Meddersr Category I - Transportation and Traffic - of the Capital
Improvement Program for 1973-78 was approved by the following roll
call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey,
Whirremote
Councilman Strong
None
Medders, Rogers, Thomas,
190
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 22
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Category II -
Sanitary Sewers and Storm Drains - of the Capital Improvement
Program for 1973-78 was approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Category III -
Parks Program of the Capital Improvement Budget for 1973-78, was
adopted by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers, Strong,
Thomas, Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Category IV -
Public Buildings and Improvements of the Capital Improvement Pro-
gram for 1973-78 was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstaining: Councilman Rogers
At this time Councilman Medders made the following state-
ment:
In view of the fact that the budget hearings have been
concluded, and the Council has $894,810 available for appropria-
tions, I would move that we split the amount evenly and apply
$447,405 to the reduction of property taxes and the same amount
to the reduction of the Utility-User Tax. This amounts to approxi-
mately 23½~ off the property tax rate in addition to the 7.3~ pre-
viously excluded because of the change in the Transit System. The
amount taken off the Utility Tax would be approximately 1.9~.
Councilman Heisey stated he would like to say a few words
and offer a substitute motion:
I have been out of town most of the day, but when I got
back to the office this evening I sat down and made a few notes.
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 23
191
I have been giving a lot of thought to our past actions the last
two or three days. I haven't consulted with any of the gentle-
men that were speaking earlier, either from the Council or the
floor at the beginning of the meeting. I thought t would review
my own personal feelings.
I am well pleased with the action of the Council to-
night in the adoption of.the Capital Improvement Budget. I am
pleased with the action of the Council last night in the adoption
of the Operating Budget. The Council has made some real, meaning-
ful contributions to the on-going program and development of our
City, and it has been done in a very economical manner. Also,
last Monday night we adopted a GEPC budget which was economical.
We not only didn't grant a blanket raise which I think would have
been wrong, but we, in effect, granted a blanket "no raise." We
are giving the long-suffering taxpayers of the City some very much
needed relief, and I think each one of us on this. Council can take
a great deal of pride in that. The key provision of. the GEPC
report was a provision that can be most meaningful to the public
and to the Council, and it can be particularly meaningful and
important to our public employees. And that part of the report
entitled "Subject D: Government Efficiency" reads, ."It is the
intention of this Committee to soon evaluate all areas of endeavor
and this Committee will be happy to recommend meaningful adjust-
ments in wages where warranted."
By adopting the GEPC report we have held out the hope
and the promise of an immediate study followed by meaningful
adjustments in wages where warranted. Sometimes the expectation
of a reward is even more exciting than the reward itself. How-
ever, for this policy statement which we adopted Monday night to
have any real meaning, and for the Councilmen to have credibility,
in my opinion it is most important to set a few dollars aside to
make this thorough study of our total operation, and to have the
funds available to make those meaningful adjustments as they are
found and deemed necessary. This does not demand a great sum of
money, but in order to give real meaning to this statement, which,
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 24
without funding, could well be interpreted to many as hollow,
we need to have some good faith money put aside to carry out
this mandate which we adopted Monday night.
In looking over the funds that we have unallocated,
I would offer a substitute motion, that we set aside the sum of
$200,000 for study and possible adjustments as recommended by
the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee, with care-
ful consideration by the entire Council. This study will not be
done for nothing. It is going to cost money to do it and do it
the way it ought to be done, and if we set aside a couple of
hundred thousand dollars for that, we would still be able to
grant a 50-50 reduction as Councilman Medders has just recommended.
It would amount to $346,800 on the Utility Tax, or 1~% reduction,
and an equal amount on the property tax, which would be 15.7~, and
when added to the 7.3~ from the transit system savings, would make
a total of 23~ reduction in the property tax. This would give us
a general tax rate of $2.3023, and when the bonded tax rate is
added, would set a tax rate for the coming fiscal year of $2.6339
as compared to last year's $2.8721. I think it is really impor-
tant that we do it.
I was somewhat startled by the comments from Mr. Barton
earlier this evening, because I think they only reflect the fact
that I am not the only one who was thinking along these lines,
and I am sure that our employees have had similar thoughts. We
have committed ourselves publicly that we are going to make this
study and we are going to make adjustments. I think there is no
way we can comply with that commitment if we don't implement it by
funding it.
Councilman Rogers stated the Council has already publicly
committed the entire amount to tax reduction. The people in the
City have heard this long, overdue, welcome news and he has had
overwhelming response from people all over the City, which strength-
ens his conviction that the Council's action was correct. Before
a sum of money is selected out of the air, such a large amount as
$200,000, he thinks the Council should first find out what a study
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 25
193
such as this'would cost. When.they start diluting the relief to
taxpayers,,it.makes th~ c. itizens less and less.happy.., Me:would
hate to be the first to burst the bubble of hope that a lot of
people have gotten. from the Council's action Monday night; . Me
is in opposition:to this substitute motion and takes the stand
that the entire amount be split 50-50 for reduction of the prop-
erty tax and the utility t~.x.
Councilman .Bleecker stated he can't support the sub-
stitute motion for. several reasons. The first one. is ~hat',the
survey would probably take a number of months. A meaningful
reduction. in the utility. tax~and the propeTty tax must be just
that...If it were diluted, it would give the impression..that the
Council had for some reason from, one day to the next changed its
mind regarding what it has already done. If the Council did not
have special. {unds'which could be used for this purpose, he could
support the, substitu%e motion.,. but. since there are sufficient
funds, he intends to support the motion made by Councilman Medders.
Councilman Thomas asked Councilman Heisey if he intended
the whole amount of $200.~000 to be used for a study, or did he
intend to put something aside for making salary adjustments later.
Councilman Heisey stated he did not know how much a
study would.cost, perhaps a quarter of~ this amount,, but studies
do not comecheap. ,1He would assume the,statement by the majority
members of the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
was made in al~ integrity and sincerity, at. least it was adopted
in that manner, and he thinks-~he Council should have some funds
to back up whatit.is trying to accomplish.
. Councilman Rogers repeated something he had said earlier,
and that is-the fact that 30% of. City~employees will get a 5%
raise this year, due to the Civil Service jurisdiction. The Coun-
cilwould.all like to give blanket raises, but-this can't be done
and give tax relief,this year at the same time. He can't accept
trying to dilute an honest effort by the Council to-try to give
the people some meaningful tax relief.
194
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 26
Councilman Bleecker stated that one part of the Govern-
mental Efficiency and Personnel Committee's report should be cited
again and that is "It is the intention of this Committee to soon
evaluate the efficiency of the City in all areas of endeavor since
a survey of this type has not been made in the last ten years.
If substantial, real and potential savings can be made before the
next budget session, the majority of this Committee would be happy
to recommend meaningful adjustments in wages where warranted."
He stated he doesn't believe this suggests that wage increases or
decreases might be made in the interim period, because it would
stand to reason the survey would take a number of months to accom-
plish. To allocate $200,000 towards something that the Council
knows nothing about and to deprive the taxpayer of that much
meaningful relief in this utility and property tax is the wrong
way to go, particularly since there is $150,000 in the Council's
Contingency Fund, plus other reserves which can be used for this
purpose.
Councilman Medders commented that he has been thinking
it over while the other Councilmen were speaking. If the Council
would have complete control of the $200,000 and it wouldn't neces-
sarily be spent, he feels that he can support the substitute
motion, as long as the balance is split down the middle.
Councilman Strong asked the Mayor for a point of clari-
fication. If the entire amount was not used for the proposed
study, would the balance be available to make salary adjustments
if warranted, as Mr. Heisey mentioned when making his motion.
Mayor Hart stated he would think it would be available
for use at the discretion of this Council. If this sum of money
was not used in its entirety, then the Council could use it to
make adjustments.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that he just wanted every-
body to be sure what they are doing here, because if this substi-
tute motion passes, there is going to be $200,000 less tax relief.
He thinks the Council has to have enough fortitude at times to
stand hitched to a commitment it made to the people of this City
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 27
195
last Monday night. All Councilmen:didn't agree, but the majority
voted that no basic monthly wage increases be granted to,any em-
ployee at this time and that the approximate $900,000 surplus esti-
mated for.1973,-74 be used total. ly for the reduction of taxes.
Councilman Rogers stated he hopes he is not being repe-
titious, but he wants the record to show very clearly to the tax-
payers in the City that the motion made by Mr. Heisey and supported
by Mr. Medders in his statement just robbed the taxpayers of $200,000
of tax relief, if this motion passes.
Councilman Heisey stated that he would be i.nterested in
hearing Mr.~Bleecker's views on where. the funds would come from to
make the study and any adjustments.. If a study.is made by depart-
ments, and if it is found that adjustments are necessary, there
must be funds. ava.ilab.!e to make these adjus~ments.~ These funds
just can't be. pulled out of the air. There
Council's Contingency Fund but that must be
gency purposes throughout the year.
is $150,000 in the
used for a lot of emer-
Councilman Bleecker said he would be happy to answer Mr.
Heisey's question. Since the Council hasn't made the survey, they
don't know where the funds are coming from. Hopefully, there is
enough staff around here to give input to the GEPC so that a sur-
vey shouldn'tcost. too much. .If the staff really wanted to, and
he is talking,about the City Manager and the department heads,
they can make so. many cuts themselves over the next couple of
months, it might even.be frightening, if they really.understand
that this Council is serious in trying to effect economy in govern--
ment. There are a number.of items that can be looked into seriousfly
that would save this City hundreds of thousands of dollars over the
next few.years. One he has mentioned earlier is.the functional
consolidation of the two fire departments which would save a great
deal of money. But if the brass in both departments .is fighting
each other over who is going to be top dog, it will probably never
happen. He asked Councilman Heisey if that was the type of thing
he wanted brought out.
196
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 28
Councilman Heisey stated he is familiar with some of
these examples, but they are not going to be implemented within
a few months period of time.
Councilman Bleecker remarked that it didn't say in the
GEPC report that everything could be implemented in a few months.
The survey has not been made, that is one example. There are
other areas that the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Com-
mittee has been talking about for the two years that he was on
it. But if the Committee just talks about it and makes sugges-
tions to the staff, no action is taken. The only way to get the
action is to have a formal survey, give direction to the staff,
tell them what the Council wants them to do, and tell them to get
on it and do it.
Councilman Rogers stated it appears to him that the
Council is crossing bridges before they get to them. He would
say that the least that can be done is to give the GEPC a chance
to see if they can't back up what they said they could do, so he
would suggest to Mr. Heisey that he might like to consider with-
drawing his motion.
Councilman Thomas stated he was more than willing to
give the GEPC every chance and opportunity in the world. But if
the Committee recommends to the Council that they need more money
to pay a salary adjustment, the funds have to be available. The
$200,000 is a very minimum amount of money for this purpose, and
he intends to support the substitute motion.
Councilman Rogers went on to say that the Committee hasn't
requested anything from the Council yet. They may not have to, but
give the Committee a chance before robbing the taxpayer of $200,000.
Vote taken on Councilman Heisey's substitute motion car-
ried by the following roll call:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Councilmen Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas, Whittemore
Councilmen Bleecker, Rogers
None
Bakersfield, California, June 13, 1973 - Page 29
197
Adoption of Resolution No. 40-73 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield,
California, approving and adopting the
Budget for the Fiscal Year 1973-74.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
40-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield, California,
approving and adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1973-74,
was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmen Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Strong, Thomas,
Whittemore
Noes:
Absent:
Councilman Rogers
None
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the Court-
cil sitting in Budget Sessions, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker
the Council adjourned its meeting at 11:15 P.M.
MA~~'~sx~tof B~ld, California
ATTEST:
CITY ELERK and Ex'O~ of the Council
of the City of Bakersfield, California
198
199
200
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973
Minutes of the regular meeting of the Council of the
City of Bakersfield, California, held in the Council Chambers of
the City Hall at eight o'clock P.M., June 18, 1973.
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hart followed
by the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation by the Reverend Ed
Wulfekuehler, Jr.~ of the First Congregational Church.
The City Clerk called the roll as follows:
Present: Mayor Hart. Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whirremote,
Bleecker, Heisey, Medders, Rogers.
Absent: None
Minutes of the regular meeting of June 4, 1973 were
approved as presented.
Scheduled Public Statements.
Dr. Robert Sheldon, owner of property located at 1629
Truxtun Avenue, a block from the City Hall, addressed the Council
stating that from reading the newspaper, it would appear he and
the City Attorney had not been able to arrive at a conclusion for
the acquisition of his property for the new Police Building.
Also, according to the newspapers, the amount set aside by the
Council for the acquisition of the land for this project, was
in the amount of over $700,000. As a matter of fact, it was
only a week ago that he received the first real offer to purchase
the property and proceeded to review the negotiations with The
City to this point.
The City has been negotiating with him for the purchase
of this property for the past 19 years. Since he has not re-
ceived any inquiries about the sale of the property, he thought
he would ask about it and discussed the matter last summer
with the City Manager and the Architect. He learned at that time~
the City would approach him and discuss the method of acquiring
the property at a later date. In November, Mr. Bergen and
Mr. Hoagland discussed the matter in his office, the main pur-
pose of the visit being whether he was interested in sharing
the expenses of making an appraisal of the property. He felt
that was the City's responsibility, if he disagreed with the
City's appraisal, he would then make his own appraisal.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 2
201
In February, Mr. Hoagland,
City Attorney, again met with him at
proposition to acquire the property,
and Mr. Brearley, Assistant
his office and offered a
but it was non-negotiable.
It
one quarter of a
and $50,000 cash.
owner of part of
was proposed at this time that the City would make available
block at the corner of "F" and 17th Streets,
He explained that his sister, who is the
this property with him, was on her sabbatical
leave, and would return in approximately 30 days. They would
review the offer then, but he did not feel it was a legitimate
offer because it was not in writing. No value had been placed
on the exchange property, and no alternate to this setting out
a sum of money to be paid in case they did not wish to accept
the original offer was indicated.
Approximately 30 days later, Mr. David Brearley
appeared at his office again and asked for his decision, which
Dr. Sheldon stated he had not made because there had been no
official offer from the City, and he again explained the three
things which he had asked of the City previously.
In April, he received a phone call from Mr. Hoagland
who pointed out that they might increase their offer five or
ten thousand dollars. When he originally discussed the matter
with Mr. Bergen last summer, Dr. Sheldon told him that he was
aware it would be necessary to sell the property at one time
or other, all he wanted was to be displaced in such a manner as
to not be forced to spend a great deal of money out of his own
pocket to re-establish an office.
Councilman Bleecker asked
the three things he mentioned which
Dr. Sheldon complied by stating:
1. The offer be made in writing.
2. That a value be placed on the one-half
block that the City wanted to trade.
3. And, that an alternate offer be made in
cash, i.e., to buy him out rather than
trading.
Dr. Sheldon to reiterate
he had previously requested.
202
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 3
After giving the details regarding the cost of pur-
chasing property for replacement of his office, Dr. Sheldon
stated that the only offer received from the City, which is
$105,000 for the entire parcel or $60,000 for the property
plus the quarter exchange block is non-negotiable. He believes
the Council and the public should know these facts, the diffi-
culty he has experienced, and the lack of negotiations which
have taken place.
will have to sell,
unrealistic.
He is willing to
but he feels the
negotiate; he realizes he
approach made to him is
City Attorney Hoagland was asked to explain the City's
position on the acquisition of this property, and he stated
that last October l0 the Council adopted a report of the Budget
Review and Finance Committee to commence negotiations for the
acquisition of this property. The City had an appraisal made
prior thereto, and on October 19 Mr. Bergen and he approached
Dr. Sheldon. The City's version and the doctor's version differ
somewhat. Appraisals were discussed but only for the purpose of
learning from the doctor how he wished to go about arriving at
a fair market value. He requested that the City obtain an
appraisal~ and if that was not satisfactory to him, Dr. Sheldon
would then get an appraisal of his own. He has never done this,
only presented his own opinion of the market value of the pro-
perty, which the City does not consider to be realistic.
Subsequent to that time, the City gave Dr. Sheldon two
oral offers, which were in two parts, one to buy the property,
and one to negotiate a trade for a quarter block on F Street.
Other than a telephone conversation between Dr. Sheldon and
Mr. Brearley, nothing else was heard from him. Subsequent to
that time, Mr. Hoagland contacted the doctor and said that
possibly the City could go higher in view of the market value
placed on the church property across the street.
No written offers were ever made to Dr. Sheldon,
because the staff never had a firm commitment from the Council
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 4
203
to proceed in condemnation~ if negotiations did not come to
fruition. Whenever a written offer is made, under the law,
it is tantamount to putting the City on record that it would
go ahead with the condemnation or else be subject to inverse
condemnation.
After budget hearings and in view of the City's
appraisal, he was able to make what he considered to be a
generous offer in writing. To date no appraisal has been
submitted from Dr. Sheldon on which to base negotiations.
Councilman Bleecker asked Dr. Sheldon what he would
take in cash for his building and lot. Dr. Sheldon stated he
would not take less than $150,000 which he does not think is
unreasonable in view of the price paid for adjacent property
and the expense he would have in making replacement with similar
property which would house the special equipment needed for his
practice.
Councilman Heisey remarked he wanted the record to
show that in view of any real or imagined conflict of interest,
he is not participating in the discussion here tonight or any
decision that is reached. He has a small interest in the former
First Methodist Church property across the street and he doesn't
want to appear to be taking a position which would be beneficial
to him.
City Attorney stated there was a Resolution on the
Agenda tonight which would authorize the City to file eminent
domain proceedings for the property, as it is obvious from this
discussion that they are worlds apart. Unless Mr. Sheldon hires
a competent appraiser and they are relatively close together,
he sees no point in discussing this any further at the Council
meeting level.
Councilman Strong asked Mr. Hoagland how far apart
they are in view of Dr. Sheld0n's statements. Mr. Hoagland
replied right now they are $50,000 apart.
9,04
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 5
Dr. Sheldon stated that the oral offer in February
was non-negotiable, the written offer June 7, 1973 is non-
negotiable. The City Attorney is now stating that the City is
willing to negotiate at this time; and he asked if that was
correct.
Mr. Hoagland remarked that it is the first time in
his sixteen years experience that negotiations have taken place
before the Council. If it is the doctor's purpose to negotiate
with the Council, he would turn the appraisal over to the
Council or any negotiating team. He also wished to remind the
Council that the taxpayers are involved in this transaction,
and any departure from the appraisal must be looked at very
closely.
Mr. Edward Easton, who resides at 2624 - 18th Street,
addressed the Council, regarding the sweeping of alleys in the
City, stating that it was formerly the practice of the City to
sweep them at least eight or ten times a year. At the present
time it is the property owner's responsibility to maintain the
alleys, and many people in the City do not abide by their
responsibility. He is not requesting that Public Works budget be
increased to handle this function, but he does think it is the
City's responsibility to keep these alleys in a reasonably clean
condition, whith possibly less concentration on street sweeping,
and more time devoted to cleaning up the trash in the alleys,
as was done several years ago. He asked when and why the order
was issued to discontinue sweeping the alleys in the City.
Director of Public Works Bidwell stated it was defin-
itely prior to his taking office, and he doesn't believe a
schedule was ever set up for sweeping alleys. It may have been
only an intermittent thing at one time; however, it has been some
years since it was done on any kind of basis. The only alley
sweeping done now is in the immediate downtown business district
and a one block wide area in East Bakersfield on either side of
Baker Street. No other alleys are swept unless there are some
unusual conditions such as trash blocking the alley, broken glass,
or a health hazara, then the CJ. ty will go in and sweeo by request.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 6
205
Mr. Bergen commented that his service precedes Mr.
Bidwell's, and to his knowledge the City of Bakersfield has
never swept residential alleys, even all commercial alleys, on
a formal routine basis, as is done on the streets. They have
been swept on the basis of need consistent with the availability
of a street sweeper.
Mr. Easton stated he knows that at one time the sweeper
did operate in the alleys at least eight or ten times during the
year. He has been told that the only way to get the alley swept,
is by reporting his neighbor who is in turn subject to a citation.
He doesn't feel he should go to that extreme to have the alley
cleaned up.
Councilman Bleecker pointed out there is a provision
in the Municipal Code whereby a property owner can be cited for
the unsightly appearance of his own portion of the alley; how-
ever, to his knowledge, the City does not enforce this ordinance
to any degree. He suggested to Mr. Easton that he would not be
placed in the position of informing on his neighborhood, if when
he finds the alley is in bad shape, to call the Public Works
Department and ask a representative to investigate the matter and
have the alley swept. Perhaps the City should start a program of
sweeping alleys, without waiting for complaints from citizens of
the City.
Correspondence.
A communication from the Office of Continuing Education
at Cal State College, Bakersfield, requesting endorsement of Cal
State's efforts to institute a program of Public Administration
courses in its night school which would lead to a certificate in
Public Administration was submitted to the Council.
Councilman Whittemore commented that he doesn't necess-.
arily oppose this but before this particular program is endorsed,
he would like to say that he has talked to many people and especially
to the Chief of Police, who have wondered why Cal State has not
instituted a Police Science School. There are eleven incorporated
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 7
cities in the County, plus the County of Kern itself, who are
directly involved with a continuous training program for their
officers, and he is sure other students throughout the State
would enroll in these classes, if if were possible. He moved
that the request from Cal State be referred to the Budget Review
and Finance Committee for study and report back to the Council,
in the study, whether or not the Committee
Cal State institute a Police Science
and also to include
would recommend that
course.
Mayor Hart
commented that he thinks there has been some
deliberation regarding this on the part of the college in the
Social Studies Department, and to this point a relationship to
a Police Science course is still in the negotiating stage.
Councilman Whirremote stated what they are offering is
a Sociology course which is entirely different from a Police
Science course.
Councilman Heisey agreed with Councilman Whittemore's
suggestion, stating that he, personally, is in favor of the
program the college has, but he feels that a Police Science
course is far more critical. The Police Department has requested
it and it is a place where the local college can do a local job
and fill a real need in the community. If the local university
doesn't want to do it, he understands that another extension
school is willing to do it.
Councilman Bleecker commented that it is his under-
standing that Fresno State College extension has offered to teach
a Police Science course in the City of Bakersfield, that a request
for the same type of course has been made from Cal State, Bakers-
field, and the agreement
feels this is a good idea,
submit this to the Budget
to do so has not been forthcoming.
and he would support the motion to
Review and Finance Committee.
He
Councilman Medders remarked he believes that not only
will Cal State not offer a Police Science course, but that they
will not send a letter to Fresno State and request that this
institution offer the course in this area.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 8
2O7
Vote taken on Councilman Whittemore's motion carried
unanimously.
Communication was read from the Kern County Taxpayers
Association expressing this Association's appreciation to the
Mayor and Council and staff for the successful conclusion of
their deliberations and hearings on the 1973-74 budget. A
reduction in the tax rate, both ad valorem and utility, is deeply
appreciated by the taxpayers. Upon a motion by Councilman
Heisey, this letter was received and ordered placed on file.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, communication
received from Mr. James L. Knowlden, 3319 Blade Avenue, regarding
the purchase of foreign mini-buses by the Transit District, was
referred to the Board of Directors of the Greater Bakersfield
Metropolitan Transit District for their information and action,
as it is not applicable to the Bakersfield City Council.
Council Statements.
Councilman Thomas stated last week the Council engaged
in budget deliberations and after many hours of conscientious
endeavor, the budget sessions were completed in three days. He
commended the staff for its preparation of the budget and accom-
panying data in such detail for the perusal of the Council, and
stated he hoped the rest of the Council felt the same way.
He remarked that he had spent some time in the hospital
this past week, and he wished to express his appreciation for
the many visits and telephone calls received during his incapa-
citation.
Councilman Medders announced the resignation of Counci[k-
man Vernon Strong as a member of the California Avenue Park
Neighborhood Facility Citizens Advisory Committee, due to being
an elected City official. Councilman Medders then moved that
Mr. Paul Cato, 113 Haggin Street, be appointed to serve as a
member of this Committee, which carried unanimously.
Councilman Heisey moved the appointment of Mr. Leonard
Bruns, 116 Cypress Street, to fill the vacancy existing on the
2O8
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 9
Board of Charity Appeals and Solicitations due to the unavail-
ability of Brad Bainbridge, whose term will expire October 1,
1976. This motion carried unanimously.
Reports.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee reported on the subject:
Overtime and Administrative Leave for Police Detectives.
At the request of the Police Chief, this Commitee has
reviewed the present overtime and administrative leave pro-
visions of the Compensation Ordinance as they relate to Police
Detectives. In summary, the ordinance provides that Detectives
may be compensated for authorized overtime worked with pay or
compensatory time off at one and one-half times the hours of
authorized overtime worked, or may be granted administrative
leave of absence with pay not to exceed five working days at any
one time. Detectives may accumulate up to a maximum of forty
hours of compensatory time.
The ordinance does not contain any special overtime
provisions for out-of-town investigations. The Police Dep~rtment
maintains its own internal records of authorized overtime worked
by Detectives. The Police Chief has recommended the following
changes in the Compensation Ordinance:
o
Detectives shall be compensated for all
authorized overtime worked with a credit
of compensatory time off at one and a half
times the hours worked or equivalent pay,
with all overtime hours worked by Detectives
to be recorded on the payroll time report.
Detectives shall be authorized to accumulate
a maximum of eighty hours of compensatory
time· This change will allow greater flexi-
bility in being able to allow a Detective
to take a week of accumulated compensatory
time off at one time·
Detectives shall not be authorized to take
administrative leave. Accumulated compen-
satory time will be used in lieu of
administrative leave.
When a Detective is required to be out of
town for more than 48 hours on an assigned
investigation, he shall be paid 12 hours
at the regular hourly rate for a full 24-
hour day from the time he reported for
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 10
209
duty. For those hours worked which are less
than the full 24-hour increment, he shall be
paid at the regular hourly rate not to exceed
twelve hours.
All recommended changes have been discussed with the
affected Police Department employees. This Committee recommends
approval of these changes and that this report be considered
first reading of the ordinance to accomplish these changes.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the report was
adopted, and first reading was considered given the ordinance.
Councilman Bleecker, Chairman of the Governmental
Efficiency and Personnel Committee, reported on the subject:
Adoption of Amendments to Compensation Ordinance as approved
by the City Council at Budget Hearings.
Several changes are necessary at this time in the City's
Personnel Compensation Ordinance in order to effectuate recent
Council action. The following changes have been brought about
due to the transfer of the Dog Pound to the County of Kern~ the
transfer of the Transit System to the Greater Bakersfield Met-
ropolitan Transit District, and the Council's action at budget
hearings regarding additional personnel, reclassifications,
salary adjustments and supplemental benefits:
Elimination of Positions
Transit Garage Foreman
Transit Route Foreman
Poundman
Additional Positions
Supervising Foreman (Waste Water)
Auditorium Technical Aide (Auditorium-Recreation Dept.)
Police Property Manager (Police Department)
Salary Adjustments
Traffic Marking Foreman
Maintenance Leadman
Supplemental Benefits
Straight time pay for six holidays
Fire Suppression personnel.
Motor Coach Operator
Poundmaster
7½% increase
5% increase
(three shifts) -
Ready stand-by pay of $5.00 per shift - Police
Department personnel.
210
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 11
3. Five percent increase in benefits for former employees
who retired under the Public Employees Retirement
System on or before December 31, 1970. A Resolution
of Intent to amend the City's Retirement Contract
with P.E.R.S. is on the Council's agenda tonight
regarding this matter.
Following Council action at the budget hearings last
week, the Governmental Efficiency and Personnel Committee
recommends adoption of these ordinance changes.
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker the report was
accepted and Ordinance No. 2099 New Series of the Council of
the City of Bakersfield adding Section 3.18.156 to and amending
Section 3.18.180 (i) (2) of Chapter 3.18 of the Municipal Code
of the City of Bakersfield, concerning compensation for employees
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey,
Medders, Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance No. 2100
New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Section 3.18.060 (Salary Schedule) of the Municipal Code of the
City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey,
Medders, Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Director of Public Works Bidwell reported on the con-
struction of median islands on Columbus street, stating that on
April 17, 1973, the Traffic Authority for the City of Bakersfield
submitted a proposal and recommendation for the construction of
raised median islands on Columbus Street between Mr. Vernon
Avenue and Haley Street.
The construction of the islands has become necessary due
to the increased development at the intersection of Mr. Vernon
Avenue and Columbus Street and anticipated traffic volume
increases on these streets.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 12
The Traffic Authority's proposal will eliminate some
existing vehicular turning movements at several intersections
along this segment of Columbus Street. This is necessary due to
the short blocks in this area which will not permit adequate
median storage lanes.
The portion of median island construction which is of
immediate concern is the area between Mt. Vernon Avenue and Sunny
Lane. If the proposal as submitted by the Traffic Authority is
acceptable, the Department of Public Works will proceed with the
construction of the raised Median Islands within the next week.
Councilman Heisey commented that many requests have been
received to construct these islands, however, the public probably
will not be unanimously in favor of the exact location of some of
them. These are recommended by the Traffic Authority and the
Public Works Department so he would support the proposal as sub-
mitted.
Councilman Whirremote commented that there have been at
least two articles in the newspapers recently designating the
intersections which will have traffic signals installed this yea]?
and he has received telephone calls every time these articles
appear. One of them which is in the budget has never been men-
tioned and then he asked for an explanation of the status of
traffic signals at Hughes Lane and Wilson Road. Mr. Bidwell
stated that traffic signals will be installed during this Fiscal
Year 1973-74 at the intersection of Hughes Lane and Wilson Road.
Councilman Medders reported that the members of the
staff met with representatives of the Utility companies today
to advise them of the Council's intent to lower the Utility Tax
from 5% to 3½%. The Utility Companies will be able to accom-
plish this on the billing date of August 1, 1973. This action
will require an emergency ordinance which will be prepared by
the City Attorney for Council action at its next regular meeting
of July 9, 1973.
212
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 13
(c), (d),
vote:
AYES:
Consent Calendar
The following items appeared on the Consent Calendar:
(a) Allowance of Claims Nos. 4116 to 4247,
inclusive, in amount of $158,960.04
(b) Claim for damages from Arthur W. Vickers
(Refer to the City Attorney).
(c)
Adoption of Resolution No. 41-73 of the
Council of the City of Bakersfield making
finding that Tentative Tract No. 3678,
together with provisions for its design
and improvements, is consistent with
applicable general and specified plans.
(d) Application for Encroachment Permit from
E. N. Oldham, 2021 Brundage Lane.
(e) Tract No. 3499 and Contract and Specifi-
cations for Improvements therein.
(f) Street Easement Deed from Stockdale
Development Corporation.
(g) Application for Encroachment Permit from
Paul D. Summers, 101 Jefferson Street.
(h) Street Right of Way Deed from Elmer Karpe,
Inc.
(i)
Notice of Completion for Construction of
Automatic Sprinkler System at Patriots
Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Items (a), (b),
(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) were adopted by the following
Councilmen Strong, Thomas, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey,
Medders, Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Thomas asked to be excused from the meeting
at this time.
Action on Bids.
After Council discussion, and explanation from the
Director of Public Works, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
contract for Phase I of 1973 Weed Abatement Program was awarded
to Specialized Spray Service, all other bids were rejected, and
the Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whirremote, bid of U.S.
Aggregate and Materials for Annual Contract Select Road
Materials was accepted, all other bids were rejected, and the
Mayor was authorized to execute the contract.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 14
213
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, low bid of Salomon
Pipeline Construction for construction of Storm Drains in a por-
tion of Bank Street and Cypress Street was accepted, all other
bids were rejected, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the
contract.
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2101 New
Series of the City of Bakersfield
amending Section 11.04.755 (Speed
Limit on Truxtun Avenue) of the
Municipal Code of the City of
Bakersfield.
The City Clerk read the following report from R. O.
Price, Chief of Police on the subject of Posting of School Zone
on Truxtun Avenue:
During the Council session of June 4, 1973,
a proposed ordinance to increase the speed
limit on Truxtun Avenue from "A" to Oak
Streets was given a first reading. There
was some concern expressed from some members
of the Council as to the posting around Franklin
School, which lies within that proposed change
of speed zone.
We are submitting some photographs which show
a typical posting of some elementary and
grammer schools within the City of Bakersfield
which are contiguous to streets with speeds
greater than 25 miles per hour. The City has
posted all of these schools with this advisory
posting in compliance with the permissive
section of the new State and Federal sign
regulations. These signs would be posted on
each end of the school facing the direction of
travel. In this particular instance, however,
the school is on the extreme east end of the
requested zone change and if it is the Council's
desire, the school itself could be left out of
the proposed speed zone. However, it is believed
that the additional signing would serve greater
purpose than to leave the school out, inasmuch as
vehicles are going to be accelerating or decelerating
within that area for the 35 mile per hour zone.
If it is the Council's desire to leave the school
out of the zone, then it is recommended that the
speed zone run from Pine Street to Oak Street.
It was moved by Councilman Bleecker that the school be
left out of the increased speed zone, that the speed zone run from
Pine Street to Oak Street, and that Ordinance No. 2101 New Series
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending Section 11.04..
755 (Speed Limit on Truxtun Avenue) of the Municipal Code of the
214
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 15
City of Bakersfield be adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmen Strong, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
Adoption of Ordinance No. 2102 New
Series of the Council of the City of
Bakersfield amending Sections 8.80.010
and 8.80.090 of Chapter 8.80 of Title
8 of the Municipal Code, providing for
the removal of certain weeds as a public
nuisance and creating a lien for cost of
abating such nuisance.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, Ordinance No.
2102 New Series of the Council of the City of Bakersfield amending
Sections 8.80.010 and 8.80.090 of Chapter 8.80 of Title 8 of the
Municipal Code, providing for the removal of certain weeds as a
Public Nuisance and creating a lien for cost of abating such
nuisance, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey,
Medders, Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
Approval of Contract with Panama School
District for Community Recreation Program.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Contract with
Panama School District for Community Recreation Program was
approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Approval of
between the
Bakersfield
Contract for Transportation
City of Bakersfield and the
City School District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Contract for
Transportation between the City of Bakersfield and the Bakersfield
City School District for transporting boys and girls to day camp,
was approved, and the Mayor was authorized to execute same.
Adoption of Resolution No. 42-73 of
the Council of the City of Bakersfield
declaring its intention to approve an
amendment to the contract between the
Board of Administration of the Public
Employees Retirement System and the
City of Bakersfield.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 16
Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No.
42-73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield declaring its
intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the
Board of Administration of the Public Employees Retirement System
and the City of Bakersfield, was adopted by the following roll
call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey,
Medders, Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
Adoption of Resolution No. 43-73 deter-
mining and declaring that the Public
interest, Convenience and Necessity of
the City of Bakersfield require the
construction and maintenance of a new
Police Building and Facilities on Lots
3 and 4, Block 315, City of Bakersfield,
and that the Public Interest, Convenience
and Necessity demand the acquisition of
certain real property, and further
declaring the intention of the City of
Bakersfield to acquire said property
under Eminent Domain Proceedings, and
directing the City Attorney of the
City of Bakersfield to commence an
action in the Superior Court of the
State of California, in and for the
County of Kern, for the purpose of
acquiring said property.
Councilman Rogers stated he would like to recognize Mrs.
Edna Buster who wished to make a brief statement at this time.
Mrs. Buster commented that entering into eminent domain
proceedings circumvents the statutory constitutional rights of
the property owner, and she considers this regional government
taking over in the City.
Councilman Bleecker commented that under the laws of
the State of California and ordinances of the City of Bakersfield
the City has the right to acquire property in the interests of all
people of the City; otherwise, the City would not be able to
expand and continue orderly growth of the conununity.
Councilman Strong stated he doesn't see any real urgency
involved with acquiring Dr. Sheldon's property at this time to the
point that he and the City could not be given the opportunity to
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 17
arrive at some equitable agreement on the value of his property.
For that reason, he urged the Council to allow the staff more
time to contact Dr. Sheldon in a formal way, and for the City
not to use its power to commence an action
Court for the acquisition of the property.
Councilman Bleecker stated it was
the City Attorney that there was an impasse
in the Superior
indicated earlier by
reached, the owner
of the property has not come up with an appraisal on his own.
One very important remark made by the City Attorney should be
brought out again, and that is, it is the duty of this Council
to be fair, it is also the duty of the City Attorney in private
negotiations to try to acquire that property for as low a price
as possible in the interests of all taxpayers. By filing this
condemnation procedure, the property owner still has another
thirty days or more from the date this is accomplished to bring
in his own appraisal, to try to negotiate with the City, and
possibly it wouldn't have to go to court. It is the duty of the
City to buy this property based on a fair market value and in
his opinion this Resolution should not be delayed.
Councilman Rogers inquired if delaying this Resolution
until the next Council meeting, would slow up the normal pro-
cedure of construction of this building.
Mr. Bergen stated that the City does not have the
right of immediate possession, and the condemnation proceedings
could run into an estimated nine months. The preliminary plans
and specifications can be ready in about six months to go to
bid, so there would be some delay before any action can be
taken by the City to proceed with the construction of the
building.
Mayor Hart asked if this action were initiated to-
night, and the property owner should change his mind, could
this be negotiated later with the City without going into court.
Mr. Hoagland remarked that the City has had five or six
hundred condemnations and only a very few of them go to court, even
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 18
though the City files. This can be negotiated any time during the
period of filing and the trial, or in many instances the Attorney
will call and ask for additional time in which to answer. The
City attempts to negotiate with property owners, it is not in
favor of going to trial whenever it can be avoided.
After additional discussion, Councilman Rogers stated in
light of this discussion, he would move that consideration of
the Resolution be postponed until the next regular Council meeting.
Vote taken on this motion failed to carry as follows:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Rogers.
NOES: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Medders
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
ABSTAIN: Councilman Heisey.
Upon a motion by Councilman Whittemore, Resolution No.
43-73 determining and declaring that the Public Interest, Con-
venience and Necessity of the City of Bakersfield require the
construction and maintenance of a new Police Building and
Facilities on Lots 3 and 4, Block 315, City of Bakersfield, and
that the Public Interest, Convenience and Necessity demand the
acquisition of certain real property, and further declaring the
intention of the City of Bakersfield to acquire said property under
Eminent Domain Proceedings, and directing the City Attorney of
the City of Bakersfield to commence an action in the Superior
Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Kern,
for the purpose of acquiring said property, was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Whittemore, Bleecker, Medders
NOES: Councilmen Strong, Rogers
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
ABSTAIN: Councilman Heisey
Councilman Strong qualified his "no" vote by stating that
he is in favor of the building and he is in favor of the resolution,
but in this particular case he feels every effort should be made to
voluntarily come to an agreement for the acquisiton of the property.
218
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 19
He asked the press if any comments are made, to make his position
clear to the public.
Councilman Rogers stated he would like to ditto Mr.
Strong's position, and he therefore voted "no."
Adoption of Resolution No. 44-73 of
Intention to include within the Greater
Bakersfield Separation of Grade District
a portion of certain territory designated
as "Stockdale No. 7" and setting the time
and place for hearing objections to the
inclusion of said territory within said
District.
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 44-
73 of Intention to include within the Greater Bakersfield
Separation of Grade District a portion of certain territory
designated as"Stockdale No. 7" and setting July 23, 1973, in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall for hearing objections to
the inclusion of said territory within said District, was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey,
Medders, Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
Mayor authorized to notify the Greater
Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit Dis-
trict of the transfer of Transit
Employees to the District.
The physical properties of the City Transit System have
been transferred to the Greater Bakersfield Metropolitan Transit
District by sale and lease. Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
the Mayor was authorized to notify the District that the City now
wishes to complete the full transfer whereby Transit Employees
will become employees of the District, effective June 24, 1973.
Approval of Request of Finance Director
for authorization to write-off Uncollect-
ible Accounts Receivable.
After discussion, upon a motion by Councilman Heisey,
the Finance Director was authorized to write-off Uncollectible
Accounts Receivable totaling $110.00, with collection efforts
to be continued.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 20
219
Acceptance of Work, and Mayor authorized
to execute Notice of Completion of the
Installation of Security Lighting at
Patriots Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Medders, the Work was
accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute the Notice of
Completion for the Installation of Security Lighting at Patriots
Park. Liquidated damages in the amount of $250.00 will be
assessed against the contractor, as the completion date was
exceeded by five days.
Acceptance of Work and Mayor authorized
to execute Notice of Completion of the
Construction of Tennis Courts at Siemon
Park.
Upon a motion by Councilman Rogers, the Work was
accepted, and the Mayor was authorized to execute Notice of Com-
pletion of the Construction of Tennis Courts at Siemon Park.
The contract completion date was exceeded by forty days; however,
the Public Works Department recommends the contract time be ex-
tended for that period because the work was completed except for
the controller, which could not be obtained from the supplier
until June 12, 1973.
Councilman Rogers asked the Public Works Director if an
additional surface would be put on these courts. Mr. Bidwell
stated coating and striping of the court will be done by the
City forces some time this week.
Adoption of Resolution No. 45-73 of
the Council authorizing execution of
a Grant Agreement between the City
and the United States of America,
Secretary of Housing and Urban Devel-
opment.
Upon a motion by Councilman Strong, Resolution No. 45-73
of the Council authorizing execution of a Grant Agreement between
the City and the United States of America, Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development for the construction of a storm drain system
in the Mayflower area (Virginia Street between Haley Street and
Owens Street), was adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Councilmen Strong, Whittemore, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders.
None
Councilman Thomas
ABqTAIN: Councilman Rogers.
22O
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 21
Hearings.
This is the time set for public hearing concerning the
adoption of three elements of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan - (1) Open Space Element, (2) Conservation Element,
and (3) Amendment to Land Use Element.
Councilman Heisey, Chairman of the Water and City -
Growth Committee read a report on the adoption of these three
elements as follows:
As you know, the General Plan consists of a statement
of development policies, including map and text setting forth
objectives, principles, standards and plan proposals to guide
City growth, and by State law the City is required to include
at least eight different elements in the General Plan. The
three elements listed above are among those which are required;
others include the Housing, Circulation, which have been adopted,
and Seismic Safety, Noise and Scenic Highway Elements, which
must be adopted no later than one year following the adoption of
State guidelines for the preparation of such elements. The
Council Committee at its meeting of June 14th dealt only with
the three elements listed above.
The Open Space Element is concerned with the preservation
of open space, recognizing that open space land is a limited and
valuable resource which should be conserved whenever possible.
The Conservation Element is concerned with the conser-
vation, development and utilization of natural resources. It
includes plans for water, hydraulic forces of water, forests,
soils, rivers, fisheries, wildlife, minerals and other natural
resources. The sections dealing with water were developed in
coordination with the Kern County Water Agency.
The Land Use Element designates the proposed general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the
land for residential, commercial and industrial, open space,
public buildings and grounds and other categories of public and
private uses of land. The test of this element is proposed to
be amended to define residential densities within neighborhoods.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 22
Because of State-mandated deadlines, it appears
essential that the above-described elements be adopted by the
Council at its June 18th meeting. The law requires the Open
Space Element to be adopted no later than June 30, 1973. We
are advised that if the City fails to adopt it on or before
June 30th, the City would not be able to issue valid building
permits, approve subdivision maps or adopt valid open space
zoning ordinances. The law also requires that the Conservation
Element be adopted no later than June 30, 1973. It appears
that /he Land Use Element must now be revised so that City
Zoning Ordinances will be consistent with it and the State law
states that City Zoning Ordinances shall be consistent with the
General Plan by July 1, 1973.
It should be made clear that adoption of these elements
at this time does not make them permanent. They are "living"
documents and therefore subject to change at any time following
the same procedure employed for their adoption, that is with
two public hearings.
This Committee recommends adoption of the Open Space
Element, Conservation Element and Amendment to the Land Use
Element at the Council meeting of June 18, 1973.
In view of the time element explained above, it is recom-
mended thaf no substantial changes be made in the Elements as
approved by the Planning Commission. Once adopted, changes can
be made at subsequent meetings as deemed desirable or necessary.
Changes in the present drafts would require resubmission to the
Planning Commission.
Councilman Heisey stated that he, himself, has several
reservations in regards to some parts of these Elements and he
knows that different groups in the community are also concerned.
It appears from advice of counsel that the only proper action is
to adopt these Elements and immediately ask the Planning Commission
to hold a public hearing to reconsider those sections which need
to be further amended.
222
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 23
Councilman Rogers agreed that this is the proper action
since there is a State-mandated time limit and there is a pro-
cedure for changing or amending any sections which the Council
wishes to change later.
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. Mr. Lee Shockey, representing Pacific Gas and Electric's
Land Department, filed a letter from the company requesting that
three items be deleted from the Open Space Element pertaining to
utility lines. It was suggested that this letter be referred to
the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Edna Buster expressed her opposition to adoption
of these Elements; this is a classic example of regional govern-
ment. Councilman Rogers explained this is a State-mandate and
the Council has no other course except to adopt these elements
at this time in order to meet the State deadline.
Councilman Bleecker commented that he realizes the
importance of this report and the time element involved, but
there isn't any State law which prohibited the Planning Com-
mission from acting on this matter a long time ago and working
on the inequities mentioned by Councilman Heisey. He objects
strongly to being forced to adopt something he knows nothing
about under the threat of a time limit. He asked the earliest
possible date the Planning Commission could have held its
hearings and submitted the report to the Budget Review and Fin-
ance Committee for presentation to the Council.
Mr. Dean Gay, member of the Planning Commission, stated
that the Commission understands the feelings of some of the
Councilmen, and they can be assured that the Planning Commission
is equally upset regarding the things which are State-mandated
to this community as well as all the other communities in the
State of California. AB 1301 was passed in 1970 on which one
moratorium extension was granted and now that moratorium has
ended. There has been considerable confusion at the State level
as to the wording of this law.
One of the ambiguities is the mandate that the Elements
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 24
be consistent with the general plan, and the Planning Commission.
has not as yet been able to obtain a clear definition of the
meaning of "consistency." Mr. Gay stated that the commission
devoted considerable time in the fall and spring due to the
"Friends of Mammoth" decision which mandated environmental impact
reports on all private projects. The Planning staff has been
bogged down with EIR's, as a report was prepared for every
project and every rezoning in the community.
He stated the Council can rest assured that the Plan-
ning Commission will delve into this thing immediately and attempt
to make it a good instrument. It is important to remember that
on July 1, 1973 this City must still have the right to issue
building permits and approve subdivisions, and this cannot be
done if these elements are not adopted as part of the General Plan.
Mr. Charles Leach, Assistant City Attorney, stated he
did not have anything to add to Mr. Gay's explanation. The Gov-
ernment Code specifically states that no valid building permit
can be issued, subdivisions approved, or open space zoning ordi-
nances adopted if the City does not have these elements included
in the General Plan prior to June 30, 1973.
Furthermore, the zoning ordinances adopted in past yea]cs
will be validated by the adoption of the amendment to the Land Use
Element of the General Plan. This is extremely important because
the ordinances must be consistent with the General Plan. The
report indicates that amendments can be made in the same manner
that it is adopted tonight.
Councilman Bleecker stated he wasn't concerned with the
fact that changes can be made; he is concerned with the State
mandate. He doesn't even know what these elements are and he is
being asked to adopt something which is apparently very important.
He has been highly critical of the Planning Commission in the
past because it takes so long for the Commission to submit infor-
mation to the Council. If this is not adopted prior to June 30,
1973 and the City continues to issue building permits, what would
be the State's position.
224
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 25
Mr. Leach stated every building permit issued would
be suspect, it will be presumably invalid. The Building Director
can continue to issue these permits, but such action could very
well be challenged and held invalid, builders could be damaged,
and developers and builders would not be able to get funding.
The law states that these elements must be adopted not later
than June 30, 1973.
Mr. Hoagland added that by June 30, or July 1, 1973
the Zoning Ordinance must be consistent with the General Plan,
the amendment to the Land Use Element is bringing this element
up to the point where it is consistent with the City's past
zoning. The Open Space Element and Conservation Element are
new elements.
Mr. Gay pointed out that the Planning Commission has
done the work on these three elements. The problem is if the
Commission did not do so, the State will come in and do it. This
must be prevented, because in order to have good planning and
orderly development and growth, the City must retain local control.
The Council must make the decisions not the State. There may be
an opportunity in the future to push legislation that would amend
or even rescind AB 1301. Over two years ago when the California
Real Esfate Association went on record against this Bill they
could not muster enough strength at the State Legislature to
prevent its passing. It is unbelievable the work which has been
mandated to the Planning Commission from AB 1301.
Councilman Strong asked Mr. Gay if there were provisions
for updating the Plan, and if the State had a timetable for that.
Mr. Gay stated he is sure the State expects the Planning Com-
mission to keep it up, although he is not certain, he hasn't read
it in the law; however, the Planning Commission will continually
update it.
Director of Planning Sceales stated he doesn't recall
that the law says it has to be updated, but the City couldn't do
anything, make any changes, unless the Plan was updated periodi-
cally, otherwise, the Plan would stay as it is indefinitely.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 26
225
Mrs. Edna Buster again addressed the Council, urging
the Council to read the literature previously presented on
regional government, and charging that these elements are part of
regional government and an attempt to take away local control.
Mr. Jim French stated this is regional government and
regional planning, Mr. Gay has stated that he wants to keep it
under local control, but the City has already lost local control.
The City has to stand up and fight, starting with the elimination
of KERNCOG, revenue sharing and federal grants.
Mayor Hart closed the public portion of the hearing,
and returned to the Council for deliberation and action.
Councilman Bleecker stressed that he cannot vote for a
report which he knows nothing about and doesn't understand,
whether the City can issue building permits or not.
Councilman Heisey commented that the interpretation of
all State Legislation eventually winds up in the courts. However,
the State would help if it gave clearer definitions of what the
laws mean. All the City can do is to work with what it has and
try to see that this City's General Plans are in conformity as
the Council understands it. He does not want the City put in the
position of not being able to issue building permits and if it
were done, have them challenged, invalid, with the result that
no lending institution would be willing to make a loan on con-
struction, in the City. It is imperative for the good of the
community that these Elements be adopted. He does believe that
a Resolution should be adopted unanimously and sent to the State
Legislature urging the amendment or repeal of the onerous laws
which have forced this on communities.
Councilman Rogers urged every member of the Council to
read the ~eport that was given to them by Mr. Charlton some weeks
ago on regional government written by Mrs. Bernadette Smith, which
very clearly shows just what regional government is and the plans
the Federal Government has for every acre of land in the entire
226
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 27
United States. As suggested by Mr. Gay, the Council should try
to get this law repealed. He is completely opposed to any part
of regional government, however, until the law is repealed
there is nothing anyone can do. In order to keep from stopping
the ongoing process of building permits and financing in the
City of Bakersfield, he sees very little choice except to adopt
the elements.
After some additional Council discussion, upon a
motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 46-73 adopting the
Open Space Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Whirremote, Heisey, Medders, Rogers.
NOES: Councilman Bleecker
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 47-
73 of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting the Con-
servation Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General
Plan was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Rogers.
NOES: Councilman Bleecker
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
Upon a motion by Councilman Heisey, Resolution No. 48-73
of the Council of the City of Bakersfield adopting an amendment
to the Laud Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area
General Plan, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Whittemore, Heisey, Medders, Rogers,
NOES: Councilman Bleecker
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
This is the time set for hearing before the Council on
Resolution of Intention No. 891 declaring its intention to order
the vacation of a small portion of the W~ of the extension of
Union Avenue, lying adjacent to Tract 3538, north of Panorama.
Notice of this hearing has been duly posted. Request
for vacation was made by Dean A. Gay of Watson Realty.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 28
227
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections being received, upon a motion
by Councilman Bleecker, Resolution No. 49-73 ordering the vacation
of a small portion ofthe W½ of the extension of Union Avenue,
lying adjacent to Tract 3538, north of Panorama, was adopted by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
This is the time set for public hearing on application
by James T. Wattenbarger to amend the zoning boundaries from an
R-2-D (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling - Architectural Design)
Zone to a C-O (Professional Office), or more restrictive, Zone,
to a C-1 (Limited Commercial), or more restrictive, Zone, and to
an MH (Mobilhome), or more restrictive, Zone, of those certain
properties located on the east side of San Dimas Street and south
of West Columbus.
This hearing has been duly advertised and posted and
notices sent to property owners as required by ordinance.
It was the opinion of the planning Commission that the
C-1 and C-O uses, as Proposed, would be compatible zoning with t]~e
immediate area. However, the Commission was of the opinion the
long, narrow strip proposed for MH is not of sufficient size to
lend itself to acceptable MH development, and therefore recommended
denial of this request.
The Planning Commission further felt the "D" Overlay
should be applied to the requested C-1 and C-O Zonings to insure
a compatible development within this expanding neighborhood. A
negative declaration was filed and posted in accordance with
regulations contained in Resolution No. 23-73, providing for
evaluation and preparation of Environmental Impact Reports where
required.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 29
Mayor Hart declared the hearing open for public partici-
pation. No protests or objections were received. Mr. James L.
Wattenbarger, applicant, addressed the Council on behalf of his
father and himself, stating that they feel the recommendation by
the Planning Commission to deny the MH zoning is unjust. This
does not create a public health hazard, it is compatible with
the general development of the area.
Mr. Jim Wattenbarger pointed out to the Council that
this strip of land is 40 feet wide, there are two canals on one
side, it has a transmission line for P. G. & E. who owns the
land in fee. He is trying to put this small parcel of land into
use and he explained his plans for development if the MH zoning
is granted.
Councilman Bleecker asked what reasons were given at
the Planning Commission hearing for denying the proposed MH zoning.
Mr. Wattenbarger stated he felt it was personal reasons. The
question of the expense to build a concrete fence was brought up,
but they were not asking for a price breakdown, only rezoning.
Before they can even go ahead with a study on what type of con-
struction they can place on this area, it must be rezoned. It
will be a unique place to put a row of nice mobilhomes.
Director of Planning Sceales stated the Planning Com-
mission denied this MH zoning because they felt the strip was
too narrow, and the ordinance requires that a masonry wall be
constructed entirely around the project which would be about one-
half mile of wall. Mr. Wattenbarger had proposed twenty or more
trailers, and the ordinance provides for 16 or 17. The ordinance
provides two access points, and only one was proposed. It was
the Commission's feelings that this type of development, almost
one-half mile long and one trailer wide, is not the proper way
to develop a trailer park.
Mr. James Wattenbarger added that they have to have the
MH zoning before they can pursue any design work which would be
functional in the area or come back with a plan for development
of the proposed Mobilhome parcel.
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 30
Mayor Hart closed the public portion of the hearing,
and returned to the Council for deliberation and action.
After additional Council discussion, Councilman Heisey
moved that the hearing be continued for thirty days, as he would
like to look the area over so the Council would know more definitely
what can be worked out.
Mr. Wattenbarger objected to holding up action on this
rezoning for thirty days as they are anxious to commence work on
the projects planned for the front of the property. He stated
they would be willing to accept the Planning Commission's recom-
mendation to deny the MH zoning at this time, as they do not want
to hold up the balance of the rezoning applied for and recommended
by the Planning Commission.
Councilman Heisey withdrew his motion to defer action
for thirty days. Upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, Ordinance
No. 2103 New Series amending Title Seventeen of the Municipal
Code by changing the Land Use Zoning of those certain properties
located on the east side of San Dimas Street and south of West
Columbus Street to C-O and C-1 zoning with "D" Overlay, and to
deferring action on the MH (Mobilhome) portion of the request
for 30 days, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Strong, Whirremote, Bleecker, Heisey, Medders,
Rogers.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilman Thomas
Councilman Heisey formally moved to direct the Planning
Commission to proceed with additional publ~ hearings to consider
certain amendments to the three Elements of the General Plan.
This will give interested persons a chance to be heard and enable
the Commission to make certain amendments as previously recommended.
This motion carried unanimously.
230
Bakersfield, California, June 18, 1973 - Page 31
Adjournment.
There being no further business to come before the
Council, upon a motion by Councilman Bleecker, the meeting was
adjourned at 11:00 o'clock P.M.
M~ty of Bakersfield
ATTEST:
of the City of Bakersfield, California