HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/29/94 BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
July 29, 1994
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR 'AND CITY COUNC!h/_
FROM: ALAN TANDY, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION
1. We have it, verbally, that with some very minor language amendments to the
Habitat Conservation Plan, it will finally be approved. Since they have a
tendency to "back off" and reconsider, I am reluctant to say that this is
absolute. However, there is a plan to have the minor amendments on your
August lOth agenda for approval.
2. The franchise agreement with Warner Cable ends in August of 1997. They
have initiated an action to start extension discussions.
3. A list is enclosed of the subcontractors, as currently exist, on the Hotel.
For those marked "potentially local," it is my understanding that they have
a preferred subcontractor, but have not finalized and executed the
agreements.
4. The meeting between Mayors/Managers and the County Supervisors over the tax
split issue has been scheduled for September 6th. The City Managers will
have a meeting in advance of that with Joe Drew, and we will have at least
one organizational meeting among ourselves, prior to the meeting with Drew,
to prepare how the presentation will go.
5. Did you know that, if a candidate is not opposed in a Ward election, the
Council can save the election expenses by appointing candidates to those
posts? We do not know yet whether this circumstance will occur this year,
however, we wanted to make you aware that it is an option you have
available. There will be a fairly short time deadline, after the filing
date, for making a decision. I suppose the argument against is that it
eliminates the potential for write in candidates. On the other hand, if it
saves $15,000 - $20,000, perhaps it merits your consideration. Again, this
assumes that the circumstance occurs - we do not know yet whether it will.
6. We met again with the County on the Fire Fund issue this week. The CAO
indicates that the language I sent out last week would be acceptable to
him, and that he will recommend it to the Board. However, before the Board
can consider the document, the CAO and I have to meet with a County Union
representative. That is being scheduled for next week. This will mean a
delay in consideration of the Agreement until at least the second meeting
in August, and that assumes there are no more surprises!
7. We are down to 150 non-compliant URM structures. You may recall that we
were at around 200 when this subject was at the height of controversy - so
we are making some progress.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
July 29, 1994
Page -2-
8. The next agenda, for August lOth, will be more of a normal workload -
neither extremely heavy, as June 29th was, nor extremely light, as has been
the case in the past two meetings.
9. With some of the Councilmembers out of town, a number of staff people on
vacation, and a group of staff out touring computers/computer software
applications in other cities, it has been the quietest week I have
experienced here in City Hall.
10. With regard to the computer project, as indicated above, we have had people
out doing field tours of optional hardware and software. We should know
fairly soon whether or not this verifies what we need. The delays we have
experienced have been due to the difficulty in finding tested applications
for all of the primary uses we need.
11. You may recall that a horseshoe club, hosting a state championship, was in
at your last meeting to ask for construction of six additional courts.
Frank Fabbri has run the cost of doing that - it is estimated at around
$6,000, which is not budgeted. They also gave us very little lead time.
Frank is checking with the host club as to whether or not they are willing
to share in the cost or the workload to accomplish it. I will keep you
advised.
12. Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent by the County to Senator Rogers in
opposition of AB 2788 (Brown).
13. The results of a poll published in Nation's Business regarding the Davis-
Bacon Law (prevailing wage) is enclosed, for your information.
14. Enclosed is a memo from the Planning Director regarding the Western
Rosedale Specific Plan.
15. Responses to Council Referrals and inquiries are enclosed regarding Mesa
Marin's CUP, lot modifications and wall heights, maintenance districts and
park funds.
16. A memo from the City Clerk responding to an inquiry on election costs is
enclosed.
AT.alb
Enclosures
cc: Department Heads
City Clerk
CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL
Subcontracts
Trade Local · Union
Concrete Yes Yes
Electrical No No
Mechanical No Yes
Plumbing e No No
Drywall Potentially Local No
Doors & Hardware Potentially Local No
Paint Potentially Local ?
Floor Covering Potentially Local ?
Post-it" Fax Note 7671 Da~/JO!'' t. c{k.~pages#°f
o./Dept·· . <3.
Phone ~ ' P~ u
Fax ~_ Fax ~
BAKERSFIELD
Alan Tandy · City Manager
,July 25, 1994
Mr. Joe Drew
County Administrative Officer
County of Kern
1115 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Dear Mr. Drew:
At our meeting on July 19th, you indicated the County had taken a new position on
elements of the JPA and Settlement Agreement. You went on to indicate, essentially,
that there would be no compromise and 'that it was, in fact, a "deal breaker."
Surely, after 1-1/2 years of negotiations, a new bottom line has not been drawn
without even consulting us on legal constraints, and without letting us detail the
political sensitivity of the issue from our side? Surely, the intent of the County must
be to deal with this subject as positively as possible to resolve the dispute, not to
draw an uncompromising new bottom line as you have portrayed?
At issue is the lateral transfer of the six County employees to the City. The City,
please recognize, functions with a Charter which creates three Civil Service
Commissions, including one for Fire. In order to get to the point of the of the existing
draft JPA and settlement agreements, we have already held three meetings with the
Fire Civil Service Commission and have substantially modified their rules.
You have asked that all testing be waived for the employees to be transferred and
that they not serve a probationary period. We have reviewed what can be done in
that regard, and we are attempting, as best we are able, to address the underlying
concerns behind your request. The best we can come up with is as follows:
1. Physical agility. If the applicants will sign a waiver so that we can access their
files to review medical history and previous agility test results, this can be
waived.
2. Oral interviews. You asked that this be limited to a process which ranks the
candidates relative only to placement on the lateral transfer list. We have a
City of Bakersfield · City Manager's Office · 1501 Truxtun Avenue
Bakersfield · California · 93301
Mr. Joe' Drew
County Administrative Officer
July 25, 1994
Page -2-
legal problem doing that because Civil Service Rule 4(a) is in conflict - a score
above 70 is essential for placement on the eligibility list. As a practical matter,
however, we think the only thing that will happen is the ranking. A failed oral
exam for an academy graduate who has two or more years of experience is
highly unlikely.
To alleviate your concerns, however, we propose an interview panel that
consists of one County representative (you, Chief McCarthy, or whoever you
wish), Morgan Clayton, who is the current President of the Chamber of
Commerce, and one City representative. Surely, with such a panel, your
concerns are addressed.
3. No probationary period. Probation in the Fire Service is required by our
Charter, a copy of which is attached with the section being marked. Only the
voters of Bakersfield can modify it--not staff or the Council. In an effort to
alleviate your concerns, however, we will contractually agree that should any
transferred employee be terminated during probation, we accept appeal of
such decision to a neutral, third-party arbitrator, such as the American
Arbitrators Association, an Administrative Law Judge, or such other entity we
might mutually agree to.
4. Medical examinations and drug testing. In 1994, we see no reason why
anyone would object to this. You are familiar with the liabilities associated with
not performing due diligence on employer-employee relationships. This must
occur. We hire no one in this organization without this step.
In addition to offering the County a seat on the oral interview panel, we extend an
opportunity to monitor any and all aspects of the hiring process. You may name
yourself, your Fire Chief, or whoever you wish to monitor the integrity of the process.
We understand that deep and longstanding mistrust exists between our two unions
and that your requests emanate from that. I assure you on behalf of the Mayor, City
Council, Fire Chief and myself, that this process will be conducted in good faith and
with integrity. I also remind you in California, the doctrine of "good faith and fair
dealing" applies to the formation of all contracts. A violation of this doctrine by the
City would give rise to a cause of action to resolve the County's concerns.
Mr. Joe Drew
County Administrative Officer
July 25, 1994
Page -3-
I respectfully request that this letter be shared in its original form with Mr. Ahl and the
Board of Supervisors.
You have indicated you would review the Stine #10 annexation and get back to us.
We are awaiting your response.
I am prepared to respond to questions or concerns. It is long past the time for this
issue to be resolved.
CHARTER
of the State of California, the Civil Code of the RELIEF AND PENSION FUND FOR
State of Callfornia, the code of Civil Procedure of MEMBERS OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT
California, shall be and are hereby made the rules OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
of construction and interpretation and the deft-
nitions' for this Charter, except where otherwise (Repealed November 5, 1968).
provided herein. (Amended November 3, 1964).
(b) Any section added or amended shall
supersede any conflicting provision of a pre- CIVIL SERVICE FOR THE FIRE
viously existing section. DEPARTMENT
(c) If any section, subsection, clause or phrase
ofthis Charter is for any reason held to be uncon-
stitutional, such decision shall not affect the (Amendment to the Ctmrter ofJanuary 20, 1931)
vailidity of any other section, subsection, clause
or phrase of this Charter. (Amended November Section (183) 1. The Civil Service Board
'8, 1988). shall consist of three (3) members, appointed by
the City Council, who shall be residents of the
Meaning of Words City throughout their terms~ but who otherwise
Section 163. Whenever in this Charter shall have no connection with City government.
either the masculine or feminine gender is used, Members shall be appointed for terms of three
it shall be deemed to include the other. Upon (3) years. Vacancies shall be filled by appoint-
republication of this Charter, words which are ment for the unexpired term. Within sixty (60)
gender neutral shall be substituted for words days after ratification of this amendment, the
denoting specific gender. The following words City Council shall reappoint the incumbent
have, in this Charter the signification attached to members for terms of three (3), two (2), and one
them in this connection, unless otherwise appar- (1) years, the three (3) year term to be that of the
ent from context: incumbent with the longest remaining term, the
The word "elector" shall mean qualified regis- one (1) year term to be that of the incumbent
tered electors under the election law of Califor- with the shortest remaining term. Members may
nia, and whose names are in the current great be removed from office in the same manner as
register of the County of Kern, and who are are elective officers of the City or by unanimous
entitled to vote in the precinct or ward where vote of the Council members allowed by law to
they reside, vote. (Amended November 8, 1988).
"Council" shall mean the Council of the City
of Bakersfield, as the governing body thereofi (Section 184 was repealed on November 8,
"City" shall mean the City of Bakersifield. 1988).
(Amended November 8, 1988: amended
November 3, 1964). Section (185) 3. The Civil Service Board
shall formulate rules and regulations governing
Presentation of Papers and Petitions the selection, promotion and discipline of mere-
Section 164. Papers and petitions bers ofthe Fire Department which rules shall, to
addressed to the Council shall be deemed pre- the extent deemed feasible by said Board, be
sented when filed with the Clerk. consistent with such rules of the other two Civil
Service Boards and shall be enforced consistently
as to all members, officers and personnel of the
Fire Department. The Council may recommend :
(Bakcmficld 2-80) C-26
amendment or repeal of existing rules and adoption Section (189) 7. Appointment or promotion to
of new rules to said Board. All officers shall employment or rank shall not be deemed complete
belong to the classified service and shall be until a period of probation not to exceed six (6)
appointed and promoted for no other grounds and months has elapsed. Should appointees fail to
for no other reason than their fimess for the complete the promotional probationary period,
position to be filled: provided, however, that no they shall return to their former permanent
member of the Fire Department shall be eligible for position. (Amended November 8, 1988).
promotion until he shall have served at least three ~ '~
years in such Department and that in subsequent Section (190) 8. If discharged or reduced after
promotions the member must have held the rank expiration of the period of probation, the employee
from which he is promoted at least one (1) year. so discharged or reduced may demand a trial,
Promotions shall be made only to the next higher whereupon he shall be tried as provided in the
grade in the service and no grade shall be skipped; section referring to Suspensions and Removals.
provided, however, that any member of the Fire
Department, who has served not less than three Section (191) 9. The City Manager, Chief of
years in such Deparanent, may be appointed Chief the Fire Department or Civil Service Board in
of the Fire Department All officers or members whom shall be vested removal or disciplinary
shall be chosen or promoted by the City Manager, power shall be allowed full freedom in his or its
or his designee, whenever a list of eligibles shall action in such matters, it being the intent and spirit
be furnished to the Civil Service Board, from the of this amendment to provide a fair and honest
three (3) highest standing candidates on the list. approach to employment and subsequent
(Amended June 2, 1992: amended November 8, promotion in such Department but, in no sense, to
1988). handicap or curtail the responsible administrative
officer or officers in securing efficient service.
Section (186) 4. It shall be the duty of the Civil
Service Board, or their designee, to hold (Sections 192 and 193 were repealed on
examinations and to administer other suitable tests November 8, 1988)..
to those desiring positions or who are applicants
for or who may have been recommended for Chief of the Fire Department
promotion in the classified service of the Fire 'Section (194) 12. The Chief of the Fire
Department for the purpose of determining their Department shall be appointed, without
fimess for such positions or their qualifications for examination, by the City Manager from among the
such promotions and. from the result of such membership of the Bakersfield Fire Department,
examinations and tests, the Boarcl shall prepare a and after appointment shall be removed or reduced
list of eligibles for all positions in the classified in rank only as provided for other members of the
service of the Fire Department. No member of classified service. The dismissal of the Chief of the
such Board shall sit as a member of the ratings Fire Department from the office, by the City
panel for any oral examination. (Amended June 2, Manager, shall not accomplish his dismissal from
1992: amended November 8, 1988). the Depanment, and upon such dismissal, he shall
be restored to the rank and grade held by him prior
(Sections 187 and 188 were repealed on to the appointment as Chief of the Fire
November 8, 1988). Deparanent.
C-27 (Bak,"r~fiald 9-92)
~~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SUPERVISORS SUE PICKEI'r
ROY ASHBURN District No. 1 Clerk of Bo-nj of Supewlsor~
BEN AUSTIN District No. 2 Kern County Administrative Center
PAULINE LARWOOD District No. 3 1115 Truxtun Avenue, 5th Floor
KENNETH W. PETERSON District No. 4 Bekersfleld, Cellfomla 93301
MARY K. SHELL District No. 5 Telephone (805)861-2167
July 19, 1994
Senator Don Rogers
5064 Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Rogers:
The Kern County Board of .Supervisors urges you to oppose AB 2788 (Brown), which was
recently amended by the Senate Local Government Committee. This legislation was proposed
in lieu of legislation authored by Assemblyman Mountjoy, which would have imposed an
impossibly high maintenance of effort 0VIOE) on local government in order to receive public
safety funds from the half-cent sales tax established by Proposition 172.
As you know, our Board strenuously opposes any maintenance of effort tied to Proposition 172.
In our view, the most recent amendments to AB 2788 are just as objectionable and unworkable
as the original MOE legislation. Our concerns are as follows:
1. Some revenue sources that are included in the base-year public safety funding level are
disallowed in calculating the current-year maintenance of effort. How can a maintenance
of effort be accurately calculated if these funds are not discounted equally in both years?
This illogical and unfair provision stacks the deck against counties and dties before the
cards are even dealt.
2. The higher of 1992-93 or 1993-94 public safety funding levels must be used as the base
year. This provision would penalize the good faith efforts of our Board, which provided
the sheriff, fire, district attorney, public defender and probation departments with a
tollective budget increase of $8.4 million in 1993-94 despite ~ $36 million in property
taxes t-o the State budget. During the two years prior to Proposition 172, public.safety
received an increasing share of the County's discretionary use funds despite two straight
years of declining property taxes.
3. Local maintenance-of-effort increases annually with the Gann appropriations limit. The
Gann limit bears virtually no relation to the amount of funds available for local public
safety services. For example, Kern County's Gann limit has increased by 9.9% in the past
two years while the County's discretionary funds have fallen by 9.4%. Since 1991, our
discretionary use funds have dropped more than 22% and now total less than they did
in 1983. Moreover, an 11% decrease in property taxes for 1994-95 marks the third
assessed value decline for Kern County in the past four years. According to the "City
and County Fiscal Trends" report issued by the California Research Bureau, all counties
have had declining discretionary revenues since the property tax shift to schools.
RECEIVED
AB 2788
Page 2
Public safety already receives most of the County's discretionary funds, yet in order to meet the
requirements of AB 2788, we would have to cut another $10 million ~rom all non-public safety
budgets, causing a huge disruption in services to the public. Given the fiscal circumstances that
counties face in providing a wide range of mandated and discretionary services - including
public safety - it makes little sense to impose yet another mandate that neither Kern nor any
other county in California has the resources to fixlfill. We therefore ask you to oppose AB 2788
in its present form.
Sincerely,
Kern County Board of Supervisors
BA:AK\ab2788.1eg
cc: District Attorney
Fire
Probation
Public Defender
Sheriff
California State Association of Counties
Richard Ritts
City of Arvin
~-~City~f--Ba~ce-r-gfi~ltl~
City of California City
City of Delano
City of Maricopa
City of McFarland
City of Ridgecrest - -~
City of Shafter
city of Taft
City of Tehachapi
City of Wasco
SenaWr Don R~gers
5064 Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Rogers
Senator Phil Wyman
4062 Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Wyman
Senator Ken Maddy
305 Capitol Building
SacramenW, CA 95814
Dear Senator Maddy
Assembly Member Trice Harvey
4162 Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Harvey
Assembly Member Jim Costa
2158 Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Costa
-
~ -.;õ'
.. 'W'
NaUon's BusinOOB A\lguRt 1994 73
POLL RESULTS '. .
Readers' Views On
Davis-Bacon Law
The Davis-Bacon law mandating pay scales for tederally
a..¡sistcd COIlStntctÎon projects is no longer relevant to
today'alabol' market, in the view ot more than 80 percent
or the respondentB to a Where I Stand pan.
Readers who parUctpated In the June Natitm'fl Busi'1lßfls
survey were also strongly opposed to propoaala for extension of
the law's provisions and favored steps to make comp1ianee easi-
er.
When passed 60 years ago, the Davis-Bacon Act was intend-
ed to prevent Individuals competing for scarce jobs from under-
cutting one another on wages, It requires that workers on con-
struction project;¡¡ involving federal funds be paid the prevailing S American L~e Insurance Co.
wage for the particular region. In practice, however. the prevail-
inIJ wage is usually a union scale. Davis-Bacon critics say it adds
billions of dollars a year to labor costs. 4 BellSouth Corp.
Organized labor not only has been able to block repeal
attempts in Congress but also wants to expand the Jaw's caver- 15 Compaq
age ñ'Om construction sites to o!1'-site manufacturers of materi-
als for projects and to truckers carrying those materials.
While its eventual goal is repeal, business continues to seek 37 Cessna Aircraft Co.
modification of the law through such steps as an increase in the
dollar tht'BMold at which It takes effect.
Hel'B are the complete results of the Where I Stand poll on 31 Eagle's Nest Homes
proposed changes in the Davis-Bacon Act.
DAVIS-BACON' 13 Executive Seminars in Sound
"' ..
-Should the threshold for the Davis- 1. Yes 75% 44 Family Business Audio Program
Bacon ~'s prevailing-wage" 2.NQ' 22..
r:\unments be nlsid fnim $2,000 3. No opi~!on '.' s' 47 GNC ;
10 100,0001 '. . . ,
.Should contraCfÐrs cotered by the l.YeS 72% . 2 IBM Corp,
act be permitted to ceJ1ify.' . . 2.No.. 23.' I
co=aiJee In lieu of sullrnltllng 3. No opinion 5 80 Kelly Services
wee payroll reports.?
. Should tile act be extended to off. 1. Yes 9% I 59 United States Dept. of Justice
site manutacturers arid suPPliers of 2.No 88
construction materials as Well as 10 3. No Opinion 3 B Untted States Postal Service
truckers carrying Ihelr goods 10
projects?
:
-Should. individuals and unions, In 1. Yes 29% i
8ddUIon to Qovemment offlcløl8, 2. No 63
have autho~ to file complaints 01 3. No opinion 8
alleged viol OIlS of Davis-Bacon Fill out this coupon If ~ou fax ~our response.
provisions?
. Advocates of re~ealing the Davis- 1. Agree 81% Name nle
Bacon Act say is Depression-era 2. Disa!1l!e 16
law Is not relevant 10 tod~S labor 3. No opinion 3 Company
market. Whalls vour view !
. In delermlnln~he prev8lling wage Address
of an area for vis-Bacon purposes, 1. Yes 7% (;ity Slale ZIP
should the Labor Departmem 2. No 91 -- --
consider only the pay rates In union 3. tJo opinion 2 Mall to: Nation's Business, 1615 H Street. N.W..
con~ractB? WashinGton. D,C, 20062-2000 . FAX 10: 2D2J463-6696
. --- ...,-.~._. -"""-~"-"'_',--~-,~~~ ..:' . ", ..'. .' ".,..".' ,". '.".' . ~.., ..' '.. . .. ._- ~='. . "" .' . "'.. .
ë: -d ë: .ON 6JI68 1166J"gc;'¿8 a131~5~3~~a 13315 nH1~~~~W WO~~
MEMORANDUM
July 28, 1994
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager ~/
__
FROM: Jack Hardisty, Planning Dir~. CITY MAN:¥
SUBJECT: western Rosedale Specific/~l~n
On July 26, 1994 the Planning Advisory Agency considered the Western Rosedale Specific
Plan. After considerable public testimony the Planning Advisory Committee decided to
recommend a plan consistent with the Planning Department's recommendation. It should
be noted that the current Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan for the area
permitted a population of 54,000 at buildout. The plan recommended by the Planning
Advisory Committee permits a buildout of 48,000 population.
There were four special requests considered by the Planning Advisory Committee. Because
of the lack of documentation, traffic studies, noise studies, etc., it was determined that no
recommendation could be made on any of these requests and it was suggested to. the
developers that they should make this same request to the Board of Supervisors on
September 12, 1994.
The Planning Advisory Committee certified the Environmental Impact Report, determined
an alignment for the Western Beltway and made necessary environmental findings and
recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors.
MG:km
cc: Laura Marino, Assistant City Attorney
Fred Kloepper, Assistant Public Works Director
BAKERSFIELD
Jack Hardisty · Planning Director
RECEIVED
July 22, 1994
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
Mr. Marion Collins
Mesa Matin Raceway
P.O. Box 6217
Bakersfield, CA 93386
Re: CUP #5080 - Expiration of Permit to Hold Concerts
CUP #5216 - Compliance with Conditions of Approval for Racing Operations
Dear Mr. Collins:
The conditional use permit (CUP #5080) that allowed you to hold concerts at the
Mesa Matin Raceway expired on March 14, 1994. The extension of the conditional use
permit (CUP #5216) for the racing operations did not include continuation of concerts and
special events and I understand that you have scheduled a concert in violation of that
expiration date. No further concerts or special events (other than racing) will be permitted
unless the City Council grants a new conditional use permit that extends the time period.
Future violations will warrant legal action by the City. Mr. Eggert, Principal Planner, has
informed me that you plan on applying for another permit to conduct concerts.
Regarding the conditional use permit for your racing operations (CUP #5216), my
staff has completed an evaluation of your compliance with the conditions imposed by the
City Council on April 8, 1992 that extended racing activities until March 25, 2012. There
are four conditions that have not been satisfied which will require your immediate attention.
They are as follows:
1. Noise (condition No. 1) - The acoustical study dated June 3,
1994 clearly confirms that noise levels exceed the maximum
permitted at both the east (30-minute period) and west
(6-minute and 30-minute periods) property lines. The average
levels also exceed the maximum permitted of 65dB(A) at all
property lines. In addition, since racing activities are noted to
occur past 10 p.m., these levels are further exceeded as the
maximum levels permitted are reduced 5dB(A).
City of Bakersfield · Development Services · 1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield · California · 93301
(805) 326-3733 · Fax (805) 327-0646
Marion Collins
July 22, 1994
Page 2
2. Fencing (condition No. 7) - You were required to install an
eight-foot high chain-link fence with slats for screening along
both the northerly and westerly property lines by March t4,
1994. This condition has not been satisfied.
3. Landscaping of earthen berm (condition No. 9.d.) - Although
most of the earthen berm is landscaped with maintained ground
cover, portions of the western and northern sides are still dirt
with some erosion taking place.
4. Signs (condition Nos. 9.a. and 9.e.) - Access driveways for
entrances and exits were required to be identified with signs.
The existing pavement arrows are insufficient. In addition, one
illegal freestanding sign that identifies the "slick track" still
exists along State Highway 184. This sign needs to be removed.
The conditions imposed by the City Council for your project were required to be
either satisfied immediately or by specific time periods as identified in the particular
condition. Compliance of the above mentioned conditions shall be completed within the
next 30 days or your permit will be reviewed by the City Council for possible revocation.
With respect to the noise levels as identified in item number 1 above, you will need to
provide a realistic plan that can be implemented in a timely manner that will assure that.
noise levels will not exceed maximum permitted levels. The noise was supposed to be under
control by this racing season. You may need to have your acoustical consultant prepare
some models, if you have not already done so, with recommendations of how to adequately
mitigate these excessive noise levels. Please deliver the documented plan to Mr. Eggert by
5 p.m., August 5, 1994. Corrective action should be taken by September 1, 1994.
Please feel free to contact me at your convenience regarding these matters.
O or
JE:km
cc: Councilwoman Pat Smith
Alan Tandy, City Manager
//tmcsa
BAKERSFIELD
Jack Hardisty · Planning Director
July 22, 1994
Mr. James L. Nickel
Bravo Management Company, Inc.
6200 Lake Ming Road
Bakersfield, CA 93306
Re: CUP Nos. 5080 and 5216 - Mesa Matin
Dear Mr. Nickel:
Please find attached a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Marion Collins regarding the
projects identified above regarding the expiration of time for holding concerts and
compliance with conditions for the racing operations. Also enclosed is a copy of the most
recent sound measurements taken for this year utilizing a new format. I hope you agree
that this new format can be easily compared with the condition of approval.
With respect to your earlier inquiries regarding the intensity of lighting from the
raceway onto adjacent properties, I indicated that my staff would measure that lighting to
determine if Mr. Collins' earlier adjustments were sufficient to meet the condition limiting
light to a maximum five foot-candles. Staff utilized a "Spectra-Candela" handheld light
meter and measured lighting along the west property line as well as on the adjacent
property where light spill-over is the most intense. They recorded an average of one foot-
candle. Therefore, Mr. Collins is in compliance with the condition.
Please feel free to contact me at your convenience if you have any questions
regarding this material.
JE:km
l/nickel
cc: Councilwoman Pat Smith
Alan Tandy, City Manager
City of Bakersfield · Development Services · 1715 Chester Avenue
Bakersfield · California · 93301
(805) 326-3733 · Fax (805) 327-0646
.. RECEIVED
I ;
JUl 0 1 199~
CITY er ~ (ER3fIELf)
METRa AUDia! INC. ØlANNING 8EPAlitTMENT
BUSINESS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS
To whom it may concern: June 3, 1994
Measurements of sound pressure levels were performed by Metro Audio, Inc.
Technicians Kevin Bellak and Jeff Lundin at Mesa Marin Raceway on Saturday,
May 21, 1994. These measurements were taken at fourcpoints along the Mesa
Marin property line: Due North, East, West and South of the race track
center.
Measuring was done using a sound pressure meter with a standard "c"
weighting, rated accurate within 1 db of all ranges measured, during 2
successive time periods. The first period was from 6:30pm to 8:00pm for
the "Pre-Racing", or rather, normal background noise levels. Please note
that on the South and East points for this period two measurements are
shown, with only the lower one visually graphed. For thoroughness, the
higher number indicates the contributions of strong wind and drive-by
traffic (not patron parking) along Kern Canyon Road during this period.
The second period was from 8:00pm to 10:45pm during the actual racing
activities.
The following pages show the results for each of the four locations
measured, one page for each location. The top half of each page indicates
Pre-Racing measurements and the bottom shows measurements done during the
racing period.
VOICE MAIL . CENTREX - ~Cr;( 'J :JELL
. CALL SEQUENCER CALL ACCOUNTING. LONG DISTANCE DISCOUNT
¡80S) 323-7553 222 SOUTH UNION AVENUE. BAKERSFIELD. CA 93307 F!~X (805) 323-0748
- ,¡
" ,
..
I "
SOUND PRESSURE MONITORING PERFORMED AT PROPERTY LINE,
LOCATION: DUE SOUTH OF RACE TRACK CENTER.
CUMULATIVE db(A) PRE-RACING
PERIOD ....45...50...55...60...65...70...75...80...85...90...
MEASURED LEVEL= 86,68 ~
1 minute
per hour
t
Max Allowed [80 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 80,66
6 minutes
per hour
t
Max Allowed [75 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 74,64 ¡
30 minutes
h ".~."."r.~.~.",.".'".'.=".'.=_-==.~~=r.':.'.~.'~.~=.==~"~=.',.",.~".,."..".'."..'
per 0 u r :lf~tH~!Xr!!;!t~lB!~~~;;fj~f}~~,#j~~J1;+lE)š;t!1W¡8
t
Max Allowed [70 db(A)]
AVERAGE FOR THIS PERIOD= NONE VALID, SEE COVER PAGE
RACING
CUMULATIVE db(A)
PERIOD ....45...50...55.. .60...65.. .70.. .75...80...85...90...
MEASURED LEVEL= 71.5
1 minute
per hour
t
Max Allowed [80 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 70.5
6 minutes
h "."".'.'.',~".'.',,""'."."'"".'.':~==--= -=="~~=~~.'.'.~.'.',,.'.'.".'.'.'.',.~..',:~.,~=:".=.',,~.'~=
per 0 u r~f~!!r~I~f!g~~~~;:;;~~~;:~!~~~~1~-E,T~i~jtlftŒ!Img;;fmf)ifis~~IiE&tlli~
i
Max Allowed [75 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 70
30 minutes
per hour
¡Max Allowed [70 db(A)]
AVERAGE FOR THIS PERIOD= 68 db(A)
--------------------------- ------- --
" ,<
0, .'
'.' ,.'
,.
I ,.
SOUND PRESSURE MONITORING PERFORMED AT PROPERTY LINE,
LOCATION: DUE EAST OF RACE TRACK CENTER.
CUMULATIVE db(A) PRE-RACING
PERIOD... .45.. .50...55...60...65...70. ..75.. .80...85...90...
MEASURED LEVEL= 77,68
1 minute
h "",~,"."",""."".~=~.~~====.~~,~=,.=,~...""".",,,,.."",..""~,~".,,==,,,.
per 0 u r:!\\t[~~~i~~~!~J.ð.~;ffT.~t~~~B~?i~~ft\'igt¡¡r~¡&~t!J~lfEi~;¥.3
i
Max Allowed [80 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 75,66
6 minutes
per hour
î
Max Allowed [75 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 74,64
30 minutes
per hour
t
Max Allowed [70 db(A)]
AVERAGE FOR THIS PERIOD= NONE VALID, SEE COVER PAGE
RACING
CUMULATIVE db(A)
PERIOD ....45. ..50...55...60...65.. .70.. .75. ..80...85.. .90...
MEASURED LEVEL= 76.5 ¡
1 minute
per h 0 u r :l}jlif[f!t1~~~~:~~~!f!tl§BlIgn:@Nfø&Æ1¡'IJ!trj\Wi~1llj~~
1
Max Allowed [80 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 74.5
6 minutes
per hour
t
Max Allowed [75 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 73 I
30 minutes
per hour
I
I
,", .
I ..
I " .' SOUND PRESSURE MONITORING PERFORMED AT PROPERTY LINE.
LOCATION: DUE NORTH OF RACE TRACK CENTER.
CUMULATIVE db(A) PRE-RACING
PERIOD... .45.. .50.. .55.. .60.. .65.. .70.. .75.. .80.. .85.. .90...
MEASURED LEVEL= 74 I
1 minute .
per hour
i
Max Allowed [80 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 73 !
6 minutes -
per hour
..
I
Max Allowed [75 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 69 i
30 minutes .
per hour
.
I
'Max Allowed [70 db(A)]
AVERAGE FOR THIS PERIOD= 67 db(A)
RACJ¡JG
CUMULATIVE 'db(A)
PERIOD ....45.. .50...55.. .60.. .65.. .70.. .75...80...85...90...
MEASURED LEVEL= 78.5
1 minute
per hour
..
I
Max Allowed [80 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 74 :
6 minutes r
per hour
t
Max Allowed [75 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 70
30 minutes
per hour
I ¡Max Allowed [70 db(A)]
I . .......~ . ~ ~ ~~... ~.. T'" ........~ T ",,- "" , L { . ,
, '
,"' ,
, ,;
'.0,
.'
SOUND PRESSURE MONITORING PERFORMED AT PROPERTY LINE,
LOCATION: DUE WEST OF RACE TRACK CENTER.
CUMULATIVE db(A) PRE-RACING
PERIOD ... .45.. .50.. .55.. .60.. .65.. .70.. .75.. .80.. .85.. .90...
MEASURED LEVEL= 72.5 I
1 minute
per hour
,
¡
Max Allowed [80 db (A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 71.5
6 minutes
per hour
j Max Allowed [75 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 70
30 minutes
per hour
fMax Allowed [70 db(A)]
AVERAGE FOR THIS PERIOD= 67 db{A)
RACING
CUMULATIVE db(A)
PERIOD ... .45.. .50.. .55.. .60.. .65.. .70.. .75.. .80.. .85.. .90...
MEASURED LEVEL= 76.5
1 minute
per hour ..",.,",."',..=.,~",.,.,,,.,===~"",.~..,~"'""'~~~=="'~,.."~"""",..,,.,~==~,.,~,.,=== -.. -..-
;::i~~~~FÆi!!t<;[~f:;~;t;;ffi~::::;;:;~:::f!f;'jfftf;~y.J?t5::~;'t;I:f.§!!jþ;t..~'~,tf(i~~Sfg;¿i;\f;t:i¥}':::"..... ...."",i,
. ".w, .,'~'"."w "~~'""""""",.,.w="".w.w,. ,""'.'. ,. .",.""", ',." '-'~' ". ."" ""'" ,.."'"""""",:,-='". = '...'. .". .,. '.w.."~"""~~, = .~~ '='.,,~
i
Max Allowed [80 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 75.5
6 minutes
per hour m'1@1t¥f!!¡m!qfKffJ~~~~i~ft}L~rdlW{ß1~@.Æffi:~~~EË::îš:i::~L~..""" ~
fMax Allowed [75 db(A)]
MEASURED LEVEL= 74
30 minutes
per hour
I
AVERAGE FOR THIS PERIOD= 71 db(A)
. tdETR.D- AUDID!lINC. ',E\;
" ." .
I ';
In summary, the average increased db(A) in sound levels along the property
line during racing were:
SOUTH EAST NORTH WEST
1-Min 3 1/2 81/2 41/2 4
6-Min 4 1/2 8 1/2 1 4
30-Min 6 9 1 4
Witnessed by:
.~~. /:/; ../;}'i;./
.£-- . ~~ / ./7'
. ~-'~. ~ --'
Kevin Bellak, Engineer
fM5¡ èR ÛftI J ffr- 6/3/9'1
Lundin, Technlclan I I
(805) 323-7553 222 SOUTH UNION AVENUE. BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93307
MEMORANDUM
July 28, 1994
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager / CiTY ~ '~-~'~
MAN, ,C~,~ ~ OF'~:~C~
Hardis~, Planning Dir~
FROM:
Jack
SUBJECT: Ci~ Council Referral g13
~e follo~ng is in response to questions raised during ~e Ci~ Council's workshop of July
13, 1994.
1. ~e there other reasons walls are pe~itted ancot required?
In addition to attenuating noise and finishingwalls in a compatible fashion, ~ey have
been pe~itted or required for separation of different land uses, securi~ and
screening of sites.
2. ~at is the benefit to the citizens (general public) of proposed change?
~e changes which clari~ and streamline renew and pe~itting processes benefit the
general public by decreasing t~e spent by public employees on cases which could
be directed to other work thus ma~ng them more efficient and productive. ~e
higher walls and increased separation from railroad and freeway right-of-way should
conffibute to more serene lMng quarters of ~re residen~ by designing to achieve
compliance ~th noise element policies. ~e open space for small lot single family
subdi~sions in multi-family zone districm would pro, de common areas for s~ial and
recreational acti~fies while offering some relief from the pattern of close-set
buildings.
3. Do we require e~ra open space of multi-family dwellings or are we s~ply
attempting to discourage single family residential in a multi-family zone? Is that
really the issue here?
We do not require e~ra open space of multi-family dwellings which follow standard
multi-family zoning standards. S~ply, we are t~ng not to encourage substandard
single family development in multi-family zones. Several issues can be seen here:
Should single family housing subdi~sions be approved at lower standards in multi-
family zones than single family zones and if so, why?
Alan Tandy
uly 28,
Page 2
4. Do these changes affect any pending tracts/subdivisions?
These changes would not adversely affect any tracts pending review and approval.
The regulations by which a subdivision is reviewed must be in effect 30 days prior
to filing of an application for review and approval. Some cases will benefit from the
changes to wall requirements due to a streamlined subdivision wall approval process.
5. Eighty percent rule: There is some concern that there is limited flexibility in that:
Was it referred for separate consideration? Would it not be more appropriated not
to have that as part of the ordinance and handle that as a totally separate issue and
remove from the ordinance at this time?
The 80% rule is demanding in its commitment to small lot design but 15 subdivisions
using it have been approved since its adoption. The Planning Commission has not
denied any subdivision applications filed under this section of the ordinance. It has
been taken up as a matter for discussion by the Planning Commission and referred
to the Subdivision and Public Services Committee. It can not be removed from the
ordinance at this time since consideration of that action has not been noticed.
However, it is a part of the same section adding the open space component to small
lot consideration which staff recommends for referral back to the Planning
Commission so the section can be reviewed with respect to both at the same time
and alternatives can be presented.
6. Planning Commission Minutes: Concerned about the requirement of whether or not
the open space amenity has to be connected directly to the project and is it part of
this proposed ordinance?
The proposed ordinance would require the open space or facilities to be within or
adjacent to the project.
7. What is the history that prompted consideration of these rules?
17.08.180 Fence, walls and hedges. Staff request for consistency between zoning
and subdivision ordinance and desire to further streamline approval of subdivision
wall plans. Benefits applicants through time savings.
17.64.035 Authority of planning commission--Lot area regulations. Staff initiated
to obtain consistent language between zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance
and correction to wording and section citations. Administrative charge - does not
impact applications.
Alan Tandy
July 28, 1994
Page 3
16.28.170 Lot depth, width, frontage changes - Staff initiated to obtain consistency
between setback requirements in zoning ordinance and lot standards in subdivision
ordinance. 'Also requested by some members of the Planning Commission to help
them determine if a lot with special setbacks was buildable. Sets forth design criteria
for special setback situations.
Double frontage lot depth - Initiated by staff to all double frontage lots which are
twice as deep as standard lot. Updates ordinance for consistency.
16.28.170 0.3. - Initiated by Planning Commission over a feeling that if an applicant
desires a reduction or elimination of standards for development, the community
should see a benefit.
JH:km
m/err.at ~-~ -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alan Tandy, City Manager
FROM: Lee Andersen, Community Se~vice~, Ma~~
DATE: July 22, 1994
SUBJECT: Council Request on Maintenance Districts
Your memo dated July 19, 1994 requested specific information
on the districts per a councilmember's request. The following
schedule provides the requested information.
Please call if you would like the information presented in a
different manner.
LA:cr
cc: Gail Waiters, Assistant City Manager
Frank Fabbri, Parks Superintendent
Georgina Lorenzi, Business Manager
A B C D
~!~Ei~i~i~i~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii~i~iii~iiii~i~ii~ii~ii~iiiiii~iiiiiiii~?~i~ii WITH 40 USING TIERED SENT TO COUNTY
........................................................................................................ ASMT6 METHOD METHOD (NOTE 3)
1--01 (RIVERLAKES) 4 18.05 41.99 59.38 46.19
1-02 (BRIMHALL AREA). 47.58 10.96 31.88 12.06
1'03 (F:RUITVALE & OLIVE DR) 4 43.74 39.14 45.63 43.05
1-07 (CALIFORNIA AVENUE) NOTE I 5 N/A SEE NOTE 1 SEE NOTE 1 SEE NOTE 1
1-08 (BRIMHALL & ALLEN) 4 63.26 .52.91 59.38 58.20
1-09 (BRIMHALL & VERDUGO) 4 N/A i 2.10 31.88 13:31
2-03A (CAMPUS PARK) 4152.65 127.09 87.84 87.84
2-04 (OAKS) 4 153.93 138,87 87.84 87.84
2-05 (HAGGIN OAKS) 4 144.56 146.02 115.35 115.35
2-08 (BILL PARK GREENS) 4 42.18 47.64 60.34 52.40
2-09 (EL PORTAL & MING) 6 197.67 174.08 86.89 86.89
2-10 (TEVIS RANCH) 4 30.54 35.11 31.88 31.88
~ ~ ~ ~S~?:~O~E~M!~NG)~ ~ ~::?:?:~?:?:~?:~?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:~?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:~::?:?:?:?:~?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:?:~ ?:?:~4: i::iiiii::i::iii::i::ii?:ii::!::!~i0 !:.iii ::i i:.i:iii:.i::i::iii::iiii?:i::!::~ia~!:!~i:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::~ ::~:: :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: i~ ::~!i ~: ~0
2-13 (ALLEN & STOCKDALE) 4 55.71 54.28 31.88 31.88
3-01 (CORAL KEYS) 6 11.70 22.38 56.73 24.62
3-02 (CHALLENGER PARK) -CITY 667 11.99 12.16 29.22 13.38
::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..: .:...:: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
3-03 (AUTO MALL) · 7 14.34 13.92 31.88 15.31
3-04 (SILVERCREEK) 466 70.33 82.69 87.84 87.84
3-05 (WIBLE & MCKEE) 6 51.61 44.52 31.88 :31.88
4-03 (EAST HILLS AREA) 3 19.94 17.63 31.88 19.39
4-04 (178 & RIO BRAVO AREA) 3 0.00 0.00 0.00 · 0.00
4-05 (BRUNDAGE & OSWELL) 1 3,85 8.93 31.88 9.82
5-01 (HUGHES & PACHECO) 7 13.22 10.62 31.88 11.68
5-02 (STIERN PARK) 167 19.93 19.23 29.22 21.15
5-02A (PANAMA & MONITOR ST. SCAPES) 7' 25.70 20.68 31.88 22.75
NOTE 1. COLUMN B: CALIF. AVE. ASSESSMENT NOT CALCULATED BY EDU'S. (PARCEL CHARGE + LINEAL FOOTAGE CHARGE OF FRONTAGE ON
CALIF.) (ASSESSMENTS RANGE FROM $ 24.45 TO $118.77 - PARTIAL YEAR MAINTENANCE)
COLUMN C: CALIF. AVE. ASSESSMENT NOT CALCULATED BY EDU'S. ( PARCEL CHARGE + LINEAL FOOTAGE CHARGE OF FRONTAGE ON
CALIF.) (ASSESSMENTS RANGE FROM $ 31.88 TO $198.84) ~
COLUMN D: ASSESSMENTS SENT TO THE COUNI~' WERE BASED ON 94/95 ASSESSMENT UNDER 40 DISTRICT METHOD PLUS 10%.
NOTE 2. COLUMN C: UNION AVE - $ 31.88 IS AN EDU CHARGE. EACH PARCEL ASSESSED THREE (3) EDU'S. (ASSESSMENT $ 86.90 PER PARCEL)
COLUMN D: ASS,ESSMENTS SENT TO THE COUNTY WERE BASED ON 94/95 ASSESSMENTS UNDER THE 40 DISTRICT METHOD PLUS 10%.
LARGE CARRYOVER EXISTED IN 94/95 FY FOR THIS DISTRICT.
NOTE 3. COLUMN C: THE ASSESSMENTS IN THIS COLUMN HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED FOR THE $ 3.61 R-1 SAVINGS PASSED ON TO THOSE PARK
DISTRICTS WHO INCREASED OVER $10 FROM THE 93/94 R-1 ASSESSMENT.
NOTE 4. COLUMN C: DISTRICT 2-01 PLACED INTO ,5 TIER OF THE CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE DISTRICT,
FILENAME:COMP40-A 2~ - Jul-94
PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND
FUNDS AVAILABLE
AS OF 6-30-94
NET AMOUNT
AVAILABLE
AFTER
ACCT # DESCRIPTION DISBURSEMENTS
56521 PARK ACQ FEES-CAL STATE 42,051.1 9
56522 PARK ACQ FEES- STOCKDALE 0.00
56523 PARK ACQ FEES- PANAMA 121,164.29
56524 - PARK ACQ FEES- FAIRVIEW 38,735.61
56525 PARK ACQ FEES- CEN'FRAL 7,053.86
56526 PARK ACQ FEES- PANORAMA 85,912.79
56527 PARK ACQ FEES-JENKINS 0.00
56531 PARK DEr FEES' CAL STATE 505,640.51
56532 PARK DEV FEES- STOCKDALE 99,183.96
56533 PARK DEV FEES-PANAMA 392,355.98
56534 PARK DEV FEES- FAIRVIEW 344,466.84
56535 PARK DEV FEES-CENTRAL 47,227.23
56536 PARK DEV FEES- PANORAMA 281,248.75
56537 PARK DEV FEES-JENKINS 100,707.95
93/94 UNALLOCATED INTEREST 40,151.55
TOTALS 2,105,900.51
-
- -"-"
I '-
<=", =,...-..'
I ~
(j)
~l.L- N
r- 00 ~
\- - - 0 W 0'\
--'U'-"~-'"-h"l N >- I .-i
-----.. -- ' --'-.J
I f-- W :r: « "
I b'='~'~~c_-~,---,~,~~"/- ~ u tn ~ ~ ~
WWa:: ~ 0 þ.,
Z :r: w z A .Cï!
'Wf--~ ~
m « Z
~a::OJ
a:: °
1 «LL
, 0..
I l__,.~_.~~~«=.,~--,-,.., __',-k' -"'",,---,,~,,_,,"~'---'-
¡
j
!
¡
¡
J
¡
¡
;
j
!
"
I
,
;
I
¡
i
;1
I I
! I
I
I
I
""~~r':"'--'---- .. -.,-.-.,
I
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
(916) 445-9600 GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
(VICE.CHAIRMAN)
reVENUE & TAXATION
2503 west ShAW AVENUE, #101 JOi~t COMMITTEES:
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93711 arts
209 445-5567 LEGISLATIVE AUDIT
(VICE CHAIRMAN)
SELECT COMMITTEES:
BUSINESS Development
CALIFORNIA'S BUSINESS CLIMATE
CALIFORNIASI WINE INDUSTRY
KENNETH L. MADDY' ,NFAN and C.,LD CARE.
AND DEVELOPMENT
PACIFIC RIM
SENATOR, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
REPUBLICAN FLOOR LEADER
July 15, 1994
Alan Tandy, City Manager
city of Bakersfield
City Manager's office
1501 Truxtun Avenue
Baker~ield,~C~lifornia 93301
Dear ~:
Thank you for your recent letter urging my Support for~
AB 2742 (Lee) relating to alcoholic beverages.
You will be pleased to know that this measure passed the
full Assembly on June 2nd by a vote of 47-31 and is scheduled
to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 8th.
I appreciate having the benefit of your position on this
matter and will certainly refer to your recommendation at such'
time this measure is before me in committee or on the Senate
floor.
Again, thank you for taking the time to write and express
- your v-i-ews~ .... '
· MADDY
{ State Senator
jgh
· ': '., ' RECE VSD
tClTY MANAGER'S OFFIC~
MEMORANDUM
July 27, 1994 __:i
CITY MANAGER'S ~'~,"'
FROM: CAROL WILLIAMS, CITY CLERK C~-~_/~ ~
SUBJECT: ANALYSIS OF ELECTION DATE AND COST
FOR POSSIBLE SPECIAL ELECTION - CITY COUNCIL SIXTH WARD
Mr. James Henderson, potential Council Candidate for the Fourth
Ward, has asked me to provide him with the "estimated cost" of a
Special Election for the Sixth Ward. I am reluctant to provide it,
because, I believe the cost will be a campaign issue.
Many variables contribute to the cost of an election. As of this
date, there is no other election scheduled for June 6, 1995,
therefore, the City would incur the entire cost of the election
estimated to be $25,000. However, by next year, the high school
district or another entity could place an issue on the ballot,
which would significantly affect (reduce) our election costs.
In the event Councilmember McDermott is elected to represent the
Fourth Ward, the City Council has a choice to either call a Special
Election or appoint a qualified elector to fill the unexpired term
of the Sixth Ward Council seat. In addition to those two choices,
the citizens of the Sixth Ward have an option to circulate
petitions re~uirinq the Council to call a special election.
Based on Section 16 of the City Charter, if a petition were
circulated and found sufficient, a special election would be
required and held on June 6, 1995. (If the Council chose to call.
a special election promptly following the NoVember election, or
notify the voters of their intent, as they did in Ken Peterson's
ward, it might eliminate the need for the citizens to circulate a
petition and thus eliminate the cost of verifying the signatures.)
Additional information is attached.
I feel it would be helpful to the Council to know what their
options are in light of the possible vacancy and need to eventually
take action. I suggest we provide the estimate, but also point
out it is really too early to accurately predict. If you have any
questions, please call.
MEMO TO ALAN TANDY
RE: Analysis of Special Election
July 27, 1994
Page -2-
Just for your information, the following reflects the sequence of
events if Councilmember McDermott were elected to represent the
Fourth Ward:
November 8, 1994, Election Day for Wards 1, 3, 4 & 7
Election certified to City Council after December 6, 1994
(The County Clerk has 28 days to certify the election to
the City of Bakersfield.)
December 14, 1994, City Council Meeting, newly elected
Councilmembers are sworn in. (Provided we cancel the December
7th meeting)
If there is a vacancy on the Council, the Council could
adopt a Resolution calling a Special Election for June 6,
1995, for the Sixth Ward or appoint someone to fill the
remaining two years. Historically, Council has preferred
to hold an election and appoint for the interim.
There are 12,479 registered voters in the Sixth Ward. At
$2.00 per registered voter, the estimated costs for a
Special Election is $25,000.
The last Special Election, held June 8,1993, for the
Fifth Ward (Election of Councilmember Rowles) cost
$24,618.49 with 13,977 registered voters.
CW:pm
cc: Gail Waiters, Assistant City Manager
· ELEEST. 1